editor decision started nature

By

editor decision started naturedelgado family name origin

The performance of the editor can thus be controlled and evaluated by other stakeholders in the organization of the publisher. //--> English Editing - Editage.com | Editage.jp | Editage.co.kr |SCI Editage.cn |publicao de artigos Editage.com.br | Editage.com.tw |Terms of UseforEnglish Editing Services. 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. APA has partnered with LetPub to provide a full suite of author services. The biggest share 112,475 out of all 278,098 events filed in the database were triggered by editors, or, to be more precise, by actors assigned an editorial role for the respective manuscripts in the system. What does manuscript under editorial consideration mean? The identical numbers for both events indicate that they are released upon acceptance of the reviewer. 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. Reviews for "Nature" - Page 1 - SciRev . 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. //-->How long do editor decisions take at Science/Nature? While these activities certainly would exist without editorial management systems, the latter makes them more visible and suspect to monitoring and optimization, because they can standardize editorial practices. Peer review at scholarly journals, however, does also have a function in protecting scientific autonomy by safeguarding quality. How long does an editor decision take? How do I write an inquiry to the editor about my manuscript's current status? LetPub Scientific Journal Selector (2018-2021), Nature Energy published in 2016, UNITED STATES. This relates to recent research lines focusing on the stability and transformability of editorial practices by Horbach and Halffman (2020, p.3) arguing that existing editorial practices can be stabilized by infrastructures. 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. The reviewer comments were very helpful to improve the quality of our work, and also the editor was helpful and responsive. 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). Article proofs sent to author 4. 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. Asked by Sanjay Karna Reviews Submit a Review. We stopped disintegration at the iteration before the four different decision events Manuscript Rejected, Manuscript Revise and Re-Review, Manuscript Revise only and Manuscript Accepted fell apart from each other into different components. To identify important passage points in the network, we chose node degree centrality with respect to edge multiplicity. Some editors keep a paper for long time, more than 6 months or a year, without a decision and when send them a reminder message they do not reply or sometimes reply for the first time saying that . In the data used for our investigation, we see traces of actions and participant roles in different processes. 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. 10.1038/512126a [Google . So to reduce the noise and to uncover the core process, we deleted all edges, which had a multiplicity of less than 1% of the number of items. 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. Stage 2: Editor assigned. This becomes particularly apparent when comparing the implemented structure observed with the patent published in 2009 showing an increase in complexity: while the patent is fixed in time, the software has evolved. NatureNatureNatureNature Mater . Either rejection or sending it out for review. 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). The EiC may have seen merits in your paper after all (or a fit, if that was the issue). The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [a] is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) aimed at promoting world peace and security through international cooperation in education, arts, sciences and culture. Also, the process as described in the patent and inscribed in the software would be technically open to integrate all kinds of checks at this point even automated detection of content similarity with other papers as presupposition for plagiarism prevention. With editor (Decision Letter Being PreparedReviewers invited) Decision Letter Being Prepared Reviewer (s) invited Under review decline This service is available to authors at the time of decision or at a later time. Such heterogeneous uses influence and transform the infrastructure as an assemblage of situated digitally mediated practices (Horbach and Halffman, 2020, p.2), that is, practices which can only be understood in the context of their local usage (e.g., a specific function accomplished within the context of a specific journal). Talbots is a leading omni-channel specialty retailer of women's clothing, shoes and accessories. In other words, events can be thought of as the ways of how activities are conceived by the infrastructure. These last three events were in the majority of the cases not recorded as triggered by the authors, but by the none role, displaying their additional observational or administrative character. Bethesda, MD 20894, Web Policies (2021). Established in 1947, the company is known for modern classic style that's both tim Sometimes they are more busy. . [CDATA[> 1124. Peer reviewers are assigned to manuscripts, reviewers recommendations are considered and the fate of a manuscript is decided about by the editor. FOIA This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). 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. Also, the communication about the decision remains clearly in the editors hands, showing responsibility for the interaction with the scientific community. 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. What does editor decision started mean nature? They can only choose to participate in it or not. Yet, in our data set, we also found events that reach beyond administrative activities, because they document pace, effectiveness, or quality of the process or the item (the manuscript), thus enabling quality control and supervision of the whole process, which we label observational elements. 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 . 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. Confirm that you would also like to sign up for free personalized email coaching for this stage. 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. What does a quick change from 'Under consideration' to 'Decision made Subscribe and get curated content that will give impetus to your research paper. Manuscript submission under review | Student Doctor Network This is supported by the process sequence empirically showing regularities but being very open in principle. 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. German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), Berlin, Germany, 2 Does the status 'Decision in process' without peer review imply Professional Nature paper - Manuscript timeline : r/labrats - reddit In the majority of cases, at least two reports will be received which are broadly in agreement, making it possible to assess reviewer comments easily and reach a straightforward decision. 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. 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. For most of the analyses, a simplified network was used: loops were removed and multiple edges between the same two vertices were reduced to one. If it isn't, we encourage you to ask. How does the infrastructure support, strengthen or restrain editorial agency for administrating the process? Nature Photonics | Peer-Review Duration, Review Speed, Revision Process Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the . 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. 8600 Rockville Pike We are able to compare the elements and events described in the patent (Plotkin, 2009) with its adaptation at the publisher in question, where the elements of the process could only be identified by taking event labels, performing actors and sequence of steps together. 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). January 6, 1705] - April 17, 1790) was an American polymath who was active as a writer, scientist, inventor, statesman, diplomat, printer, publisher, forger and political philosopher. Digital infrastructures, as Gillespie (2015) argued, are not neutral, but intervene. Nine events were attributed to the administrative activities of the peer review process, according to Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) comprising processes, where postulations are received, their treatments are initiated or being coordinated. We also thank the editor and the two reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. 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). We found that there is no standardized role for automated processing or decision making: the digital infrastructure itself is not explicitly listed as actor in the patent, but is only visible in the digital traces. . 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. Yet, calls for reforms in scholarly peer review have grown louder particularly emerging from critics about biases in peer review (Cicchetti et al., 1992; Harnad, 1983; Bornmann 2005). Also, when we conceptually refer to the process, we write element or component for conglomerates of either actions or events which belong together. 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. 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.

Yvonne Kennedy Obituary, Articles E