editor decision started nature

NatureNatureNatureNature Mater . This led to a network of 623 edges with a density of d = 0.12. Authors may suggest reviewers; these suggestions are often helpful, although they are not always followed. 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). Consensus decision-making or consensus process (often abbreviated to consensus) are group decision-making processes in which participants develop and decide on proposals with the aim, or requirement, of acceptance by all. The editor contacts potential reviewers. This data represents a full inventory of manuscript version histories for the given years and journals, covering all submitted manuscripts whether published in the end, or not. The performance of the editor can thus be controlled and evaluated by other stakeholders in the organization of the publisher. Some authors claim transformative changes would be at play for practices of editors handling manuscripts: Taubert (2012) for instance has stated that journal editorial management systems standardise the peer review process and constrain the degrees of freedom for editors. More information about the manuscript transfer service can be found here. We sorted seven events into this category (according to their labelling and the distribution of triggering roles), of which the event Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted is the event with the highest frequency in the database (N = 16,901), followed by Author Approved Converted Files (N = 13,978). Administrative practices of coordinating manuscripts, selecting reviewers and managing consultations are increasingly difficult to separate from observational practices without direct effect on the process, which can be, according to Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020, p.19), considered as relevant for controlling the peer review process. Shared post - Interview: How the Media Got Cozy With Power, Abandoned We therefore deduce, that the participant group of none roles must in part be comprised of non-humans (i.e., the infrastructure itself). This network turned out to be relatively complex with 72 nodes and 623 edges, and relatively dense (with d = 0.12), which means, that 12 percent of all theoretically possible edges occur empirically. Making an editorial decision - BioMed Central Nature Ecology and Evolution | Peer-Review Duration, Review Speed Answer (1 of 7): Most submissions are rejected by editors without review, and this should be fast - perhaps, two weeks (?). 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). Nine events could be attributed to this category, the most important being the four decision events Manuscript Accepted (N = 1,711), Manuscript Revise Only (893), Manuscript Revise and Re-Review (1,540) and Manuscript Rejected (9,835). Scholarly journals invest considerable effort in maintaining peer culture by establishing close links to authors, reviewers, and (guest) editors (Weller, 2001). Also, in contrast to what Taubert (2012) describes, we can assume, that the digital infrastructure in our case is not only imposed on the editors but is understood by them as a tool, which works otherwise, they could adjust the system configuration or even collectively demand to abolish it. There is much consensus about peer review for manuscripts being a major instrument for quality control despite differences what that means in practice (Campanario, 1998a; Campanario, 1998b). Nature typoresubmitstagedecision sent to author&, proofproofnaturepublish, ScienceNatureScienceScience, Editor assigned (Peer-review) (discovery) (invention)novelunexpected)The criteria for a paper to be sent for peer-review are that the results seem novel, arresting (illuminating, unexpected or surprising), and that the work described has both immediate and far-reaching implicationsnaturescienceBoard of Reviewing EditorsscienceBoard of Reviewing EditorsBoard of Reviewing EditorsnaturescienceBoard of Reviewing Editorsscienceconnection, 22, Peer-review, Peer-review, 2. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). Does "Under Review" mean that the paper has passed the editorial check? Editorial management systems may then be interpreted as representations and manifestations of the peer review process which is itself an internal element of the self-governance within the sciences. If you're being encouraged to revise, it should be clear from the letter and reviews you receive what you need to do. The focus of the patent is on how to facilitate the peer review process in a digital infrastructure. This is supported by the process sequence empirically showing regularities but being very open in principle. From an ethnographic perspective this also means that the infrastructure itself cannot evaluate reviewers opinions due to its implementation and consequentially would not even be able to compile automated decisions. FOIA This procedure is followed by most journals. We preliminarily conclude that the partial perspective through the eyes of the digital infrastructure provides valuable insights into the peer review process, which are difficult to obtain otherwise. Of all 11,103 manuscripts which make it to a decision at least in one round, the first submitted version is rejected in the vast majority of the cases, whereas manuscripts which make it through the first round, stand a good chance to be accepted in the later stages, as is shown in Figure 1. 