We investigated the uptake of double-blind review in relation to journal tier, as well as gender, country, and institutional prestige of the corresponding author. Journal-integrated preprint sharing fromSpringer Nature and Research Square, Share your preprint and trackyour manuscripts review progress with ourIn Review service. 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. . As needed, the journal editors may also ask the committee to provide opinions on the policies and procedures of the journals. By using this website, you agree to our To ascertain whether indeed any referee bias is present, we studied the acceptance rate by gender and review type. For more information, please visit Press J to jump to the feed. Here, we define the corresponding author as the author who is responsible for managing the submission process on the manuscript tracking system and for all correspondence with the editorial office prior to publication. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. Until this is done, the decision can be changed. Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. 0000012316 00000 n https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzw009. 0000065294 00000 n botln botkyrka kommun. Don't wait too long. 0000011063 00000 n Springer Nature. I am confused since the current status was already passed before the editors sent the manuscript out for review. New submissions that remain Incomplete more than 90 days will be removed. The system will also immediately post a preprint of your manuscript to the In Review section of Research Square, in easy-to-read HTML, and with a citeable DOI. We also conducted regression analyses on the data, to measure the effect of different variables such as gender and institution group on three outcomes: author uptake, out-to-review, and acceptance. We employed descriptive statistics for data exploration, and we tested our hypotheses using Pearsons chi-square and binomial tests. Click here to download our quick reference guide to journal metrics. we could have chosen a different distribution of institutions among the four categories, and will likely have an impact on the uptake of DBPR across the institutional prestige spectrum. Nature 's editors are. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . 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. I am not a robot. These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. Editorial contacts can be found by clicking on the "Help & support" button under the "For Authors" section of the journal's homepage as listed on SpringerLink Nature Portfolio Journals 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 . Editorial Manager displays status terms as described in the table below. 00ple`a`0000r9%_bxbZqsaa`LL@` N endstream endobj 53 0 obj 142 endobj 11 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 6 0 R /Resources 12 0 R /Contents [ 24 0 R 28 0 R 30 0 R 32 0 R 34 0 R 36 0 R 38 0 R 40 0 R ] /MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] /CropBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] /Rotate 0 >> endobj 12 0 obj << /ProcSet [ /PDF /Text /ImageC /ImageI ] /Font << /TT2 18 0 R /TT4 16 0 R /TT6 14 0 R /TT8 15 0 R /TT9 25 0 R >> /XObject << /Im1 51 0 R >> /ExtGState << /GS1 44 0 R >> /ColorSpace << /Cs6 22 0 R /Cs8 21 0 R >> >> endobj 13 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /Ascent 905 /CapHeight 0 /Descent -211 /Flags 96 /FontBBox [ -517 -325 1082 998 ] /FontName /JEGBJH+Arial,Italic /ItalicAngle -15 /StemV 0 /FontFile2 45 0 R >> endobj 14 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 117 /Widths [ 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 0 0 0 556 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 0 0 0 0 0 333 0 278 556 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /JEGBJH+Arial,Italic /FontDescriptor 13 0 R >> endobj 15 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 121 /Widths [ 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 333 278 0 0 556 556 556 556 556 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 722 722 722 722 667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 833 0 0 667 0 0 667 611 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 0 0 278 889 611 611 611 0 389 556 333 611 0 0 0 556 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /JEGBLI+Arial,Bold /FontDescriptor 20 0 R >> endobj 16 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 122 /Widths [ 278 0 0 0 0 0 667 191 333 333 0 0 278 333 278 278 556 556 556 556 0 556 556 556 0 556 278 278 0 0 0 0 0 667 667 722 722 667 611 778 0 278 500 0 556 833 722 0 667 0 722 667 611 0 0 944 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 556 500 556 556 278 556 556 222 222 500 222 833 556 556 556 556 333 500 278 556 500 722 500 500 500 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /JEGBJF+Arial /FontDescriptor 19 0 R >> endobj 17 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /Ascent 891 /CapHeight 0 /Descent -216 /Flags 34 /FontBBox [ -568 -307 2000 1007 ] /FontName /JEGBIE+TimesNewRoman /ItalicAngle 0 /StemV 0 /FontFile2 43 0 R >> endobj 18 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 32 /Widths [ 250 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /JEGBIE+TimesNewRoman /FontDescriptor 17 0 R >> endobj 19 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /Ascent 905 /CapHeight 718 /Descent -211 /Flags 32 /FontBBox [ -665 -325 2000 1006 ] /FontName /JEGBJF+Arial /ItalicAngle 0 /StemV 94 /XHeight 515 /FontFile2 42 0 R >> endobj 20 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /Ascent 905 /CapHeight 718 /Descent -211 /Flags 32 /FontBBox [ -628 -376 2000 1010 ] /FontName /JEGBLI+Arial,Bold /ItalicAngle 0 /StemV 133 /FontFile2 50 0 R >> endobj 21 0 obj [ /Indexed 22 0 R 255 41 0 R ] endobj 22 0 obj [ /ICCBased 49 0 R ] endobj 23 0 obj 1151 endobj 24 0 obj << /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 23 0 R >> stream 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. 0000013595 00000 n In order to see if institutional prestige played a role in the choice of review type by authors, we analysed the uptake by institution group for the entire portfolio. 2016;1(2):1637. Get Scientific Editing. sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. %PDF-1.3 % If the article is published, the preprint is updated with a link to the version of record. The decision may need to be confirmed by multiple Editors in some journals, and the Editors may decide to seek additional reviews or assign another Editor, returning the manuscript to an earlier status. 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). In a systematic review and meta-analysis of biomedical journals investigating the interventions aimed at improving the quality of peer review in these publications, the authors reported that DBPR did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate [4]. This is because the Nature journals do not collect information on authors gender, and thus, such information can only be retrieved with name-matching algorithms with limited accuracy. Results on the uptake are shown in Table5. Across the three institution groups, SBPR papers are more likely to be sent to review. . All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. The process was on par with other journal experiences, but I do not appreciate the inconsistency between what the editor at Nature Medicine told me when transferring to Nature Comms, and the final evaluation at Nature Comms. The Alan Turing Institute, London, England, Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, Springer Nature, 4 Crinan Street, London, UK, You can also search for this author in . At Nature Biomedical Engineering, we collect some numbers into a 'journal dashboard': These numbers are running statistics over 6-month intervals (to smooth out fluctuations in the numbers*). 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) England Women's Football Captain, More information regarding the release of these data can be found here. The original authors are given 10 days to respond. manuscripts originally submitted to a journal and subsequently transferred to another journal which was deemed a better fit by the editor. Reviewers have been invited and the peer review process is underway. The Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community is a community blog for readers and authors of Nature Research journals, including Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature . MOYcs@9Y/b6olCfEa22>*OnAhFfu J 1m,&A mc2ya5a'3jyoJx6Fr?pW6'%c?,J;Gu"BB`Uc!``!,>. wuI-\Z&fy R-7. When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. To place the results below within the right context, we point out that this study suffered from a key limitation, namely that we did not have an independent measure of quality for the manuscript or a controlled experiment in which the same manuscript is reviewed under both peer review models. All other data has been produced by Clarivate Analytics. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. PLOS ONE. Background Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. We investigated the proportion of OTR papers (OTR rate) under both peer review models to see if there were any differences related to gender or institution. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. If authors choose DBPR, their details (names and affiliations) are removed from the manuscript files, and it is the authors responsibility to ensure their own anonymity throughout the text and beyond (e.g. Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) Mayo Clin Proc. The decision is sent to the author. Nature CommunicationsTips: NCOnline: 140 250 tips (Naturetransfer) NCzip"Zip of files for Reviewer" 2-4 2. This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. Decisions are to be made by consensus. 15 days You can make one of the following decisions: Accept, Revise or Reject. The full model has a pseudo R2 of 0.05, and the binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. 0000082326 00000 n 9. Any pending input will be lost. (The FAQ has more details about the mechanics of how this works.). v)ic#L7p[ q^$;lmP)! how to pronounce dandelion witcher. This may be due to the higher quality of the papers from more prestigious institutions or to an editor bias towards institutional prestige, or both. However, we were unable to distinguish the effects of gender bias (from reviewers) and manuscript quality in this observation because an analysis of acceptance rate by gender and review type did not yield statistically significant results.