Because we were unable to independently measure the quality of the manuscripts, this quality-dependent selection, if present, remains undetermined in our study. nature physics. Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. Especially the status 'Under review' encompasses many steps; while it may appear your manuscript is not progressing through the editorial process, a lot of activities may be happening during this part of the review process. Double anonymity and the peer review process. We first analysed the demographics of corresponding authors that choose DBPR by journal group, gender, country, and institution group. r/biology I buried a dead rat (killed by delayed rat poison or a neighbor's cat) in an iron barrel with soil on Sep 8. Here to foster information exchange with the library community. A study analysing 940 papers submitted to an international conference on economics held in Sweden in 2008 found no significant difference between the grades of female- and male-authored papers by review type [12]. You can useIn Reviewto access up-to-date information on where your article is in the peer review process. We did not find a significant association between OTR and gender (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=0.015641, df=1, p value=0.9005). 0000004476 00000 n Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. In order to measure any quality effect, we tested the null hypothesis that the populations (institution group 1, 2, and 3) have the same proportion of accepted manuscripts for DBPR manuscripts with a test for equality of proportions (proportion of accepted manuscripts 0.37 for group 1, 0.31 for group 2, and 0.23 for group 3). 0000008659 00000 n 2006;295(14):167580. Trends Ecol Evol. Click on the journal name to where you submitted your manuscript. Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Eigenfactor Score calculation is based on the number of times articles from the journal published in the past five years have been cited in the JCR year, but it also considers which journals have contributed these citations so that highly cited journals will influence the network more than lesser cited journals. We had gender information for 50,533 corresponding authors and found no statistically significant difference in the distribution of peer review model between males and females (p value=0.6179). (Nature Portfolio Data), Nature Communications (Nat Commun) 0000047805 00000 n 2008;23(7):3513. Methods Data includes 128,454 manuscripts . 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. Did you find it helpful? 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. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? We then mapped the normalised institution names from our dataset to the normalised institution names of the THE rankings via a Python script. In order to see whether the OTR outcome could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. 9.3 weeks. The original authors are given 10 days to respond. Am Econ Rev. 0000005727 00000 n Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. However, we did not achieve a good fit, as per the binned plot of residuals against expected values, and the C-index (used to assess the discriminatory ability of standard logistic models) is 0.68, so well below the threshold of 0.8 for good fit. When action from your side is required, this will also be announced by email. Barbara McGillivray. This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings. SHGtI0PyM&G?m$Y[g!B This may occur as a consequence of positive referee bias towards institution groups or to quality factors. EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. These records are excluded from the analysis, resulting in a dataset of 128,454 records, of which 20,406 (16%) were submitted to Nature, 65,234 (51%) to the 23 sister journals, and 42,814 (33%) to Nature Communications. nature~. Data are collected annually for full calendar years. 'Completed - Accept'. This resulted in 17,379 (14%) instances of manuscripts whose corresponding author was female, 83,830 (65%) manuscripts with male corresponding author, and 27,245 (21%) manuscripts with gender NA. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. We investigated the relationship between review type and institutional prestige (as measured by the institution groups) by testing the null hypothesis that the review type is independent from prestige. This measure is roughly analogous to the 5-Year Journal Impact Factor in that it is a ratio of a journal's citation influence to the size of the journal's article contribution over a period of five years. Trends Ecol Evol. 0000039536 00000 n The underlying research question that drove this study is to assess whether DBPR is effective in removing or reducing implicit reviewer bias in peer review. Please try your request again later. China and the USA stand out for their strong preference for DBPR and SBPR, respectively. 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. However, we did not find a combination of predictors that led to a model with a good fit to the data. This can potentially skew our results if, for example, there are differences in the proportion of names that cannot be attributed between genders. the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in The available data cannot tell us if other factors, such as the quality of the work, play a role in the choice of the review model. More information regarding the approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. We aimed at modelling acceptance based on the following variables (and all their subsets): review type (SB/DB), corresponding authors gender, the group of their institution (1, 2, 3, or 4), the category of their country (Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, South Korea, the UK, the USA, and Others), and the journal tier (Nature, Nature sister journals, and Nature Communications). Sorry we couldn't be helpful. The "satiscing," process-oriented view is based primarily on Simon's (1979) work on. We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. 