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). 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started Decision sent to author NZip for reviewers 2022.10.10 9All Reviewers Assigned109Manuscript under consideration resubmitnoveltyresubmit, 4. . 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. MDPI The analysis may also provide first insights to what extent the events recorded are automatically generated. The multiplicity of edges expresses how often its ends occur in direct sequence in the whole dataset, that means, for all first version manuscripts together. Journal Editor's Perspectives on the Roles and Tasks for Peer Reviewers in Biomedical Journals: A Qualitative Study, Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research, Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective, Peer Commentary on Peer Review: A Case Study in Scientific Quality Control, Peer Review Verfahren auf dem Prfstand/Peer Review ResearchReviewed. Review Started and Potential Referees Accept were mostly performed by the reviewer and achieved the highest frequency (both had N = 8,937). Review Time in Peer Review: Quantitative Analysis and Modelling of Editorial Workflows, Perspektiven der Infrastrukturforschung: care-full, relational, ko-laborativ, Schlsselwerke der Science & Technology Studies, Ggraph: An Implementation of Grammar of Graphics for Graphs and Networks, From Manuscript Evaluation to Article Valuation: The Changing Technologies of Journal Peer Review, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Peer Review Practices: A Content Analysis of External Reviews in Science Funding, Zwischen Reputation und Markt: Ziele, Verfahren und Instrumente von (Selbst)Evaluationen aueruniversitrer, ffentlicher Forschungseinrichtungen. How long should I wait for a response from the journal? In the light of the transparent review process at this publisher, where editorial decision letters are published alongside accepted papers, this is especially interesting, because decision letters for successful submissions can be expected to have a much larger audience than for non-successful submissions. The identical numbers for both events indicate that they are released upon acceptance of the reviewer. Due to the specific work environment at the publisher, where editors are employed as full-time staff in a shared office space, it must be easy for them to communicate with each other bypassing the editorial management system, which limits the potential of surveillance through the system. Across all Wolters Kluwer journals, the average time that a manuscript moves through the submission process from submission to first decision takes about 30 days, and to a final . Among the leading intellectuals of his time, Franklin was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, a drafter and signer of the United States . Why many editors of Nature have very poor research records?! 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. Scientific Reports | Peer-Review Duration, Review Speed, Revision Reviewers read the manuscript and submit their reports. The infrastructure models the peer review process along the way of submitted (versions of) manuscripts, which enter the system during submission and pass through different stages afterwards. Read Editage Insights in your favorite RSS Reader. Hence, a lower density in the observed network than in the patent would be more plausible for a streamlined process. Based on Nature's website it looks like the editor sends a letter regardless of the decision so your editor is probably just writing the decision and it could be anything from accept without revision (hopefully) all the way to reject without reconsideration. While there are similarities between the different ways of using peer review, peer review for manuscript evaluation is specific in the way it is embedded within the organization of scholarly journals (Hirschauer 2004). Some of these activities, formerly external to the normal administrative editorial work, may now be automated by the infrastructure, leading to novel control technologies which may also put the editorial role under stronger pressure. Authors as well as reviewers have no possibilities to bypass the system easily, as far as we can see. Bethesda, MD 20894, Web Policies So to reduce the noise and to uncover the core process, we deleted all edges, which had a multiplicity of less than 1% of the number of items. .. . Based on the Nature Methods Review Speed Feedback System, it takes editor 146.00 days to accept manuscript. Research Square and Nature are two distinct publication venues. In this paper, we present an empirical case study: processual data from a journal management system provide insights into how the peer review process is carried out at four journals of a specific publisher in the biomedical field. Cicchetti D. V., Rourke B. P., Wass P. (1992). sharing sensitive information, make sure youre on a federal The editor-in-chief is primarily responsible for initial receipt of the manuscript and assignment to an associate editor. Yet, the analysis of processual data from an editorial management system may lead to research paying more attention to organizational issues of scholarly publishing, that is, practices related with maintaining and binding reviewers, authors and editors to a scholarly journal. Before the decision, basically two things can happen (see Figure 5). Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the . According to Guston (2001), there is a social contract granting autonomy and self-regulation to science only if scientific quality and productivity is ensured. Hence, the infrastructure must offer its users a high degree of freedom regarding what they do next. The first possibility is the short decision path from "Manuscript Consultation Started" directly to "Editor Decision Complete". 2 wormified 4 yr. ago A month sounds optimistic to me :-) 2 [deleted] 4 yr. ago [removed] riricide 4 yr. ago Share Improve this answer Follow answered Jul 2, 2014 at 10:14 user18118 21 1 Add a comment 0 The publisher provided us with processual data from their journal management system during an earlier research project with a focus on evaluation practices and sources of biases in peer review. These are considered appeals, which, by policy, take second place to consideration of normal submissions. We aim to compare empirical process generated data with this idealized process provided with the patent, because the processual data reflect local adaptations and uses of these technologies emerging from concrete demands of authors, reviewers and editors in the configurations of a journal (Horbach and Halffman, 2019, p.2), but are at the same time also constrained by the initial definition of roles and processes set up by the developers of the technology (Krger et al., 2021). dmsder moderne staatZeitschrift fr Public Pol. Does the status 'Decision in process' without peer review imply The decision is framed by Editor Decision Started (N = 6,215, triggered often by the reviewer) and Editor Decision Complete (N = 13,973)the difference in size indicates, that the editors decision can happen directly without external consultation. Events triggered by (columns) and affective to (rows) the different roles assigned. sciencenature - In this specific case, however, the practices related to the technology support the principle of an editor centred system in the peer review process. 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. Please note, this decision must be made at the time of initial submission and cannot be changed later. The other possibility, as you have correctly judged, is that the manuscript might receive a desk rejection. All Rights Reserved. How can we live a good life? The operationalization and implementation shows specific interpretations of the peer review process as an organizational activity. Innovating Editorial Practices: Academic Publishers at Work, Peer Review: The Current Landscape and Future Trends, Selection Criteria in Professorial Recruiting as Indicators of Institutional Similarity? The process sequence is very open in principle, but for a process leading from submission to decision, some regularity in the steps could be expected, that is, some nodes must be more likely than others to be passed and also, some edges must be more important than others respectively. Brooke LaFlamme, PhD, Associate Editor, Nature Genetics Location: 10-11am, 13-105 CHS, Monday April 18, 2016 Abstract: The editorial and publication process at high impact journals, such as Nature Genetics, is often perceived as confusing and difficult to navigate for researchers.My presentation will provide an overview of the editorial process at . Once your manuscript passes the initial quality check, we assign it to a member of Editorial Board, who is an active researcher in your field. Reconstructing the processes applying social network analysis, we found that the individual steps in the process have no strict order, other than could be expected with regard to the software patent. 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. At the same time, however, editorial management systems as digital infrastructures transform that process by defining sequences, ends, values and evaluation criteria, which are inscribed already in the production process of such devices (see Krger et al., 2021). However, patterns can be observed, as to which stages manuscripts are most likely to go through in an ordered fashion. In any case, not assigning a role to some actors shows that those are regarded less relevant for the editorial process by design. In this regard, editorial management systems perform timekeeping, when they support and oversee the duration of sub-processes (Reviewer Waited too Long, Waiting for Authors Revision etc.). The patent depicts peer review as an ordered process with actions (such as sub-processes, documents and stored data) and bifurcations (see Figure 3). In this work, editorial management systems are perceived as an infrastructure supporting peer reviewed scientific publishing. 