This study provides insight on author’s behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. //-->Decision sent to author nature Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Editorial Process & Peer Review | Nature Electronics 共几个审稿人，分别在什么时间审完，各个环节的详细时间等信息，可以请通讯作者注册一个"Research Square"网站的账号，登录进去，就能查看如下图所示的各种信息。, ***第一篇审稿状态变化，历经三轮，时间跨度 (2020年9月-2021年2月)，共140天：, 2020年9月21日文章提交，由于这篇是从Nature Structural & Molecular Biology上拒下来的，所以显示Manuscript Transferred, 10月16日审稿结束，其中10月9号审稿人1提交了审稿意见，10月16号审稿人2提交了意见, 10月20日编辑决定给小修并发邮件通知通讯作者，并附上审稿意见，要求三个月内修完。审稿意见非常正向，只需补一点实验和文字的修改即可, 11月12日提交小修后的文章以及对审稿意见的逐点回复 (point-by-point response to reviewers' comments), 12月11日原则上接受，需要按照NC的一些固定格式和要求修改细节 (editorial requests), 1月13日编辑正式收稿，进入发表环节。要求通讯作者填写开源许可证并缴费，之后NC出版团队进行排版，在两周内返回给作者进行最终校稿 (proof), ***第二篇审稿状态变化，历经四轮，时间跨度 (2021年5月-2022年2月)，共250天：, 2021年5月27日文章提交，由于这篇是从Nature Chemical Biology上拒下来的，所以依然显示Manuscript Transferred, 7月6日编辑决定给大修并邮件通知通讯作者，并附上审稿意见，要求六个月内修完。其中两份审稿意见非常正向，另一份正向。只需补非常少量实验；但需大量修改文章的行文和语言，并以图片的形式对数据做更多分析 (这次的三个Reviewer疯狂的提出了共65个问题，修改到后来大脑直接炸裂), 10月31日提交大修后的文章以及对审稿意见的逐点回复 (point-by-point response to reviewers' comments), 11月22日编辑决定给小修，三位审稿人均表示作者较好的回答了全部问题，最终只再次提了3个问题 (从一审的65个问题直接缩减到二审的3个问题，当时相当愉快), 12月13日原则上接受，需要按照NC的一些固定格式和要求修改细节 (editorial requests), 2022年2月1日北京时间晚上6点多正式上线，当天凑巧是大年初一~ (这篇论文还入选了编辑亮点推荐论文Editors' Highlights), ***第三篇审稿状态变化，历经四轮，时间跨度 (2022年6月-2023年3月)，共268天：, 这一篇是我们目前工作量最大的文章，发表历程也非常波折。三个审稿人，共提出了大约30多个问题，无需补任何实验。其中审稿人2和3高度评价，审稿人1比较好评。本以为修改后已经没什么问题了，结果在第二轮审稿后，苛刻的审稿人#1突然提出要补非常有挑战性的实验，那时正值12月份疫情最严重的时候，为了不阳万分小心，补了两个月，最终成功满足的审稿人#1的要求。, 最后希望本文对打算投稿Nature Communications上的同学们有用，祝大家论文多多，质量炸裂。, 投稿后 (直接投或者Nature系列刊物transfer)，编辑初审，决定直接拒稿还是送审。送审不会发邮件通知，如果在NC投稿网站里看到一个zip压缩文件“Zip of files for Reviewer”就说明送审了。一般情况下，审稿人会有2-4个。, Nature Communications整体投稿周期较长，编辑非常认真，邀请的审稿人也基本上是业界大牛，要求较为严格。, 审稿流程非常透明。如果作者愿意，审稿意见和作者回复会被公开，与该文章一起发表 (Peer Review File)。如果有的审稿人愿意公布自己的姓名，我们作者还能知道具体是谁审了我们的文章，NC在推动Transparent peer review方面确实引领了一些潮流。阅读每篇文章后面的Peer Review File绝对是快乐源泉。, 最好认真对待每一个reviewer的每一条意见，别怕麻烦，点对点、图文并茂的详细回答。. [CDATA[// >各位大佬，Nature 子刊送审会有邮件提醒嘛？ - 论文投稿 - 投稿求 … 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. Another issue that hampered our study was the lack of complete records for each manuscript in the dataset in relation to gender, country, and institution of the corresponding author. 投向这些期刊的论文有十分之九会遭遇拒稿，而这通常发生在同行评审之前。. 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). Next, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and institution group (Table 10) to detect any bias. Does "Under Review" mean that the paper has passed the editorial check? The manuscript tracking number should be … Commun. Commun. Blank RM. 2021. Icons made by various authors from www.flaticon.com, Experiential Live Edit: How to improve Biomed manuscripts. We found that 10 countries contributed to 80% of all submissions, and thus, we grouped all other countries under the category “Others”. I believe you will get an email 24-48h later saying it is or isn’t out for review. With Editor: This status indicates that an editor has taken charge of the manuscript. This may occur as a consequence of positive referee bias towards institution groups or to quality factors. After this, the manuscript usually goes through a formatting check by the journal staff before it is assigned to an editor. Nevertheless, the available data allowed us to draw conclusions on the uptake of the review models, as we detail below. Register for comprehensive research tips and expert advice on English writing, journal publishing, good publication practices, trends in publishing, and a lot more. What is the meaning of "decision in process" status? Author Declines to Revise: This shows that the author has clicked on an action link indicating that he/she does not wish to submit a revised version of the manuscript. We excluded data where the gender was not assigned to either male or female. Why don't we give you complete access! The proportion of authors choosing double-blind changes as a function of the institution group, with higher ranking groups having a higher proportion of single-blind manuscripts (Table 4). Cohen-Friendly association plot for Table 5. Content … 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. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? 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. Editage Insights offers a wealth of free academic research and publishing resources and is a one-stop guide for authors and others involved in scholarly publishing. FOIA The author needs to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. Answered by Editage Insights 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. AmarA. 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. But on the status, “decision sent to author” and “decision sent to reviewers” are listed together. To ascertain whether indeed any referee bias is present, we studied the acceptance rate by gender and review type. 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. The post-review outcome of papers as a function of the institution group and review model (Table 15) 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. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Krumholz HM. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. The dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. Web投稿后在manuscript under consideration 状态持续了40天左右，随后变为editor decision started。. [CDATA[// >decision 10. 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. We look forward to your comments and questions. This … Falagas ME, Zouglakis GM, Kavvadia PK. In addition, online submission has also eliminated the need for several emails, saving the author from rummaging through different versions of the document. The results on author uptake show that DBPR is chosen more frequently by authors that submit to higher impact journals within the portfolio, by authors from certain countries, and by authors from less prestigious institutions. The full model has a pseudo R2 of 0.06, which means that the model only represents a 6% improvement over simply guessing the most frequent outcome, or in other words, the model is not powerful enough to predict the uptake of DB with high reliability. nature子刊这个投稿状态能看出什么来吗~ - 小木虫论坛 Table 11 displays the accept rate by review type defined as the number of accepted papers over the total number of accepted or rejected papers. We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. It's okay to take things slow, focus on one task at a time, and pace yourself into the week . Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. Regarding institutional bias, a report of a controlled experiment found that SBPR reviewers are more likely than DBPR reviewers to accept manuscripts from famous authors and high-ranked institutions [15], while another report found that authors at top-ranked universities are unaffected by different reviewing methods [16]. This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. Create a free account and get unlimited access to all resources & a vibrant researcher community. But, after that, the status still displays "Manuscript under consideration" for 23 days. The gender (male, female, or NA) of the corresponding authors was determined from their first name using a third-party service (Gender API). official website and that any information you provide is encrypted 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]. 审稿人审稿后，如果编辑决定给大修 (major revision)，通常要求作者6个月内修完；如果是小修 (revision)，通常要求3个月内修完。(受Covid-19影响可以向编辑申请延长修改时间), 3. Similar results are achieved if simpler logistic regression models are considered, such as review type modelled on journal tier and institution and review type modelled on journal tier only. WebGuide to authors . A test for equality of proportions for groups 1 and 2 for SBPR papers returned a significant difference (χ2 = 331.62, df = 1, p value < 0.001); the same test for group 2 and group 3 for SBPR papers also returned a significant difference (χ2 = 464.86, df = 1, p value < 0.001). Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? 2002— Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. 5 min read, Answers to questions all researchers have about the journal decision-making process ]]> Once a paper passes the initial screening stage, the editor looks for peer reviewers for the paper. and transmitted securely. If you come across any such status, or if you are faced with a status that you find confusing, do share your experiences with us or ask a question via the Editage Insights Q&A forum, so that other authors can benefit from the discussion. 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. 众所周知，Science 和Nature 可谓世界级的顶级刊物，面向的读者是所有对科学感兴趣的人，而不仅仅是科学家。 也就是说，发表在Science 和Nature 上的研究性论文，不 … We aimed at modelling acceptance based on the following variables (and all their subsets): review type (SB/DB), corresponding author’s 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). Outcome for papers sent to review as a function of the gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review model. You might also be interested in reading the following related articles: You're looking to give wings to your academic career and publication journey. 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. WebThe decision may need to be confirmed by the Editor-in-Chief first. Outcome of the first editorial decision (OTR rate) as a function of corresponding author’s gender and peer review model. 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. Potential Associate Editor Accept 2019-01-15 02:53:24. Detailed information for authors preparing a manuscript. WebIf an author wishes to appeal against Nature 's decision, the appeal must be made in writing, not by telephone, and should be confined to the scientific case for publication. Read Editage Insights in your favorite RSS Reader. 我也来贡献一点Nat. Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. //-->Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review … On the other hand, an analysis of the Evolution of Language (EvoLang 11) conference papers found that female authors received higher rankings under DBPR [13]. //-->