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. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. Editors between Support and Control by the Digital Infrastructure [CDATA[> The edges carry two attributes: the multiplicity (how often two events occur in direct sequence in the items histories) and, as weight attribute for layout algorithms, the logarithm of the sum of durations between two vertices. Your manuscript entitled "xxxxxxxxx" has now been seen again by our original reviewers, whose comments are appended below. In total, 278,098 events were filed in the database. The editorial management system however, does not only record which actor with which role releases or triggers an event. Sorted by: 2 Usually they decide in less than a week after the initial submission. Our approach therefore is explorative; we aim at making these data accessible and provide early interpretations of their structures. 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. What do these status changes mean? APA has partnered with LetPub to provide a full suite of author services. HHS Vulnerability Disclosure, Help The status 'Decision started' indicates that the peer review process for your manuscript is complete and the paper is now with the editor. GUID:EFC9DCE3-3C9C-46E8-B28A-8E8EFE53517D, editorial management systems, peer review, process generated data, digital transformation of scholarly publishing, digital infrastructure. While focussing our analysis only on the case of one biomedical publisher, we may infer some more general observations for this realm of research. government site. One issue for discussion in that process is the role of the editor. How much time does the scientific journal 'Nature' take from - Quora On the other hand, the editors decisions are stored in four different elements. 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. Answer: From the different status descriptions, it seems that the manuscript has not been sent for peer review. Also, infrastructures in science such as editorial management systems are embedded in highly structured practices, such as the selection of reviewers, formats for presenting and evaluating manuscripts from which they cannot be separated. More specifically, we hence thirdly 3), also aim at exploring as to whether one can find traces of automated decision making, something which could more radically alter editorial peer review and scholarly publishing. We started our empirical analysis following the conceptual heuristics of Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020), who provided elements of a minimal and maximum model of the peer review process. What does editor decision started mean nature? Decoding the decision letter - Cell Furthermore, the following events were attributed to postulation: Manuscript File Added (N = 6,356), Manuscript File Replaced (N = 3,261) and Manuscript Withdrawn (N = 228), the latter being attributed to postulation because authors can decide as to whether they want to keep or withdraw their claim. Share Improve this answer Follow answered Jul 2, 2014 at 10:14 user18118 21 1 Add a comment 0 .. . Boris Johnson Backs $129 Billion HS2 U.K. Rail Plan Despite Rising Costs How does the infrastructure support, strengthen or restrain the editors agency for administrating the process? Hence, the infrastructure must offer its users a high degree of freedom regarding what they do next. Nature (journal) - Wikipedia 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). 2017-07-13 11:21. We also thank the editor and the two reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. Editor in Chief, Nature. Is there any regulation for enforcing he editor for appropriate reply about accept or reject? Some authors ask the editors to reconsider a rejection decision. 1 A pre-screening of our data showed that the first round of peer review differs from the subsequent ones. This underlines the strong position and great responsibility of the editor. The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frma.2021.747562/full#supplementary-material, National Library of Medicine 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. In the second category, which Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) have called consultation, we subsumed nine events, which are mainly performed by editors, reviewers and none roles. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the 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. Nine events could be attributed to this category, the most important being the four decision events Manuscript Accepted (N = 1,711), Manuscript Revise Only (893), Manuscript Revise and Re-Review (1,540) and Manuscript Rejected (9,835). 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. This category is comprised of Waiting for Editor Assignment (N = 14,261), Waiting for Potential Referee Assignment (N = 12,976), Waiting to Send Decision to Author (N = 5,796), Waiting for Revision (N = 2,612), Waiting for Author Approval of Converted Files (N = 898) and Potential Referees Waited too Long (N = 610). The complete network is comprised of 72 vertices and 221,287 edges. Motivation: Altogether, this was a positive experience. While they draw in their examples from grant peer review, they explicitly claim their depiction to enable comparative analyses of different peer review processes along the elements of a minimal process: postulation, consultation, decision and administration. sciencenature - In this specific case, however, the practices related to the technology support the principle of an editor centred system in the peer review process. Professional Based on Nature's website it looks like the editor sends a letter regardless of the decision so your editor is probably just writing the decision and it could be anything from accept without revision (hopefully) all the way to reject without reconsideration. If the manuscript is transferred, the original reviewer reports and identities will be shared with the receiving journal (with the exception of transfers to the npj Series and Scientific Reports). The editor-in-chief is primarily responsible for initial receipt of the manuscript and assignment to an associate editor. The patented process is implemented as software, which is then adapted locally to the journals and publishers needs, taking stock of the diversity of scholarly publishing. 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. 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. For instance, 10,522 events triggered by editors affect referees. editor decision started under consideration. 