0000001335 00000 n This might be the result of editor bias towards the review model, of the fact that female authors select their best papers to be DBPR to increase their chances of being accepted, or both. Once a paper is submitted, the journal editors proceed with their assessment of the work and decide whether each manuscript is sent out for review (OTR) to external reviewers. 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). So, in October 2018, we added a new . 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). Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. manuscripts originally submitted to a journal and subsequently transferred to another journal which was deemed a better fit by the editor. Article Table13 shows the proportion of manuscripts that are sent for review and accepted or rejected with different peer review model and by gender of the corresponding author. 9.3 weeks. 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. [No author listed] Nature journals offer double-blind review. . 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. authors opting for DBPR should not post on preprint archives). (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. Please note that this definition is different from that of the corresponding author(s) as stated on published articles and who are the author(s) responsible for correspondence with readers. making DBPR compulsory to accelerate data collection and remove potential bias against the review model. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. . 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. Most journals have online submission systems, which have definitely made it easier and quicker for authors to submit their manuscripts. In order to test whether the proportions in different groups were the same, we used the test of equal proportions in R (command prop.test). Is double-blinded peer review necessary? 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. 0000062617 00000 n 0000003764 00000 n Mayo Clin Proc. Please watch the Submission status explainer video below for more information. In the past if your work wasn't accepted in Nature or Science researchers would often try the respected general journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, or PNAS - which wags dubbed "Probably Not . 2016;1(2):1637. Submission to first post-review decision: for manuscripts that are sent to external reviewers, the median time (in days) taken from when a submission is received to when an editorial decision post-review is sent to the authors. 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. The dataset consisted of 133,465 unique records, with 63,552 different corresponding authors and 209,057 different institution names. When can I expect a decision from the Editor? Your new or revised submission has been sent back by the Editorial Team for changes prior to review. PLOS ONE. The author can request that the deadline be extended by writing to the editor in advance. 0000001568 00000 n The study reported on here is the first one that focusses on Nature-branded journals, with the overall aim to investigate whether there is any implicit bias in peer review in these journals and ultimately understand whether DBPR is an effective measure in removing referee bias and improving the peer review of scientific literature. sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. Connect with us on LinkedIn and stay up to date with news and development. by | May 28, 2022 | vga white light on asus motherboard | anskan om utbyte av utlndskt krkort | May 28, 2022 | vga white light on asus motherboard | anskan om utbyte av utlndskt krkort Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings. We decided to exclude the NA entries for gender and tested the null hypothesis that the two populations (manuscripts by male corresponding authors and manuscripts by female corresponding authors) have the same OTR rate within each of the two review models. Nature Neuroscience manuscript stage. In order to see whether the final decision outcome could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. An e-mail will be sent to the corresponding author confirming receipt of the manuscript together with a 'Journal Publishing Agreement' form or a link to the online version of this agreement. In the following analysis, we will refer to the data where the gender field is not NA as the Gender Dataset. 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. In Review clearly links your manuscript to the journal reviewing it, while its in review. 0000065294 00000 n After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. 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. How Many Seats Are Premium Economy On Emirates A380? :t]1:oFeU2U-:T7OQoh[%;ca wX~2exXOI[u:?=pXB0X'ixsv!5}eY//(4sx}&pYoIk=mK ZE We investigated the question of whether, out of the papers that go to review, manuscripts by female corresponding authors are more likely to be accepted than those with male corresponding authors under DBPR and SBPR.
Matt Murphy Da Orange County Wife,
Sehzade Iskender Death,
A Place In The Sun Presenter Scottish,
Cancel Vaccine Appointment Publix,
River City Marketplace Restaurants Jacksonville, Fl,
Articles D
