Nevertheless, our approach leads to methodological questions of digital inquiries. Also, we have found that participants in the process (see Schendzielorz and Reinhart, 2020) are translated into roles in the digitalized process (see Plotkin, 2009) and implemented as person-IDs in the digital infrastructure, only the latter distinctly displaying the infrastructure itself as an actor. official website and that any information you provide is encrypted The categorization table is attached as supplementary material to this paper. What is the meaning of "decision in process" status? 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. Sincerely Cite 1 Recommendation One. The two additional source and target nodes make start and end of the process visible. The submission process is standardized through a web interface. Does the status 'Decision in process' without peer review imply Editors often communicate their decisions with individualised letters, putting much effort into decision-communication about non-successful submissions, which may show how they acknowledge authors individual pursuits of crafting and improving knowledge claims. How to write an email to the editor inquiring about the current status of my paper? This may show that the submission procedure is standardised, possibly making some forms of research impossible to submit. The raw manuscript histories were parsed from xml-files to a table and are rather simple in structure, but lack a documentation. The editor contacts potential reviewers. Furthermore, the editor is described as optional in the patent: The publishing organization can, optionally, assign an editor, monitoring editor, or associate editor to oversee the review process [] and make the final publishing approval decision. (Plotkin, 2009, p.4), but also the patent is open to an automated decision making. //-->Scientific Reports | Peer-Review Duration, Review Speed, Revision By making these processes visible and measurable, the pace of the peer review process is reinforced as a relevant evaluation criterion for scholarly journals and their editors. What does the status 'under editor evaluation' mean? 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started Decision sent to author NZip for reviewers 2022.10.10 9All Reviewers Assigned109Manuscript under consideration 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. //-->Digital marketing - Wikipedia 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. Answer: From the different status descriptions, it seems that the manuscript has not been sent for peer review. All Rights Reserved. Motivation: Altogether, this was a positive experience. 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. On the one hand, the observational procedures might help the editor to oversee whether other actors accomplish their tasks in time, on the other hand, actions of the editors are tracked as well. Your manuscript entitled "xxxxxxxxx" has now been seen again by our original reviewers, whose comments are appended below. Scilit | Article - Grand Challenges to Launching an Ideal Platform for The identical numbers for both events indicate that they are released upon acceptance of the reviewer. Some authors ask the editors to reconsider a rejection decision. The logarithm was chosen because the time between stages is distributed skew to the left (see Figure 2). The reviewers comments and recommendations are supposedly stored in the database at other places, but their content is not present in the manuscript histories they only appear as Review Received. 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)). These are considered appeals, which, by policy, take second place to consideration of normal submissions. Register for comprehensive research tips and expert advice on English writing, journal publishing, good publication practices, trends in publishing, and a lot more. Duration from Submission to 1 st Editorial Decision 50.2 days The average number of days from manuscript submission to the initial editorial decision on the article. Internet Explorer). How does the infrastructure support, strengthen or restrain the editors agency for administrating the process? Can I ask the editor to publish a withdrawn manuscript after acceptance? 2017-07-13 11:21. Established in 1947, the company is known for modern classic style that's both tim These representations on the one hand relate to the effort and the diversity of activities that go into scientific publishing (Taubert, 2016), but on the other hand, differences in the representation of peer review activities may also point to recent tensions in publishing as events indicating oversight or control may be expressions of commercial interest (Horbach and Halffman, 2019, p.12). Benjamin Franklin - Wikipedia What does editor decision started mean nature? Also, Manuscript Transferred (N = 995), Manuscript Ready for Publication (N = 1,705) and Manuscript Sent To Production (N = 1,694) are events covering the transfer of publications after the review process was completed, referring to their relationship with the publishing house and their facilities. Received 2021 Jul 26; Accepted 2021 Sep 20. Consequently, infrastructures may best be understood as manifestations of specific operations or sometimes even of a whole process (Niewhner, 2014, 6). Many journals now rely on editorial management systems, which are supposed to support the administration and decision making of editors, while aiming at making the process of communication faster and more transparent to both reviewers and authors. In the context of the editorial decision about publication, the inventors suggest: Alternatively, the decision to publish may be automated based upon a ranking of the review decisions received from the reviewers. (Plotkin, 2009, p.5). Editorial Decision Making at Nature Genetics Talk Authors as well as reviewers have no possibilities to bypass the system easily, as far as we can see. Yet, despite much research about biases in peer review, little do we know about the actual processes of peer review, and even less so about new practices and technologies supporting peer review (Jubb, 2015, p.13). Yet, given our limited reconstruction of the event history, we cannot confirm this hypothesis. In other words, events can be thought of as the ways of how activities are conceived by the infrastructure. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frma.2021.747562/full#supplementary-material, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=data.table, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggraph, https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-116609, Manuscript identifier with version indicator, Role of person acting (relative to manuscript). HHS Vulnerability Disclosure, Help Based on the Nature Methods Review Speed Feedback System, it takes editor 146.00 days to accept manuscript. However, digital infrastructures supporting peer review have been established to support decision making and communication in the process of publishing scholarly manuscripts (Horbach and Halffman, 2019), enabling the investigation of the corresponding new digital practices. Hence, a lower density in the observed network than in the patent would be more plausible for a streamlined process. The reviewer comments were very helpful to improve the quality of our work, and also the editor was helpful and responsive. In this regard, editorial management systems perform timekeeping, when they support and oversee the duration of sub-processes (Reviewer Waited too Long, Waiting for Authors Revision etc.). The figure shows the decisions for the original manuscript version (v0) and resubmitted versions (v1v5). Also, Editor Recommendation Started (N = 431) was attributed to this category. If you need any assistance please contact us at Author Support, or contact the responsible editor for the journal. Although, the latter sounds like a decision event, it is mainly recorded as triggered by the reviewers and is clearly located in the network before the decision. At the contrary, however, events triggered by authors and referees only affect events with actors assigned the same role. Our results may inform future studies and allow for making more detailed observations of the editorial process. The accepted manuscripts as well as those subject to revision are not processed further in this graph component. 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 site is secure. Peer reviewers are assigned to manuscripts, reviewers recommendations are considered and the fate of a manuscript is decided about by the editor. Thank you for visiting nature.com. Your manuscript is already in great shape but please go through our guidelines below that specify the correct formatting of your final resubmission to avoid delays towards formal acceptance. How much time does the scientific journal 'Nature' take from - Quora 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. SHORT ANSWER. The only aspect, for which we could not clearly reject the potential automated decision making was the Initial Quality Controlsupposedly a check for a correctly completed submission form. Reviewer selection is critical to the review process, and we work hard to ensure that the different technical and conceptual aspects of the work are covered. 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. In our case, the digital traces particularly point to the editors procedural choices. This data represents a full inventory of manuscript version histories for the given years and journals, covering all submitted manuscripts whether published in the end, or not. 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. We found multiple observations for each manuscript with a stage name, a time stamp and two pseudonymized person-identity numbers (hereinafter, person-IDs), in the system originally identifying individual users assigned to it the person who triggered an event and the person affected by an event (judging by the xml-tags assigned to the information). In the subsection above, we have shown for first submitted versions that the drafting of decision letters happens mostly for negative decisions. They can only choose to participate in it or not. As Horbach and Halffman (2020, p.4) have argued, such infrastructural systems of classification and standards constitute invisible mediators of action establishing templates () by which performances are compared and which define what one enactment is a performance of (ibid). ISSN 2058-5276 (online). This is known as a rescinding. Usually, the associate editor makes the publication decision (I'm sure the editor in chief can overrule this decision, but it usually doesn't happen). The reviewers further triggered Review Received (N = 8,672), First Referee Accepted (N = 2,766) and Review Complete (N = 3,222), the latter indicating that a consultation event has actually taken place. LetPub Scientific Journal Selector (2018-2021), Nature Energy published in 2016, UNITED STATES. If that assumption is right, administrative activities might indeed more closely be intertwined with what Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) have called observational activities (p.19), enlarging editors control on the process, but also putting more pressure on this role. According to Guston (2001), there is a social contract granting autonomy and self-regulation to science only if scientific quality and productivity is ensured. 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, . Consequently, the analysis shows how much organizational effort goes into what Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) have called the administrative parts of the peer review process to which this article pays particular attention. Our goal in posing these questions is to gain insights into how novel editorial management systems change or stabilize knowledge production. The status 'Decision started' indicates that the peer review process for your manuscript is complete and the paper is now with the editor. Editorial process : Springer Support The study has several implications on the study of publishing practices and processes addressed in the article collection about Change and Innovation in Manuscript Peer Review it is part of. Buying Bolivia Women | SDA Studio Kft. Instead, all editorial decisions are made by a. A pre-screening of our data showed that the first round of peer review differs from the subsequent ones. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the Different to what may be expected by critical observers of digital platforms (Gillespie, 2015), editorial management systems do not always result in imposing pre-packaged models on scholarly publishing. The .gov means its official. One issue for discussion in that process is the role of the editor. Assistant Editor MDPI minor revisions5major revisions1030 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. Yet, as Horbach and Halffmann (2019) have outlined, peer review as an institutional practice at scholarly journals has a far more recent history, beginning in late 19th century in scientific societies which established the first disciplinary scholarly journals (Csiszar, 2018). We found that the labelling of the events indicates that at least all elements of the minimal model of peer review processes are represented, that is, postulation, consultation, administration and decision. Empirically, a panoply of orders occur in the manuscript histories, which means that for most of the stages, it is not predetermined in the systems implementation what happens next in the process. In contrast, in the patent for our infrastructure, administration does not occur distinguishably in the process flow chart, but is distributed over the whole process making everything and nothing an administrative task. (Manuscript under submission->Manuscript received)->Editor assigned->Manuscript under consideration->Editor Decision StartedDecision sent to author->Waiting for revision, ->Revision receivedManuscript #A1Manuscript under submission->Manuscript received->Editor assigned->Manuscript under consideration->Editor Decision Started, . Lifting the curtain on editorial decisions - Springer Nature The latter means to us that while the system itself is hidden from us, we use what we have access to: traces of how the digital infrastructure is used. Surprisingly fine grained is the representation of the communication about the decision. The administrative procedures appear to be well covered by Editor assigned (N = 17,499), Editor Replaced (N = 561) and Secondary Editor Replaced (N = 333) as well as events indicating the contacting or assignment of reviewers: the editors choose the reviewers (expressed by Potential Referees Assigned (N = 10,888) and Contacting Potential Referees (N = 19,878)) and are informed about the outcome of their request with All Referees Assigned (N = 3,607). the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in 1 Review Started and Potential Referees Accept were mostly performed by the reviewer and achieved the highest frequency (both had N = 8,937). Its development during the 1990s and 2000s changed the way brands and businesses use technology for marketing.As digital platforms became increasingly incorporated into . Nature. . HANDBOOK: Keep calm and wait: A guide to understanding journal statuses, Keep calm and wait: A guide to understanding journal statuses. Stage 1: Initial quality check This stage includes checks on authorship, competing interests, ethics approval and plagiarism. Survey on Open Peer Review: Attitudes and Experience Amongst Editors, Authors and Reviewers, Die Regierung der Wissenschaft im Peer Review/Governing Science Through Peer Review. Manuscript submission under review | Student Doctor Network Whether digital infrastructures such as editorial management systems are transforming the peer review process with regard to these two tasks is hard to tell, given the difficulties of exploring the process. a cover letter that provides any additional information requested by the editors. Why many editors of Nature have very poor research records?! (2019). In the third section, the data and their preparation are described in more detail, elaborating on why a social network approach appears to be suitable for exploring relationships between events of the editorial process mediated by the system. Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant? 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. Brooke LaFlamme, PhD, Associate Editor, Nature Genetics Location: 10-11am, 13-105 CHS, Monday April 18, 2016 Abstract: The editorial and publication process at high impact journals, such as Nature Genetics, is often perceived as confusing and difficult to navigate for researchers.My presentation will provide an overview of the editorial process at . //-->sciencenature - Because it was sitting in my barn / shop for over 12 years!! In total, 278,098 events were filed in the database. . Receive industry news, advice from editors & gallerists, exclusive deadlines, entry to the best images occasions and more on a weekly basis. 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. Either rejection or sending it out for review. Accessibility In the data used for our investigation, we see traces of actions and participant roles in different processes. It is clear from the status descriptions that your revised manuscript was sent for peer review again. I have recently checked the research records (on ORCID, Scopus and Scholar) of Nature editors, I have also conducted web searches to trace their academic background, and I found that the. The first possibility is the short decision path from "Manuscript Consultation Started" directly to "Editor Decision Complete". How long should I wait for a response from the journal? In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles unfortunately, the editor dont respond about reject and accept. The editors of the receiving journal will take the reviews into account when making their decision, although in some cases they may choose to take advice from additional reviewers. If the manuscript has been peer-reviewed, authors should include a note explaining any changes made to the manuscript compared to the original Nature Microbiology submission, along with a separate point-by-point response to the reviewer reports. An official website of the United States government. [CDATA[// >