editor decision started nature editor decision started nature

2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started Decision sent to author NZip for reviewers 2022.10.10 9All Reviewers Assigned109Manuscript under consideration A closer look at process generated data allows us to explore which elements of the peer review and decision making process in scholarly journals are communicated and shared on a digital infrastructure, how the process of peer review is transformed into countable events and made visible. Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the . How can we live a good life? Nature Microbiology (Nat Microbiol) In contrast, in our data, the editors play a major role, performing lots of tasks affecting actors with other roles assigned and there is no automated decision making at play, when it comes to the final publishing approval decision. In light of their advice, I am delighted to say that we can in principle offer to publish it in Nature, provided that you revise the paper to address a number of further editorial points. The focus on establishing agreement of at least the majority or the supermajority and avoiding unproductive opinion differentiates consensus from unanimity, which requires . Of major relevance for the peer review process is that it finally comes to a decision, based on consultation with internal and external actors. Events after decision with multiplicity and median duration show that editors thoroughly communicate about negative decisions. In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles .. . If it goes for review, then it will be about a month before you get the comments. Order of the process without and with noise reduction. Find submission status of your article / manuscript - Nature Support This procedure is followed by most journals. On the other hand, it has been argued that editorial management systems support the editorial role and reproduce or may even increase the instruments to regulate, administrate and ultimately control the process (Mendonca, 2017). As acquiring complete inventory data from not fully open peer review is very difficult, we used the hereby presented study to exploit more of the potential of the data. We focus our analysis on editorial peer review, that is, processes related to editorial selection, management and decision making. Sometimes they are more busy. 1124. It is clear from the status descriptions that your revised manuscript was sent for peer review again. In order to make such comparisons, we employed social network analysis with the events in the manuscript lifecycle as nodes which are connected through their relation in time. var d=new Date(); yr=d.getFullYear();document.write(yr); Recent research into platforms (Blmel, 2021) has argued that novel digital infrastructures are considered as agents of change for scholarly practices by incorporating several functions relevant for decision making and quality control. Such claims are difficult to make given the limitations many studies on editorial peer review face. We have shown in our contribution, that the peer review process in digital infrastructures is complex: We started from an abstract description of a minimal peer review process with four elements according to Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020), acknowledged an ideal digitalized process with seventeen positioned components according to a patent (Plotkin, 2009) and empirically found an open process with 72 events in it. The identical numbers for both events indicate that they are released upon acceptance of the reviewer. It has core editorial offices across the United States, continental Europe, and Asia under the international scientific publishing company Springer Nature. They enable, support or constrain some behaviours, but they can also make certain activities more visible and thereby more relevant than others, they pick and choose (ibid., 1). Centrality is a relative measure, putting different nodes into an ordered relation. 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%, , , . editor decision started under consideration. Accordingly, our process elements are strongly linked by the first couple of passage points, because they indicate states of transition. Consequently, infrastructures may best be understood as manifestations of specific operations or sometimes even of a whole process (Niewhner, 2014, 6). Lifting the curtain on editorial decisions - Springer Nature Please see our guidelines for initial submission to make sure that you provide us with all necessary information at this stage. 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? This indicates, that administratively, the ongoing process is only indirectly affected by the reviewers recommendations, but directly affected by the editors decisions. The editor-infrastructure compound while overseeing the whole process can only distinguish the other three components from each other, but cannot discriminate the administration. 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. - After several rounds of revision, when the revised manuscript was submitted, the status showed 'quality check started' - 'peer review' - 'decision started.' We also found the different realms of the peer review process represented in the system, some events, however, indicate that the infrastructure offers more control and observation of the peer review process, thereby strengthening the editorial role in the governance of peer review while at the same time the infrastructure oversees the editors performance. Thus, we bypass the (to us) opaque system, but can nevertheless infer insights about the practices and implementations of the peer review process in question. 1 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. Also, the database is, of course, more complex and stores lots of information from user accounts to e-mail communication, but our analyses refer exclusively to the manuscript life cycle. The main aims of our study are hence the following: By investigating process generated data from a publishers editorial management system, we aim to explore the ways by which the digital infrastructure is used and how it represents the process of peer review. All Rights Reserved. Also, the initial quality control of manuscripts, indicated by the events Initial QC Started (N = 14,499), Initial QC Complete (14,288) and Initial QC Failed (N = 418) referring to the submission (where QC stands for quality control and the relation of failed versus complete initial quality controls shows that this event is mostly independent from the decision category), can be attributed to that category, because it potentially would also allow for detecting structural problems in the quality of submissions, thereby informing the controlling of the process. Decoding your manuscript's status in Editorial Manager Because of combinatorial explosion, large networks can be expected to be less dense than smaller ones. They point out that taking into account different regimes of power in peer review processes as government requires exploring how interests are transformed into processes, that is, sequences of events and formalized activities (ibid., p.23). At this time, the AE read and evaluates the. //-->How long time should we wait for editor decision on a manuscript? and Interestingly, when Potential Referees Decline (N = 7,743), this event is mostly triggered by a none role, because declining referees do not have a role with the manuscript in question. Boris Johnson Backs $129 Billion HS2 U.K. Rail Plan Despite Rising Costs The site is secure. The editor contacts potential reviewers to ask them to review the manuscript. The figure shows the decisions for the original manuscript version (v0) and resubmitted versions (v1v5). round 1""nature nature metabolism. It also files who is affected by an event (Table 2). The use of editorial management systems as digital infrastructures for the management of collaboration hence requires processual knowledge about the peer review process. This led us to iteratively disintegrate the network by deleting the passage points. 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. Hopefully, you will be informed of the decision soon. What does editor decision started mean nature? Against that background, the goals of this research are 1) to explore the structure of activities in the process of handling manuscripts based on insights gained from process generated data from an editorial management system, taking Schendzielorzs and Reinharts (2020) model of the peer review process as a conceptual heuristic. In any case, not assigning a role to some actors shows that those are regarded less relevant for the editorial process by design. Peer reviewers are assigned to manuscripts, reviewers recommendations are considered and the fate of a manuscript is decided about by the editor. 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. the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in These values and criteria can, for instance, be captured by studying aims and means of the patent (Plotkin, 2009) which serves as the technological basis for the editorial management system from our investigation. One-click to visualize your research performance Researchain.net Nature Ecology and Evolution Submission Timeline & Revision Speed Duration from Submission to 1 st Editorial Decision 4.4 days The average number of days from manuscript submission to the initial editorial decision on the article. [CDATA[> Depending on the journal, the assignment may be done by technical staff, the journal's chief editor, or automatic by submission category or author suggestion. Benjamin Franklin - Wikipedia Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Also, when we conceptually refer to the process, we write element or component for conglomerates of either actions or events which belong together. 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). Research Square and Nature are two distinct publication venues. From the start of manuscript consultation until the editors decision: The figure shows that there is a short way (red) without external consultation and the long and complex way with external reviewers (grey). Editorial process : Springer Support One of the core areas witnessing the introduction of digital tools is the realm of scientific publishing and peer review in particular (Jubb, 2015, pp.16). Editing and proofreading services for a publication-ready manuscript, Customized service packs to match all publication needs, Expert help for all academic translation needs. AEditor Decision Complete, BManuscript Revise and Re-Review, CWaiting to Send Decision to Author, DManuscript Rejected, EManuscript Revise Only, FManuscript Accepted, GDrafting Decision Letter Started, HDrafting Decision Letter Completed, IManuscript Consultation Session Ended. How long should I wait for a response from the journal? 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. 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. Valuable insights were gained from the categorization of events into the process element categories. The status 'Decision started' indicates that the peer review process for your manuscript is complete and the paper is now with the editor. Editor assignment or invitation Based on the topic of the manuscript and suggestions by the authors, an editor is assigned to handle the manuscript. Sincerely Cite 1 Recommendation One. Either rejection or sending it out for review. manuscpt under consideration 40editor decision started~ editor decision started nature Answer: It is clear from the status descriptions that your revised manuscript was sent for peer review again. The editor decides about opening and closing the external review (expressed by Manuscript Consultation Session Started (N = 5,816) and Manuscript Consultation Ended (N = 2,010)). Hence, a lower density in the observed network than in the patent would be more plausible for a streamlined process. 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. Making an editorial decision. In the data used for our investigation, we see traces of actions and participant roles in different processes. 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. According to Mendona (2017), they are designed to perform the management of manuscripts from submission to final decision, offering greater control, automation and logging of processes that were once manually done. 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. We have also gained specific insights into how editors take their role in the peer review process seriously: despite automation of some administrative steps, decision-making as well as decision-communication remains in the human domain. With editor (Decision Letter Being PreparedReviewers invited) Decision Letter Being Prepared Reviewer (s) invited Under review decline The reviewer comments were very helpful to improve the quality of our work, and also the editor was helpful and responsive. 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. Stage 1: Initial quality check This stage includes checks on authorship, competing interests, ethics approval and plagiarism. nature~. The average number of days between the date of manuscript submission and date of receiving the editorial acceptance decision.