editor decision started nature

One-click to visualize your research performance Researchain.net Nature Ecology and Evolution Submission Timeline & Revision Speed Duration from Submission to 1 st Editorial Decision 4.4 days The average number of days from manuscript submission to the initial editorial decision on the article. (2019). The remaining network has only 96 edges and a density of d = 0.02, and a core-periphery structure becomes visible (see Figure 4, right). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles editor decision started under consideration. But instead, decision making and communication at the concrete journals under investigation clearly remain in the human domain. Furthermore, the following events were attributed to postulation: Manuscript File Added (N = 6,356), Manuscript File Replaced (N = 3,261) and Manuscript Withdrawn (N = 228), the latter being attributed to postulation because authors can decide as to whether they want to keep or withdraw their claim. The edge widths show, how many manuscripts experience the respective evolutionary path. Such critics also fueled debates about new forms of open peer review, as technological or organizational innovations are imagined to ultimately alter editorial practices at scholarly journals (Ross-Hellauer et al., 2017). In the third section, the data and their preparation are described in more detail, elaborating on why a social network approach appears to be suitable for exploring relationships between events of the editorial process mediated by the system. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. The quantitative analyses were performed with the use of R (R Core Team, 2020) and the following contributed packages: igraph (Csardi and Nepusz, 2006), tidyverse (Wickham et al., 2019), lubridate (Grolemund and Wickham, 2011), data.table (Dowle and Srinivasan, 2021) and ggraph (Pedersen, 2021). Editorial contacts can be found by clicking on the "Help & support" button under. [CDATA[> Why many editors of Nature have very poor research records?! . Nine events were attributed to the administrative activities of the peer review process, according to Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) comprising processes, where postulations are received, their treatments are initiated or being coordinated. Editorial management systems are digital infrastructures processing the submission, evaluation and administration of scholarly articles. Yet, given our limited reconstruction of the event history, we cannot confirm this hypothesis. We thank Taiane Linhares and Nikita Sorgatz for help with data preparation. Also, Manuscript Transferred (N = 995), Manuscript Ready for Publication (N = 1,705) and Manuscript Sent To Production (N = 1,694) are events covering the transfer of publications after the review process was completed, referring to their relationship with the publishing house and their facilities. . With editor (Decision Letter Being PreparedReviewers invited) Decision Letter Being Prepared Reviewer (s) invited Under review decline In any case, not assigning a role to some actors shows that those are regarded less relevant for the editorial process by design. The editorial management system however, does not only record which actor with which role releases or triggers an event. Reviewer selection is critical to the review process, and we work hard to ensure that the different technical and conceptual aspects of the work are covered. Nature CommunationsNature, @14:NatureComm.Manuscptunderconsideration)zipforreviewerzip, editordecisionstartednaturechemistry[], NatureComm.Manuscptunderconsideration), @13:editordecisionstartednaturechemistry, @38:ejournals, @13:editordecisionstartednaturechemistry, @5:NatureMatealsUnderReview.manuscptunderconsiderationEditorDecisionStartedmanuscptunderconsideration, @41:, naturecommunicationunderconsideration20, scichina life awaiting admin pcessing, IEICE The 1st Evaluation has been completed, 2010104Awaiting Reviewer Assignment, Submissions Being Pcessed(1)Submissions with a Decision (1), AngewSubmitted,Under review,. Consequently, we infer that the infrastructure becomes performative in the sense that an idealized model implemented as software defines what tasks are supported and which are neither supported nor tracked. After the decision, four things can happen, but empirically, the four decisions can be divided into two groups (see Figure 6). Your manuscript entitled "xxxxxxxxx" has now been seen again by our original reviewers, whose comments are appended below. Different to what may be expected by critical observers of digital platforms (Gillespie, 2015), editorial management systems do not always result in imposing pre-packaged models on scholarly publishing. round 1""nature nature metabolism. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. [CDATA[> This becomes particularly apparent when comparing the implemented structure observed with the patent published in 2009 showing an increase in complexity: while the patent is fixed in time, the software has evolved. Research suggests that editorial management systems as digital infrastructures are adapted to the local needs at scholarly journals and reflect main realms of activities. . That is why it would be difficult to make claims about changes between a pre-digital and a digital scholarly journal world: we simply do not know enough about organizational practices of peer review as such, though research about peer review has grown recently (Batagelj et al., 2017). This led to a network of 623 edges with a density of d = 0.12. We started our empirical analysis following the conceptual heuristics of Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020), who provided elements of a minimal and maximum model of the peer review process. This service is available to authors at the time of decision or at a later time. I have recently checked the research records (on ORCID, Scopus and Scholar) of Nature editors, I have also conducted web searches to trace their academic background, and I found that the. editor decision started nature We only find Review Started and Review Received in this respect, but we have, based on the event history only, no information as to what the reviewers might have recommended. Accordingly, our process elements are strongly linked by the first couple of passage points, because they indicate states of transition. The phase of data collection was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within project 01PQ16003. Survey on Open Peer Review: Attitudes and Experience Amongst Editors, Authors and Reviewers, Die Regierung der Wissenschaft im Peer Review/Governing Science Through Peer Review. The editor decides about opening and closing the external review (expressed by Manuscript Consultation Session Started (N = 5,816) and Manuscript Consultation Ended (N = 2,010)). If authors prefer not to make the review history of their paper at Nature Microbiology known to a new journal, they should not use the transfer service and they should make a new submission instead; the editors will evaluate the paper without reference to the previous review process. Decoding the decision letter - Cell It also files who is affected by an event (Table 2). While different studies about the roles and tasks of both reviewers and editors were published (Hirschauer, 2010; Glonti et al., 2019), editorial practices are only rarely investigated (Weller, 2001). We are able to compare the elements and events described in the patent (Plotkin, 2009) with its adaptation at the publisher in question, where the elements of the process could only be identified by taking event labels, performing actors and sequence of steps together. But, as Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) recently have pointed out, editorial work can also partly be considered as administrative, taking into account that peer review takes place in an organizational setting (ibid., p.18). All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication. Also, when we conceptually refer to the process, we write element or component for conglomerates of either actions or events which belong together. After several rounds of revision, when the revised manuscript was submitted, the status showed 'quality check started' - 'peer review' - 'decision started.' A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). Usually, the associate editor makes the publication decision (I'm sure the editor in chief can overrule this decision, but it usually doesn't happen). Bethesda, MD 20894, Web Policies On the other hand, Initial QC failed does not happen so very often and manuscripts facing this stage must have something special with them. With respect to the tasks the editor performs, we can see that the editor is the most powerful actor in the process as represented in the traces of digital infrastructures as opposed to a more automated process powered by the infrastructure. //-->Making an editorial decision - BioMed Central Nature might offer the option to send a submission to Research Square so that it is made public (and time stamped) while still in the review process, but the only system which matters for their reviewing process is that of Nature. A closer look at process generated data allows us to explore which elements of the peer review and decision making process in scholarly journals are communicated and shared on a digital infrastructure, how the process of peer review is transformed into countable events and made visible. 1 This may as well reflect how editors take their responsibility as members of the scientific community. .. Editorial Process & Peer Review | Nature Microbiology This document provides an outline of the editorial process involved in publishing a scientific paper (Article) in Nature, and describes how manuscripts are handled by editors between submission. sciencenature - We do this by comparing the model laid out in the patent for the infrastructure (Plotkin, 2009) with the empirical data generated by the infrastructure. Hopefully, you will be informed of the decision soon. Similarly, disputes on factual issues need not be resolved unless they would have altered the final decision to publish or not. An example would be a researcher filling in a form in a web frontend including uploading a manuscript (activity/action), which the infrastructure would be recording as Manuscript submitted by user X (event/stage). Additionally, actions were recorded for person-IDs not having a role assigned for the respective manuscript. Histograms of sums of durations between successive events in the process: The distribution is skew to the left; the log-scaled distribution is better leveled (Remark: 14 durations of length 0 are left out in the logarithmized plot). More research would be needed in order to more closely reconstruct these events. These organizational and administrative practices may not always be related to epistemic values, yet they are an important part of scholarly knowledge production as scholarly journals are important sites for community building, safeguarding scientific quality and expectations to science in general. We did not use a clustering algorithm, because those usually are based on cohesion or distance metrics: they regard those parts of graphs as different components, which are only weakly linked or distant from each other, whereas nodes belong to the same cluster component if they are strongly linked or close to each other. nature~. the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Exploring data from that infrastructure, we complement others research investigating views and perceptions of peer review practices with a new procedural perspective explicitly taking algorithms and digital affordances of digital infrastructures into account. In our case, the digital traces particularly point to the editors procedural choices. After initial checks are complete, the manuscript is assigned to an editor, who reads the paper, consults with the editorial team, and decides whether it should be sent for peer review. The editors consider reviewer feedback and their own evaluation of the manuscript in order to reach a decision. Nature (journal) - Wikipedia The given network cannot be completely chaotic, instead some structure must be there but need sharpening. Reviewers are notidentified to the authors, except at the request of the reviewer. In the subsection above, we have shown for first submitted versions that the drafting of decision letters happens mostly for negative decisions. n - As acquiring complete inventory data from not fully open peer review is very difficult, we used the hereby presented study to exploit more of the potential of the data. The event information was further enriched with year of submission, pseudonym of journal, and by (pseudonymized) data about the roles (editor, author, reviewer or none) of the person-IDs with regard to the respective manuscripts. [CDATA[// >