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). We aimed at modelling uptake (baseline SB) based on the following variables (and all their subsets): 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). 望达人解释一下 Post Decision Manuscripts 应该是结果出来了，可以从Decision summary里看审稿意见，nature出版社的投稿系统就是这样的。. We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. 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. Received 2018 Jan 26; Accepted 2018 Jul 17. One possible explanation for the lack of fit is that more or other predictors would be needed in order to fully explain the response, for example, a measure of quality, as we have already indicated. We only retained a normalised institution name and country when the query to the GRID API returned a result with a high confidence, and the flag “manual review” was set to false, meaning that no manual review was needed. The .gov means it’s official. Also, if it had to be negative outcome, it wouldn’t take so long for a publisher like Nature to come up with the decision, so you can relax and hope for a positive outcome. There is a small but significant association between institution group and acceptance (Pearson’s chi-square test results: χ2 = 49.651, df = 3, p value < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.049). How to write an email to the editor inquiring about the current status of my paper? Bethesda, MD 20894, Web Policies While each journal or publication house might use a slightly different term for each status, in general, here are the different possible statuses that the tracking system might show from submission to final acceptance or rejection: 1. Mahawish 1,2 & Hassan J .... Sixth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum27 -30 September 2011United Nations Office in Naiorbi, Nairobi, Kenya September … Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? Does double-blind review benefit female authors? In such cases, the status might go back to “Under Review.” So, do not be surprised if this happens: once the additional review is completed, the status will come back to “Required Reviews Complete.”. This series of posts helps authors understand different status descriptions and their meanings. At this stage, the editor completes an initial screening of the manuscript, and if he/she finds it suitable for the journal, it is sent for peer review. WebSpringer期刊 Nature Portfolio期刊 Scientific Reports Springer 期刊 对于大多数期刊，通讯作者可以在线跟踪文章。文章追踪将指导你完成从文章提交到发表的各个阶段。每一个步骤都有说明，并会让您知道是否接下来需要您做什么 。 请登录您 My Springer Nature 的个人资料并单击“您的提交”以开始跟踪您的文章。 The effect of blinding on review quality. The analysis of success outcome at both the out-to-review and acceptance stages could in principle reveal the existence of any reviewer bias against authors’ characteristics. [CDATA[> We investigated the uptake of double-blind review in relation to journal tier, as well as gender, country, and institutional prestige of the corresponding author. We did not observe any difference by author gender. For the sake of completeness, Table 8 includes the number and percentages of rejected vs. out-to-review manuscripts for which the gender of the corresponding author was male, female, or NA. Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. General information about Nature Communications and information for authors. We also analysed the OTR rates by gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review type. Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. Motivation: My manuscript received an editorial rejection at Nature Medicine for reason X, but I was told that it was still interesting enough to be sent to Nature … 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: χ2 = 0.03188, df = 1, p value = 0.8583). Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. We then mapped the normalised institution names from our dataset to the normalised institution names of the THE rankings via a Python script. You will need to go through the through the decision letter to see what the journal has said about the manuscript. 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. 12. Brown RJC. The study was designed to analyse the manuscripts submitted to Nature-branded journals publishing primary research between March 2015 (when the Nature-branded primary research journals introduced DBPR as an opt-in service) and February 2017. This might happen if the editor is very busy and there are a lot of other papers queued up at his/her table, waiting for their turn. Editing and proofreading services for a publication-ready manuscript, Customized service packs to match all publication needs, Expert help for all academic translation needs, Comprehensive statistical support to getting published. In future works, we will consider studying the post-decision outcome also in relation to the gender of reviewers and defining a quality metric for manuscripts in order to isolate the effect of bias. Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. A test for equality of proportions for groups 1 and 2 for DBPR papers showed a non-significant result (χ2 = 0.13012, df = 1, p value = 0.7183), and the same test on group 2 and group 3 for DBPR papers showed a significant result (χ2 = 40.898, df = 1, p value < 0.001). We look forward to your comments and questions. 4. For this analysis, we included direct submissions as well as transferred manuscripts, because the editorial criteria vary by journal and a manuscript rejected by one journal and transferred to another may then be sent out to review. 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. :-) So, it probably means that the associate editor (AE), who … In the case of transfers, the author cannot change the review type compared to the original submission, and therefore, we excluded the 22,081 (17%) transferred manuscripts from the analysis of author uptake. 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). Icons made by various authors from www.flaticon.com, Experiential Live Edit: How to improve Biomed manuscripts. Using a Venn diagram, state the similarities and differences of a research paper to a research report. Cactus Communications. [CDATA[// >
Enbw Ausbildung Gehalt,
Lose Und Feste Rollen Aufgaben Mit Lösungen,
Casey Powell Sequent,
Bettina Wegner Was Ich Zu Sagen Hatte,
Articles D