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. . The editorial process as depicted in the patent (from: Plotkin (2009)). The manuscript and associated materials are checked for quality and completeness by the journals editorial assistant. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. Nature Photonics | Peer-Review Duration, Review Speed, Revision Process Editorial management systems may be understood as aiming at representing such abstract roles and processual elements. About MDIIM | Desautels Faculty of Management - McGill University If we rule out automated decision making (which we elaborate on later in this text). Assistant Editor MDPI minor revisions5major revisions1030 Making an editorial decision. Our goal in posing these questions is to gain insights into how novel editorial management systems change or stabilize knowledge production. It is not our goal, however, to make a life cycle analysis of manuscripts at this publisher. 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. If this is nature group and it is "editor decision started" then it means the editor did something, including receiving a review report or selecting a new reviewer (from what I have experienced) Why are papers rejected? 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. For our last submission the decision took 25 days for which the editor apologized. Similarly, disputes on factual issues need not be resolved unless they would have altered the final decision to publish or not. To obtain Review Started and Potential Referees Accept were mostly performed by the reviewer and achieved the highest frequency (both had N = 8,937). 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. The use of editorial management systems as digital infrastructures for the management of collaboration hence requires processual knowledge about the peer review process. resubmitnoveltyappeal, Resubmitpoint-by-pointresponse letterresubmitresponse letterresubmitresponse letternature, Proofreadingresubmit, Proofreadinglicence to publish, NatureNatureNature, wileynature science, Nature CommunicationsNatureNature CommunicationsPeer-review, Nature Communicationstransparent peer-reviewgetNature Communicationsget50%Nature Communicaitons, sciencenature. Nevertheless, our approach leads to methodological questions of digital inquiries. Talbots is a leading omni-channel specialty retailer of women's clothing, shoes and accessories. The most interesting component of the disintegrated network was, of course, the one which included the four decision events. Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. The editor-infrastructure compound while overseeing the whole process can only distinguish the other three components from each other, but cannot discriminate the administration. Bethesda, MD 20894, Web Policies According to Guston (2001), there is a social contract granting autonomy and self-regulation to science only if scientific quality and productivity is ensured. 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. Exploring a digital infrastructure without actually having access to it is challenging. Register for comprehensive research tips and expert advice on English writing, journal publishing, good publication practices, trends in publishing, and a lot more. . The data stem from the editorial management system eJournalPress and the focal data used here are the history-information of 14,392 manuscript files referring to 17,109 manuscript versions processed in the years 2011 and 2015 in the infrastructure for four of the publishers journals, which depict the manuscript life cycle from the infrastructures point of view. Based on the Nature Methods Review Speed Feedback System, it takes editor 146.00 days to accept manuscript. D1ckChowder 2 yr. ago It could mean many things. 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. The editor contacts the author with the decision. LetPub Scientific Journal Selector (2018-2021), Nature Energy published in 2016, UNITED STATES. As the case studied here shows, editorial management systems can be and are adapted to their context. At the same time, they emphasize a power perspective with regard to different degrees of involvement for actors, their role and participant status. For the investigation of actions with regard to the different roles in the process, the whole dataset was used. Abstract: Symbiotic microorganisms are omnipresent in nature, ubiquitously associated with animals, plants, fungi, protists, and all other life forms including humans, ranging fro This procedure is followed by most journals. Wickham H., Averick M., Bryan J., Chang W., McGowan L., Franois R., et al. Also, there are no actions recorded without two person-IDs involved, which means, that automated actions, if recorded, must be included with person-IDs. As editors, our aim is to send you a decision that will give you the best advice we can about how to move forward to get your work published. Yet, given our limited reconstruction of the event history, we cannot confirm this hypothesis. This means that a manuscript will usually loop through the review process more than once, depending on the editorial decisionin our case up to six times. Before the decision, basically two things can happen (see Figure 5). 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 . The decision is framed by Editor Decision Started (N = 6,215, triggered often by the reviewer) and Editor Decision Complete (N = 13,973)the difference in size indicates, that the editors decision can happen directly without external consultation. Also, the review-process is partly made transparent ex-post, expressed by the fact that published papers are accompanied by online supplementary material comprised of the reviewers comments, editorial decision letters and communication between authors and editorial office, unless otherwise requested by the authors. 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. official website and that any information you provide is encrypted 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. In this principal depiction, the digital infrastructure of the editorial management system is presented to foster values such as timeliness and comprehensiveness. 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. 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. The focus on establishing agreement of at least the majority or the supermajority and avoiding unproductive opinion differentiates consensus from unanimity, which requires .