1.8+, SCI45, , , , , Editor Declined Invitation, Decision Letter Being Prepared , Decision in Process, , 5.Awaiting EA (Associated Editor) decision, lettercorrespondence, peer reviewdecline, in-house review, With editorrequired review completed, , Under ReviewRequired Reviews Complete, (naturescience), 90%, , , . In the second category, which Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) have called consultation, we subsumed nine events, which are mainly performed by editors, reviewers and none roles. This may show that the submission procedure is standardised, possibly making some forms of research impossible to submit. Nature 512, 126-129. What is the meaning of "decision in process" status? While we do not have empirical material about the interpretations of the process by the actors themselves, processual data and the sequences of events may at least allow for abductive reasoning about how the editorial role is structured, and, in light of the literature about peer review, transformed, by using the infrastructure. The Emergence of a Field: a Network Analysis of Research on Peer Review, 4.8 Academic Social Networks and Bibliometrics, Gedanken zum Refereesystem in konomischen wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften, Von der Theorie zur Wirtschaftspolitik - ein sterreichischer Weg, Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today-Part 1, Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today-Part 2, The Ethnographer and the Algorithm: beyond the Black Box. The institution of scholarly peer review as the main instance for scientific quality assurance appears to be comparably stable since more than three hundred years, despite several technical changes (Reinhart, 2010; Pontille and Torny, 2015; Horbach and Halffman, 2019). For example, the event Preliminary Manuscript Data submitted happens for almost all manuscripts, which is why it does not help us to distinguish manuscript lifecycles in a meaningful way. Our contribution is organized as follows. While these technical adaptations reflect the processual or organizational demands, they may also create novel arenas for monitoring and control neither foreseen by the developers nor by organizational professionals of peer review work. a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the issues raised by the editor and peer reviewers, a response to each of the reviewers, replying to each of the points raised. The description of the variables was mainly derived from the field names, their values and the xml-structure in the raw data and is given in Table 1. Usually, the times vary from two to six months, but there is no fixed rule. Find submission status of your article / manuscript - Nature Support This service is available to authors at the time of decision or at a later time. Algorithms as Culture: Some Tactics for the Ethnography of Algorithmic Systems, Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Social Consequences of ICTs, Online Editorial Management-Systeme und die Produktion wissenschaftlicher Fachzeitschriften, Open Access und Digitalisierung aus der Sicht von Wissenschaftsverlagen, Wissenschaftliches Publizieren: Zwischen Digitalisierung, Leistungsmessung, konomisierung und medialer Beobachtung, Online Collaboration: Scientists and the Social Network, Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Sometimes they are more busy. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [a] is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) aimed at promoting world peace and security through international cooperation in education, arts, sciences and culture. Peer reviewers are assigned to manuscripts, reviewers recommendations are considered and the fate of a manuscript is decided about by the editor. Cactus Communications. Editorial decision making at Nature Genetics. The status 'Decision started' indicates that the peer review process for your manuscript is complete and the paper is now with the editor. An official website of the United States government. 8600 Rockville Pike UNESCO - Wikipedia Moreover, acceleration, control and efficiency have been main arguments for establishing editorial management systems in the first place (Jubb, 2015; Mendona, 2017), putting pressure on publishers and editors of journals to implement streamlined procedures. [CDATA[// > The edge widths show, how many manuscripts experience the respective evolutionary path. If an appeal merits further consideration, the editors may send the authors' response or the revised paper to one or more reviewers, or they may ask one reviewer to comment on the concerns raised by another reviewer. What does editor decision started mean nature? This means that a manuscript will usually loop through the review process more than once, depending on the editorial decisionin our case up to six times. 2017-07-13 11:21. (Manuscript under submission->Manuscript received)->Editor assigned->Manuscript under consideration->Editor Decision StartedDecision sent to author->Waiting for revision, ->Revision receivedManuscript #A1Manuscript under submission->Manuscript received->Editor assigned->Manuscript under consideration->Editor Decision Started, . We do so by making use of the internal representation of manuscript life cycles from submission to decision for 14,000 manuscripts submitted to a biomedical publisher. By making these processes visible and measurable, the pace of the peer review process is reinforced as a relevant evaluation criterion for scholarly journals and their editors. Also, when we conceptually refer to the process, we write element or component for conglomerates of either actions or events which belong together. D1ckChowder 2 yr. ago It could mean many things.

Bruce Robinson Hawaii, Child Custody Statistics By Gender Uk, Articles E