decision sent to author nature communicationsUncategorized

Decision Sent to Author 2020-07-09 08:38:16 Decision Pending 2020-06-29 08:28:42 Under Review 2020-06-25 09:38:03 Under Editorial Consideration 2020-06-23 10:09:56 Manuscript Submission 2020-04-09 14:44:05 Stage Start Date Manuscript Ready for Publication 2020-07-16 10:45:24 . ~. 2006;295(14):167580. By accepting all cookies, you agree to our use of cookies to deliver and maintain our services and site, improve the quality of Reddit, personalize Reddit content and advertising, and measure the effectiveness of advertising. Nature Communications Q&A - Cameronneylon.net Depending upon the nature of the revisions, the revised paper may be sent out for additional review or it may be accepted directly. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. Tulare Ca Obituaries, In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles The decision post-review of whether to accept a paper or not is taken by the editor but is based on the feedback received from the referees, so we assume that the decision at this stage would reflect a potential referee bias. . Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra, Paginate and make available the correction notice in the online issue of the journal. . editors waits for him to send his comments then they contact the author and make a decision on the basis of these reports and send you acceptance, rejection or revision based on their reports . What does a status change from "Manuscript submitted" to "To author statement and When action from your side is required, this will also be announced by email. 0000006193 00000 n Sci World J. Most journals assign a manuscript number upon initial submission and send an automated notice to advise you of the number (if not now, the manuscript number will be assigned when the first editor is assigned). References from one article in a journal to another article from the same journal are removed, so that Eigenfactor Scores are not influenced by journal self-citation. I have a revised manuscript which I submitted to Nature Communications. The original authors are given 10 days to respond. . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. In spite of the presence of explicit instructions to authors, this type of review model has sometimes been shown to fail to hide authors identity. Nature. 0000012316 00000 n Submission Experiences Duration from Submission to the First Editorial Decision How many days did the entire process take? JAMA. volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) R-CAPTCHA. This status will remain until an Editor takes an action in the system to change the status, usually inviting reviewers. Answer: From the description of the status change of the submission, it seems the manuscript did not pass the formatting check by the editorial staff and required corrections from the author. 0000065294 00000 n 0000006171 00000 n Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? More specifically, the proportion of authors choosing DBPR is lower for higher ranking institution groups; in the uptake analysis by country, China and the USA stand out for their strong preference for DBPR and SBPR, respectively. Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. While the metrics presented here are not intended to be a definitive list, we hope that they will prove to be informative. To post social content, you must have a display name. Nevertheless, the available data allowed us to draw conclusions on the uptake of the review models, as we detail below. Find submission status of your article / manuscript - Nature Support Your script could be better than the image of the journal. From inspection of Table8, it would seem that SBPR manuscripts by female corresponding authors are more likely to be rejected at the first editorial decision stage than those by male corresponding authors and that DBPR manuscripts by male corresponding authors are less likely to be sent to review than those by female corresponding authors. If your manuscript is sent to reviewers, please share with the community how many days the evaluated process took by editor's office (not include the evaluated process of reviewers). Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. All other data has been produced by Clarivate Analytics. 0000062401 00000 n 0000002247 00000 n Every step is described and will let you know whether action is required. You can see an example in the article above. &@ 5A9BC|2 @So0 May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts . Issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version. 8. nature1. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). We also attempted to fit a generalized linear mixed effects model with a random effect for the country category, as we can assume that the data is sampled by country and observations from the same country share characteristics and are not independent. trailer << /Size 54 /Info 7 0 R /Root 10 0 R /Prev 92957 /ID[<98e42fa76505e1b5b1796b170b58dfee><8c8134bb7fa785eceed4533362dfb985>] >> startxref 0 %%EOF 10 0 obj << /Type /Catalog /Pages 6 0 R /Metadata 8 0 R /PageLabels 5 0 R >> endobj 52 0 obj << /S 48 /L 155 /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 53 0 R >> stream Note that once completed reviews for your submitted article have been received and are under evaluation by the handling Editor the status may later return to 'Under Review' if additional reviews are sought. This is known as a rescinding. Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. If you need any assistance please contact us at Author Support, or contact the responsible editor for the journal. In order to test whether two variables were independent, we used Pearsons chi-square test of independence and referred to the classification in [21] to define the strength of association. Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. 0000013595 00000 n The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. Thank you for visiting nature.com. Help us improve this article with your feedback. Time: 2023-03-04T15:53:14+00:00. This reply will be sent to the author of the Correspondence before publication. The proportion of authors that choose double-blind review is higher when they submit to more prestigious journals, they are affiliated with less prestigious institutions, or they are from specific countries; the double-blind option is also linked to less successful editorial outcomes. However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. If you have previously submitted a paper to a Nature Portfolio journal and would like an update on the status of your submission, please login to the manuscript tracking account for the . If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. https://www.grid.ac. 2017;12(12):e0189311. botln botkyrka kommun. (The FAQ has more details about the mechanics of how this works.). Renee Wever. We also found that manuscripts from female authors or authors from less prestigious institutions are accepted with a lower rate than those from male authors or more prestigious institutions, respectively. For each manuscript, we used Springer Natures internal manuscript tracking system to extract name, institutional affiliation, and country of the corresponding author; journal title; the manuscripts review type (single-blind or double-blind); the editors final decision on the manuscript (accept, reject, or revise); and the DOI. Nature and Nature Communications are to follow in due course. a higher likelihood for rejection) for double-blind than single-blind papers (p value <0.001, df=1, Cramers V=0.112 for first decision; p value <0.001; df=1, Cramers V=0.082 for post-review decision). In our case, this analysis was hampered by the lack of an independent measure of quality, by potential confounders such as potential editor bias towards the review model or author characteristics, and by the lack of controlled experiments in which the same paper is reviewed under both SBPR and DBPR, or in which DBPR is compulsory, thus eliminating the effect of bias towards the review model. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. The dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. For DBPR papers, we found a statistically significant difference in the OTR rate by gender (2=7.5042, df=1, p value=0.006155); for SBPR papers, we did not find a statistically significant difference in the OTR rate by gender (2=0.72863, df=1, p value=0.3933). The test yielded a non-significant p value (2=5.2848, df=2, p value=0.07119). (Nature Portfolio Data), Nature Communications (Nat Commun) Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. Please watch the Submission status explainer video below for more information. There is a small but significant association between institution group and acceptance (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=49.651, df=3, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.049). Am J Roentgenol. A study of the distribution of gender among reviewers and editors of the Frontiers journals showed an underrepresentation of women in the process, as well as a same-gender preference (homophily) [10]. England Women's Football Captain, Get Scientific Editing. Double anonymity and the peer review process. In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. When analysing data for the entire portfolio, we only included direct submissions (106,373) and we excluded manuscripts that were rejected by one journal and then transferred to another. Download MP3 / 387 KB. Concerning the institutions, we defined four categories according to their THE ranks and used these as a proxy for prestige: category 1 includes institutions with THE rank between 1 and 10 (corresponding to 7167 manuscripts, 6% of all manuscripts), category 2 is for THE ranks between 11 and 100 (25,345 manuscripts, 20% of all manuscripts), category 3 for THE ranks above 100 (38,772 manuscripts, 30% of all manuscripts), and category 4 for non-ranked institutions (57,170 manuscripts, or 45% of all manuscripts). By using this website, you agree to our Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. 0000062196 00000 n In order to see whether author uptake could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. Papers. The following is an example of a poor cover letter: Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am sending you our manuscript entitled "Large Scale Analysis of Cell Cycle Regulators in bladder cancer" by Researcher et al. Ben Glocker (an expert in machine learning for medical imaging, Imperial College London), Mirco Musolesi (a data science and digital health expert, University College London), Jonathan Richens (an expert in diagnostic machine learning models, Babylon Health) and Caroline Uhler (a computational biology expert, MIT) talked to Nature Communications about their research interests in causality . Article . Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. Trends Ecol Evol. 0000002034 00000 n Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. . 9 0 obj << /Linearized 1 /O 11 /H [ 1335 254 ] /L 93263 /E 83910 /N 2 /T 92966 >> endobj xref 9 45 0000000016 00000 n 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. The aims of this study are to analyse the demographics of corresponding authors choosing double-blind peer review and to identify differences in the editorial outcome of manuscripts depending on their review model. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. Perspect Psychol Sci. A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. Submission to first editorial decision: the median time (in days) from when a submission is received to when a first editorial decision about whether the paper was sent out for formal review or not is sent to the authors. When analysing uptake data by journal tier, we have included both direct submissions and transfers incoming to each journal group, for a total of 128,457 manuscripts that were submitted to one of the 25 Nature-branded journals. As mentioned above and discussed below in more detail, the fact that we did not control for the quality of the manuscripts means that the conclusions on the efficacy of DBPR that can be drawn from this data are limited. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Editorial Manager displays status terms as described in the table below. First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). For most of our journals the corresponding author can track the article online. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.40. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. In the out-to-review analysis, we observed a significant difference between the OTR rate of papers by male and female corresponding authors of DBPR papers. We tested the null hypothesis that the populations (institution groups 1, 2, and 3) have the same proportion of accepted manuscripts for SBPR manuscripts with a test for equality of proportions (proportion of accepted manuscripts 0.49 for group 1, 0.44 for group 2, and 0.41 for group 3). The status of the manuscript says 'Reviewers Assigned' for about 24 days. P30 Lite Android 11 Release Date, Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. Post Decision Manuscripts Decision summarynature. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Krumholz HM. The data that support the findings of this study are available from Springer Nature but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. Article-level metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track the reach of individual papers. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) Finally, we investigated the outcome of post-review decisions as a function of peer review model and characteristics of the corresponding author. 2.3 Procedures Communications Arising submissions that meet Nature's initial selection criteria are sent to the authors of the original paper for a response, and the exchange to independent referees. Nature 's editors are. In any 6-month period, manuscripts can be under editorial assessment . Unfortunately, in light of the serious concerns raised by the referees, I regret that our decision must be negative, and we are unable to offer to publish your manuscript in Nature Communications.' The results of a likelihood ratio showed that the more complex model is better than the simpler ones, and its pseudo R2 is the highest (though very low). 0000011085 00000 n May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts Motivation: First decision to send out to review in 3 weeks, but then a very long delay to receiving a final decision. Is Ethereum A Good Investment 2021, Articles D

Welcome to . This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!