Nature CommunicationsTips: NCOnline: 140 250 tips (Naturetransfer) NCzip"Zip of files for Reviewer" 2-4 2. In Review. In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles We aimed at modelling uptake (baseline SB) based on the following variables (and all their subsets): 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). This result does not change significantly if we focus on the three institution groups we defined (high-, medium-, and low-prestige), thus excluding the fourth group for which no THE rank was found (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=49.405, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.064), which means that authors from less prestigious institutions tend to be rejected more than authors from more prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. After manually checking a sample of gender assignments and their scores, we kept the gender returned by Gender API where the accuracy was at least 80 and assigned a value NA otherwise. Double-blind peer review (DBPR) has been proposed as a means to avoid implicit bias from peer reviewers against characteristics of authors such as gender, country of origin, or institution. Corresponding author defined. Research Integrity and Peer Review Since the models showed a bad fit to the data according to accepted diagnostics criteria, further interpretation of the models is not warranted. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. A 3D accelerometer device and host-board (i.e., sensor node) were embedded in a case . JAMA. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. Mayo Clin Proc. Nature Neuroscience manuscript stage. However, we find that a logarithmic-based categorization of this sort would be more representative than a linear-based one. Masked reviews are not fairer reviews. You can useIn Reviewto access up-to-date information on where your article is in the peer review process. Nature-branded journals publishing primary research introduced DBPR as an optional service in March 2015 in response to authors requests [17]. Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. . 0000003952 00000 n Part of Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. 1991;81(5):104167. We would like to thank Michelle Samarasinghe for the help in collecting the data from the manuscript tracking system and Sowmya Swaminathan for the comments on the study and feedback on the manuscript draft. All coauthors must agree to post a preprint and participate inIn Review. Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. :t]1:oFeU2U-:T7OQoh[%;ca wX~2exXOI[u:?=pXB0X'ixsv!5}eY//(4sx}&pYoIk=mK ZE Type of Peer Review BBRC is a rapid communications journal. Papers. 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 When action from your side is required, this will also be announced by email. The multivariate regression analyses we performed led to uninformative models that did not fit the data well when the response was author uptake, out-to-review decision, or acceptance decision, and the predictors were review type, author gender, author institution, author country, and journal tier. I am confused since the current status was already passed before the editors sent the manuscript out for review. 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. 0000004174 00000 n Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. In WeWork, the Delaware Court of Chancery found that the use of Sprint email accounts by Sprint employees doing WeWork-related work for SoftBank caused the communications between SoftBank and those individuals to lose the privilege that might otherwise have attached to them. Table6 shows the counts and proportions of manuscripts that were sent out for review or rejected by the editors as a function of peer review model. 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). (major revision)6 (revision)3 (Covid-19) 3. 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 Table1 displays the number and proportion of transfers by journal group. Figure1 shows a Cohen-Friendly association plot indicating deviations from independence of rows (countries) and columns (peer review model) in Table5. This study provides insight on authors behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. 0000062401 00000 n Posted by May 21, 2022 upphittade katter vstervik on jag har avslutat min anstllning autosvar engelska May 21, 2022 upphittade katter vstervik on jag har avslutat min anstllning autosvar engelska Abstract: The abstract not exceeding 150 words and preferably in . 3. level 1. For other authors characteristics, such as institutional prestige, a quality factor is more likely than for gender: it is not unthinkable to assume that on average manuscripts from more prestigious institutions, which tend to have more resources, are of a higher quality than those from institutions with lower prestige and fewer means. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? Authors will be able to track peer review on their private author dashboard. 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. 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). Papers from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be sent to review than papers from less prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. Proofs are sent before publication; authors are welcome to discuss proposed changes with Nature's subeditors, but Nature reserves the right to make the final decision about matters of style and the size of figures. If we compare the proportion of accepted manuscripts under DBPR and authored by female vs. male corresponding authors (26 vs. 25%) with a test for equality of proportions with continuity correction, we find that there is a not a significant difference in female authors and male authors for DBPR-accepted papers (results of two-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction: 2=0.03188, df=1, p value=0.8583). 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. The outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. Nature CommunicationsNatureNature CommunicationsPeer-review Nature Communicationstransparent peer-reviewget Nature Communicationsget50% Nature Communicaitons 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). After peer review, a decision of accept, reject, or revision is made on the basis of the reviewers comments and the judgment of the editor. Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable . In order to assign a measure of institutional prestige to each manuscript, we used the 2016/2017 Times Higher Education rankings (THE [20]) and normalised the institution names using the GRID API. Accelerated Communications, JBC Reviews, Meeting Reports, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections, as well as article types that publish . So, in October 2018, we added a new . 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. Methods Data includes 128,454 manuscripts . Median values and the graphed interval (minimum and maximum values), are indicated. Based on the Nature Photonics Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.4 days to get the first editorial decision. von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. 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. Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. The decision is sent to the author. This is because authors cannot modify their choice of review model at the transfer stage, and thus transfers cannot contribute to the uptake analysis. [No author listed] Nature journals offer double-blind review. Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . The page will refresh upon submission. . The results were significant for all pairs: group 1 vs. group 2 (2=15.961, df=1, p value <0.001); group 2 vs. group 3 (2=7.1264, df=1, p value=0.0227); and group 1 vs. group 3 (2=37.304, df=1, p value <0.001). 0000003764 00000 n McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. Editorial Manager displays status terms as described in the table below. So, in October 2018, we added a new . The submission remains at this status until you select "Build PDF for Approval". We then analysed the uptake by gender for the entire portfolio, as we were interested in finding any gender-related patterns. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. Most journals have online submission systems, which have definitely made it easier and quicker for authors to submit their manuscripts. Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. We focus on the Nature journals as that portfolio covers a wide range of disciplines in the natural sciences and biomedical research, and thus, it gives us an opportunity to identify trends beyond discipline-specific patterns. Goldin C, Rouse C. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of blind auditions on female musicians. Issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version. 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. We observed that DBPR is chosen more often by authors submitting to higher impact journals within the Nature portfolio, by authors from specific countries (India and China in particular, among countries with the highest submission rates), and by authors from less prestigious institutions. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x. Based on these results, we cannot conclude whether the referees are biased towards gender. sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. A PDF has been built, either by you or by the editor, that requires your approval to move forward. Among the studies dealing with institutional bias, an analysis of abstracts submitted to the American Heart Associations annual Scientific Sessions research meeting from 2000 to 2004 found some evidence of bias favouring authors from English-speaking countries and prestigious institutions [14]. 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. captcha. Help us improve this article with your feedback. The area of each rectangle is proportional to the difference between observed and expected frequencies, where the dotted lines refer to expected frequencies. EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. The Editor has made a decision and requested you revise the submission. We have analysed a large dataset of submissions to 25 Nature journals over a period of 2years by review model and in dependence of characteristics of the corresponding author. . Transfer of papers between Cell Press journals and Molecular Plant. . . We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. England Women's Football Captain, We did not observe gender-related differences in uptake. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.40. 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. Research Square notifies authors of preprint posting, and sends a link to the author dashboard. The post-review outcome of papers as a function of the institution group and review model (Table15) showed that manuscripts from less prestigious institutions are accepted at a lower rate than those from more prestigious ones, even under DBPR; however, due to the small numbers of papers at this stage, the results are not statistically significant. 8. How Many Seats Are Premium Economy On Emirates A380? This might be due to referee bias against review model, or to a lower quality of DBPR papers, or both. How masked is the masked peer review of abstracts submitted to international medical conferences? 0000005727 00000 n 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. Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra, ->Editor assigned->Manuscript under consideration->Editor Decision StartedDecision sent to author->Waiting for revision Original letter from Ben Cravatt in early 2000 after our meeting at UCSF when he sent me a sample of his FP-biotin probe to test in my laboratory. As there are many steps involved in the editorial process, this may in some cases take longer than you had anticipated. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2008;23(7):3513. 2017;6:e21718. The Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community is a community blog for readers and authors of Nature Research journals, including Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature . We can conclude that authors from the least prestigious institutions are more likely to choose DBPR compared to authors from the most prestigious institutions and authors from the mid-range institutions. PubMedGoogle Scholar. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? The page is updated on an annual basis. Am J Roentgenol. Decision-making: Theory and practic e 145. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. We decided to exclude the gender values NA and we observed a significant but very small difference in the acceptance rate by gender (Pearsons chi-square test of independence: 2=3.9364, df=1, p value=0.047; Cramers V=0.015), leading us to conclude that manuscripts by female corresponding authors are slightly less likely to be accepted. We discuss the limitations of the study in more detail in the Discussion section. Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Hope everybody's doing well. The dataset consisted of 133,465 unique records, with 63,552 different corresponding authors and 209,057 different institution names. Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. We identify two potential causes for this, one being a difference in quality and the other being a gender bias. Blank RM. Nature Communications is an open access, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research in all areas of the biological, physical, chemical and Earth sciences. Results on the uptake are shown in Table5. This study is the first one that analyses and compares the uptake and outcome of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals covering a wide range of disciplines depending on the review model chosen by the author (double-blind vs. single-blind peer review). Get Scientific Editing. After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. Moreover, DBPR manuscripts are less likely to be successful than SBPR manuscripts at both the decision stages considered (Tables5 and 10), but because of the above limitations, our analysis could not disentangle the effects of these factors: bias (from editors and reviewers) towards various author characteristics, bias (from editors and reviewers) towards the review model, and quality of the manuscripts. The Editor has recommended the submission be transferred to another journal, and your response is needed. Moreover, the two models do not have to be exclusive;one could think of a DBPR stage followed by full public disclosure of reviewers and editors identities and reports. For most of our journals the corresponding author can track the article online. This reply will be sent to the author of the Correspondence before publication. No, Modified on: Mon, 5 Sep, 2022 at 6:52 PM. Why did this happen? Reviewers have been invited and the peer review process is underway. In addition, the high prestige of these journals might accentuate an implicit referee bias and therefore makes such journals a good starting point for such an analysis. Nature Portfolio is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (see here for more information about our endorsement). 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. 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. 0000008659 00000 n . Nature does not consider Communications Arising on papers published in other journals. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Article Influence Score determines the average influence of a journal's articles over the first five years after publication. The target number of required reviews has been completed, and the Handling Editor is considering the reviews. 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). 15 days You can make one of the following decisions: Accept, Revise or Reject. Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. . Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. 7u?p#T3;JUQJBw|u 2v{}ru76SRA? Usage: 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 . 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). Submission has been transferred to another journal, see How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? In the following analysis, we will refer to the data for groups 1, 2, and 3 as the Institution Dataset. The status of the manuscript says 'Reviewers Assigned' for about 24 days. Timely attention to proofs will ensure the article is slated for the next possible issue. I am not a robot. This can potentially skew our results if, for example, there are differences in the proportion of names that cannot be attributed between genders. 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. We studied whether papers were accepted or rejected following peer review, and we included transfers because the editorial decisions as different journals follow different criteria. 0000011063 00000 n Finally, we investigated the uptake of the peer review models by country of the corresponding author for the entire portfolio, using data on all of the 106,373 manuscripts. Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. Between September 2017 and June 2020, Nature Communications offered authors the option to list the preprints of papers hosted on any community-recognised platform and undergoing peer review. The binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. 2015;136(6):136977. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch.