editor decision started nature

The EiC may have seen merits in your paper after all (or a fit, if that was the issue). Yet, given our limited reconstruction of the event history, we cannot confirm this hypothesis. Because it was sitting in my barn / shop for over 12 years!! Plotkin (2009) in laying out the basis of the editorial management system used in our case patented a process for computer implemented manuscript review and described a prototypical journal peer review process. journals - All Reviewers Assigned : Nature Communications revised The reviewer comments were very helpful to improve the quality of our work, and also the editor was helpful and responsive. Christin (2020) coined the term algorithmic refraction aiming at bypassing algorithmic opacity to address drawing conclusions under the circumstances of incomplete information. [CDATA[// >Editorial process : Nature Support The production process after acceptance, however, was very annoying and involved a lot of back and forth with Nature's production team, which also caused a rather long delay between acceptance and publication. resubmitnoveltyresubmit, 4. [2] [3] It has 193 member states and 12 associate members, [4] as well as partners in the non . 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). 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. The given network cannot be completely chaotic, instead some structure must be there but need sharpening. [CDATA[> Before the decision, basically two things can happen (see Figure 5). You should hear back within a week or two. The editorial process as depicted in the patent (from: Plotkin (2009)). [CDATA[> We devote our program to one of the most scathing and insightful indictments of the modern-day corporate media, particularly their subservience to power centers and how they eagerly spread disinformation campaigns in service to that power. Hence, the infrastructure must offer its users a high degree of freedom regarding what they do next. With editor (Decision Letter Being PreparedReviewers invited) Decision Letter Being Prepared Reviewer (s) invited Under review decline 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. ]]> To obtain The actions are attributed with manuscripts they belong to, and points in time when they were carried out, which is why we are able to infer the order of actions, choices at forks and pace of the process. 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. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. ~. Year Publication Started 2016 *Crowdsourced data. Editor's decision in Nature and under review in Research Square The strong presence of observational events underlines the property of editorial management systems being a knowledge based infrastructure enhancing the editors competence rather than only being a small tool. Reviewers read the manuscript and submit their reports. 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)). If your manuscript is rejected by the editor without the peer-reviewed process, please share with the community how many days you got the rejection email from the editor's office. Recently, it has been established that in a minimal case, the peer review process is comprised of postulation, consultation, decision and administration. nature immunology about the editors About the Editors Like the other Nature titles, Nature Immunology has no external editorial board. Decline publication, typically on grounds of either there being insufficient support for the conclusions or a reassessment of the level of interest or advance in light of the reviewers' comments. With respect to the tasks the editor performs, we can see that the editor is the most powerful actor in the process as represented in the traces of digital infrastructures as opposed to a more automated process powered by the infrastructure. An official website of the United States government. 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). If authors prefer not to make the review history of their paper at Nature Microbiology known to a new journal, they should not use the transfer service and they should make a new submission instead; the editors will evaluate the paper without reference to the previous review process. Also Revision Received (N = 2,498) was attributed to postulation representing a renewed claim of the author; and Halted Manuscript Deleted (N = 3,380) as this was triggered mainly by the authors. Register for comprehensive research tips and expert advice on English writing, journal publishing, good publication practices, trends in publishing, and a lot more. Yet, little is actually known about how the peer review process is practiced and how it is supported through administrative procedures, such as how reviewers are invited (Bs, 1998), how reviews are maintained, or decisions are communicated; activities which might be considered administrative in the first place. Editor assignment or invitation Based on the topic of the manuscript and suggestions by the authors, an editor is assigned to handle the manuscript. What does the status 'Decision started' mean? How long does an editor decision take? Read Editage Insights in your favorite RSS Reader. These different forms of actors can be best perceived as specified roles, describing and demarcating specific types of activity, that is, for instance, making claims (authors), handling and coordinating manuscripts (editors), evaluating claims (reviewers) and deciding about whether to publish a manuscript or not (editors). Editor in Chief, Nature. Internet Explorer). Exploring a digital infrastructure without actually having access to it is challenging. Lifting the curtain on editorial decisions - Springer Nature It appears that some of these calls presuppose knowledge about the complex interplay of actors and technologies in editorial processes. MDPI Asked by Sanjay Karna Scholarly journals invest considerable effort in maintaining peer culture by establishing close links to authors, reviewers, and (guest) editors (Weller, 2001). Also, there are no actions recorded without two person-IDs involved, which means, that automated actions, if recorded, must be included with person-IDs. 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. In the database entry, we would later discover this as a digital trace of the action performed. I submitted a paper in a journal. It's showing under consideration for The editor and the editorial team decide whether or not to send the manuscript out to review; the corresponding author is contacted with the decision. Either rejection or sending it out for review. We concentrate on the core process now and delete the now isolated vertices, thus reducing the core process to the main component of the network with 48 vertices and a density of d = 0.04. a cover letter that provides any additional information requested by the editors. We therefore deduce, that the participant group of none roles must in part be comprised of non-humans (i.e., the infrastructure itself). The original ideas and values attached to the system are expressed well by the developers of the technology, who, by aiming at facilitating the process of peer review, defined major entities and activities for administrating manuscripts. Invite the authors to revise and resubmit their manuscript to address specific concerns. Peer Review for Manuscript and grant Submissions: Relevance for Research in Clinical Neuropsychology, The Gatekeepers of Science: Some Factors Affecting the Selection of Articles for Scientific Journals, The Igraph Software Package for Complex Network Research, InterJournal, Complex Systems 1695, The Scientific Journal: Authorship and the Politics of Knowledge in the Nineteenth century, data.table: Extension of `data.Frame`. Editors decide whether to send a manuscript for peer review based on the degree to which it advances our understanding of the field, the soundness of conclusions, the extent to which the evidence presented - including appropriate data and analyses - supports these conclusions, and the wide relevance of these conclusions to the journals readership. While different studies about the roles and tasks of both reviewers and editors were published (Hirschauer, 2010; Glonti et al., 2019), editorial practices are only rarely investigated (Weller, 2001). In the event of publication, the received date is the date of submission to the journal where the manuscript is published. For some time, the manuscript items are actively maintained when they undergo consultation eventually, when they are decided about, and when the editorial decision is communicated to the authors and/or the manuscript is sent to production. After several rounds of revision, when the revised manuscript was submitted, the status showed 'quality check started' - 'peer review' - 'decision started.' That means, the first round is crucial to the manuscripts fate and, moreover, the preceding rounds might predetermine the shape of the process in the later rounds. Given that our data set is situated and that digital practices are related and aligned by the infrastructure, we follow the infrastructures and aim at studying how they structure and reflect the practices of its users. 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. More research would be needed in order to more closely reconstruct these events. 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. 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? 1 As we were aiming at identifying core elements of the process, we disintegrate the graph into components by deleting the passage points in descending order by size to make its meaningful components fall apart from each other. As Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) have outlined, differences in the governance of peer review systems become visible not only in how the process of peer review is transformed in a sequence of events, but also in how the different actors take part in this process and how they affect each others actions. LetPub Scientific Journal Selector (2018-2021), Nature Energy published in 2016, UNITED STATES. 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. 10.1038/512126a [Google . Why many editors of Nature have very poor research records?! How long should I wait for a response from the journal? 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. 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. 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 second possibility is the long decision path from "Manuscript Consultation Started" through external peer review to "Editor Decision Complete". One of the reasons for the rising significance of editorial practices is the increase of self-control of scholarly journals emerging from the digital transformation of the process induced by the editorial management system. Thank you for visiting nature.com. Secondly 2), we intent to gain insights into the ways editorial management systems shape or transform editorial practices, i.e., to explore the ways of how the technology has been implemented in the journal. All Rights Reserved. They can only choose to participate in it or not. Decisions are reversed on appeal only if the editors are convinced that the original decision was an error. on 30 Mar, 2017, This content belongs to the Journal submission & peer review Stage. unfortunately, the editor dont respond about reject and accept. (Bloomberg) -- U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson committed tens of billions of pounds for a controversial new high speed rail line linking London with cities to the north, despite soaring costs and mounting anger from his own Conservative Party colleagues.The High Speed 2 (HS2) development will become Europe's largest infrastructure project but it has suffered delays and criticism of its . What does the typical workflow of a journal look like? How should I In the patent, it says: A users role includes one or more of the following relationships between the manuscript and the associated person: author, editor, associate editor, reviewer, or staff member. (Plotkin, 2009 p.5). 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. 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). RETAIL ASSISTANT MANAGER (OPS) Opening At Talbots Located Within If the editors of Nature Microbiology decline publication of a manuscript, before or after peer review, the authors can easily transfer their manuscript to a different journal within the Nature Portfolio family by following the link provided in the editors decision email. How does the infrastructure support, strengthen or restrain editorial agency for administrating the process? And, as the digital traces show, the editors carry them out thoroughly. Moving forward, the MDIIM continues to work with faculty members, areas, and program offices to prioritize - and expand - integrated management pedagogy and to develop bold new . Editorial Process & Peer Review | Nature Microbiology .. The first possibility is the short decision path from Manuscript Consultation Started directly to Editor Decision Complete. 201451XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXXDecision---Accepted, 52012scientific, PRLAFMScientific reportA201220134a10, 20135a, , B20137b910bcdraftDraftAB20manuSI, nature4440nature physicstransfertransfer20Thanksnice., manuSIresponse letter20, 20Decision sent to author- Waiting for revisionWaiting for revision, , live manuPost Decision Manus (1)live manuPost Decision ManusPost Decision Manuslive manuManu under submission - Manu received - Editor assigned - Manu under consideration - Decision sent to author, NatureManu under considerationundere review, SCI, Bioart/FreescienceQQ, 201451, Final decision for XXXXXDecision---Accepted, 2012scientific, PRLAFMScientific reportA2012, 20134a10, 20135a, nature4440nature physicstransfer, 20Thanksnice., Manu under considerationundere review, . If you need any assistance please contact us at Author Support, or contact the responsible editor for the journal. Hence, there is no such thing as a uniform process put into place by a technology. 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. But in June 2022, the journal was removed from SCI indexing, what can i do, so much of work in it with two revsions taking more than a year,what can be done, Why is a PhD essential to become a peer-reviewer. D1ckChowder 2 yr. ago It could mean many things. As the case studied here shows, editorial management systems can be and are adapted to their context. Upon transfer, if the manuscript is assessed by the receiving journal to be a good fit and technically sound, it may be accepted without further review. In this principal depiction, the digital infrastructure of the editorial management system is presented to foster values such as timeliness and comprehensiveness. 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). While the elements provided are not always easy to distinguish empirically, it appears plausible to assume that they may reflect different roles in that process. The editor and the editorial team decide whether or not to send the manuscript out to review; the corresponding author is contacted with the decision. //-->UNESCO - Wikipedia 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. Before The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. How long do editor decisions take at Science/Nature? The network was then investigated iteratively, each descriptive step pointing to a new direction to follow and the insights gained were grouped together and will be discussed against each other in the end. They employ single-blind peer review, which means that the reviewers are aware of the authors identities unless otherwise requested by the authors. The other possibility, as you have correctly judged, is that the manuscript might receive a desk rejection. SCI---Editideas - It is clear from the status descriptions that your revised manuscript was sent for peer review again.

Aha Scientific Sessions 2023, Articles E