4;N>0TjAWSI#|9aJs]PZYp M#M%,f-);k'\C/*('O2 X(^tL4[msd\5n9cIh(?J0yVg5[5(z,|j}(mLR:V#P/lAD~"jhQT
H+}0Z3Nj>!76{7#FMxgiqyym qo=CFf.oA:+
6hlXT?:SNMZ/|)wj 44X7^tkp+:LL4 The results of a likelihood ratio showed that the more complex model is better than the simpler ones, and its pseudo R2 is the highest (though very low). 0000005727 00000 n
Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. 430,805 Altmetric mentions (2021), The Journal Impact Factor is defined as all citations to the journal in the current JCR year to items published in the previous two years, divided by the total number of scholarly items (these comprise articles, reviews, and proceedings papers) published in the journal in the previous two years. Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . Sorry we couldn't be helpful. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. Next, we focussed on a potential institutional bias and looked at the relationship between OTR rate and institutional prestige as measured by the groups defined based on THE ranking explained above (excluding the fourth group, for which no THE ranking was available), regardless of review type (Table9). authors opting for DBPR should not post on preprint archives). When a manuscript is re-ferred, all reviews and recommendations are sent with the manuscript to the receiving journal. We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. 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. A PDF has been built, either by you or by the editor, that requires your approval to move forward. We found that a smaller proportion of DBPR papers are sent to review compared with SBPR papers and that there is a very small but significant association between review type and outcome of the first editorial decision (results of a chi-square test: 2=1623.3, df=1, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.112). 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 order to see whether author uptake could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. Times Higher Education - World University Rankings. Internet Explorer). In a systematic review and meta-analysis of biomedical journals investigating the interventions aimed at improving the quality of peer review in these publications, the authors reported that DBPR did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate [4]. Article There is a small but significant association between institution group and acceptance (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=49.651, df=3, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.049). A study of the distribution of gender among reviewers and editors of the Frontiers journals showed an underrepresentation of women in the process, as well as a same-gender preference (homophily) [10]. 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. Submission to first editorial decision - 8, Submission to first post-review decision - 46. Nature Portfolio is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (see here for more information about our endorsement). Once all author information has been resolved and extraneous or incorrect information removed, the system will guide you to the Manuscript Information tab. Until this is done, the decision can be changed. For each manuscript, we used Springer Natures internal manuscript tracking system to extract name, institutional affiliation, and country of the corresponding author; journal title; the manuscripts review type (single-blind or double-blind); the editors final decision on the manuscript (accept, reject, or revise); and the DOI. It's simple! After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. 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. v)ic#L7p[ q^$;lmP)! Comment on/see emerging science in full HTMLin both phone and desktop-friendly sizes, Find new discoveries with fully-indexed search, Gain insight into the peer review pipeline at participating journals, Authors original submitted version and all versions are released in real time as peer review progresses. To post social content, you must have a display name. 0000009854 00000 n
LZ. The motivation behind Nature Communications is to provide authors with more choice; both in terms of where they publish, and what access model they want for their papers.At present NPG does not provide a rapid publishing opportunity for authors with high-quality specialist work within the Nature branded titles. Journals can customize the wording of status terms. Goldin C, Rouse C. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of blind auditions on female musicians. 0000003064 00000 n
Proc Natl Acad Sci. Click on the journal name to where you submitted your manuscript.
national association of state directors of developmental disabilities service, how many years did juan carlos serve as king. GRID - Global Research Identifier Database. The submission remains at this status until you select "Build PDF for Approval". 9.3 weeks. In order to reduce the variability in the institutional affiliations, we normalised the institution names and countries via a Python script that queried the API of the Global Resource Identified Database (GRID [19]). The "satiscing," process-oriented view is based primarily on Simon's (1979) work on. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). Reviewers have been invited and the peer review process is underway. We analysed the dataset of 128,454 records with a non-empty review type to answer the following questions: What are the demographics of authors that choose double-blind peer review? 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. 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
0000062401 00000 n
volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) Results on the uptake are shown in Table5. Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. When comparing acceptance rates by gender and regardless of review model, we observed that female authors are significantly less likely to be accepted than their male counterparts. Papers from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be sent to review than papers from less prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. bounded rationality . 2017;114(48):1270813. 1991;81(5):104167. Using Pearsons chi-square test of independence, we found a significant and large association between country category and review type (2=3784.5, df=10, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.189). This might be due to referee bias against review model, or to a lower quality of DBPR papers, or both. This might indicate that authors are more likely to choose DBPR when the stakes are higher in an attempt to increase their success chances by removing any implicit bias from the referees. 9 0 obj
<<
/Linearized 1
/O 11
/H [ 1335 254 ]
/L 93263
/E 83910
/N 2
/T 92966
>>
endobj
xref
9 45
0000000016 00000 n