Help us improve this article with your feedback. 50decision sent to authorwaiting for revisionFigure 2 Article proofs sent to author 4. This can potentially skew our results if, for example, there are differences in the proportion of names that cannot be attributed between genders. 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 . Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. 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]. 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. Nature does not consider Communications Arising on papers published in other journals. Finally, we associated each author with a gender label (male/female) by using the Gender API service [21]. 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. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. 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. 0000002247 00000 n Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. We however included transfers in all other analyses because we considered the analysed items as combinations of three attributes: paper, corresponding author, and journal to which the paper was submitted. 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 This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. Am Econ Rev. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). 0000001245 00000 n ,.,., . Decision sent to author NZip for reviewers reparationstapet kllare . Journal metrics are based on the published output, thus those that are calculated from the output in multiple years will use a partial dataset for recently launched journals. We inspected the gender assigned via the Gender API, which assigns an accuracy score between 0 and 100 to each record. The results of a Pearsons chi-square test of independence show a small effect size (2=138.77, df=1, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.082). 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). No, Modified on: Mon, 5 Sep, 2022 at 6:52 PM. 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. . Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. Locate submission instructions for a Springer journal, Submit a manuscript with your ORCID number, Submit a Nature Portfolio manuscript for Open Access publishing, Submit multimedia files to be published online with your article. When the Editors begin to enter a decision it will move the status to 'Decision in Process'. As described above, Nature Portfolio has produced the 2-year Median in the table below. This may be due to editor bias towards the review model, to a quality effect (authors within each institution group choose to submit their best studies under SBPR), or both. Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. Sodexo Disney Springs, All papers submitted from January 2016 qualify for this scheme. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. 0000003064 00000 n statement and Once a paper is submitted, the journal editors proceed with their assessment of the work and decide whether each manuscript is sent out for review (OTR) to external reviewers. At Nature Biomedical Engineering, we collect some numbers into a 'journal dashboard': These numbers are running statistics over 6-month intervals (to smooth out fluctuations in the numbers*). Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? We understand that you have not received any journal email. This is because authors cannot modify their choice of review model at the transfer stage, and thus transfers cannot contribute to the uptake analysis. 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. 0000001795 00000 n The target number of required reviews has been completed, and the Handling Editor is considering the reviews. PubMedGoogle Scholar. 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. In Review. How masked is the masked peer review of abstracts submitted to international medical conferences? As mentioned in the Methods section, we have used a commercial algorithm to attribute gender based on first names, and discarded records that could not be matched with accuracy greater than 80%. Reviewers have been invited and the peer review process is underway. Submission has been transferred to another journal, see How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? By using this website, you agree to our (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Eigenfactor Score calculation is based on the number of times articles from the journal published in the past five years have been cited in the JCR year, but it also considers which journals have contributed these citations so that highly cited journals will influence the network more than lesser cited journals. A test for equality of proportions for groups 1 and 2 for DBPR papers showed a non-significant result (2=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 (2=40.898, df=1, p value <0.001). 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. 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). So, in October 2018, we added a new . Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. The Editor has made a decision and requested you revise the submission. Submission to first post-review decision: for manuscripts that are sent to external reviewers, the median time (in days) taken from when a submission is received to when an editorial decision post-review is sent to the authors. Part of Help us improve this article with your feedback. Because the median is not subject to the . For further information, please contact Research Square at info@researchsquare.com. Brief definitions for each of the metrics used to measure the influence of our journals are included below the journal metrics. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Back to top. This status will remain until an Editor takes an action in the system to change the status, usually inviting reviewers. 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. At the point of first submission, authors have to indicate whether they wish to have their manuscript considered under SBPR or DBPR, and this choice is maintained if the manuscript is declined by one journal and transferred to another. Journal-integrated preprint sharing fromSpringer Nature and Research Square, Share your preprint and trackyour manuscripts review progress with ourIn Review service. To ascertain whether indeed any referee bias is present, we studied the acceptance rate by gender and review type. Article Tracking will guide you through the stages from the moment your article has been submitted until it is published. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. . 0000008659 00000 n Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. 8. 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. . 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]. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. In Review. We also performed logistic regression modelling with author update, out-to-review, and acceptance as response, and journal tier, author gender, author country, and institution as predictors. In this scheme, authors are given the option to publish the peer review history of the paper alongside their published research. Also, because of the retrospective nature of this study, we could not conduct controlled experiments. 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). Corresponding author defined. For this analysis, we used a subset of the 106,373 manuscripts consisting of 58,920 records with non-empty normalised institutions for which a THE rank was available (the Institution Dataset, excluding transfers) (Table4).
Steve Weiss Cnbc Holdings, Articles D