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. Our approach therefore is explorative; we aim at making these data accessible and provide early interpretations of their structures. The editorial process as depicted in the patent (from: Plotkin (2009)). We only find Review Started and Review Received in this respect, but we have, based on the event history only, no information as to what the reviewers might have recommended. What does editor decision started mean nature? [CDATA[// > .. Therefore we deleted the first nine passage points (including source and target). 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. 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. FOIA While there are similarities between the different ways of using peer review, peer review for manuscript evaluation is specific in the way it is embedded within the organization of scholarly journals (Hirschauer 2004). Register for comprehensive research tips and expert advice on English writing, journal publishing, good publication practices, trends in publishing, and a lot more. 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. The journal covers topics including: -Lasers, LEDs and other light sources -Imaging, detectors and sensors -Optoelectronic devices and components -Novel materials and engineered structures -Physics of light propagation, interaction and behaviour -Quantum optics and cryptography -Ultrafast photonics -Biophotonics -Optical data storage 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. The editorial management system makes these different roles visible, by attributing person-IDs as authors, editors and reviewers to manuscripts. We therefore deduce, that the participant group of none roles must in part be comprised of non-humans (i.e., the infrastructure itself). Nature Photonics | Peer-Review Duration, Review Speed, Revision Process manuscpt under consideration 40editor decision started. Our goal in posing these questions is to gain insights into how novel editorial management systems change or stabilize knowledge production. Additionally, some events lie outside the categories of postulation, consultation, decision and administration as they indicate discussions. manuscpt under consideration 40editor decision started~ Authors may suggest reviewers; these suggestions are often helpful, although they are not always followed. (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, . Answer: It is clear from the status descriptions that your revised manuscript was sent for peer review again. What does the status 'Decision started' mean? | Editage Insights [CDATA[> [2] [3] It has 193 member states and 12 associate members, [4] as well as partners in the non . The following decision types are available: Reject; Major revision; Minor revision; Accept; Decisions are communicated to the corresponding author in a formal letter, along with reviewer feedback and any other requirements from the . More research would be needed in order to more closely reconstruct these events. This matched with what we would have expected to happen: there are editorial decisions without peer review, which is also represented by the editorial management system. When all the reviewer reports are received, the editors decide to either: If you are invited to revise and resubmit your manuscript, you should follow the instructions provided by the editor in their decision email. We found that there was a central vertex dividing the decision component in two parts: Editor Decision Complete is the demarcation between events before (review process) and after decision (decision communication). Sometimes they are more busy. UNESCO - Wikipedia 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? . Please see our guidelines for initial submission to make sure that you provide us with all necessary information at this stage. Answer (1 of 7): Most submissions are rejected by editors without review, and this should be fast - perhaps, two weeks (?). decision started . Before 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. Nature Scientific Reports | Peer-Review Duration, Review Speed, Revision 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. Decoding the decision letter - Cell In the data used for our investigation, we see traces of actions and participant roles in different processes. We did not use a clustering algorithm, because those usually are based on cohesion or distance metrics: they regard those parts of graphs as different components, which are only weakly linked or distant from each other, whereas nodes belong to the same cluster component if they are strongly linked or close to each other. Some authors ask the editors to reconsider a rejection decision. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Editorial management systems are perceived as an infrastructure in this work. If the editor is satisfied with your work, they will choose appropriate peer reviewers to evaluate your work, taking into account several factors including expertise, experience . Exploring a digital infrastructure without actually having access to it is challenging. 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. Share Improve this answer Follow answered Jul 2, 2014 at 10:14 user18118 21 1 Add a comment 0 Across all Wolters Kluwer journals, the average time that a manuscript moves through the submission process from submission to first decision takes about 30 days, and to a final . Editorial management systems are digital infrastructures processing the submission, evaluation and administration of scholarly articles. 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. Centrality is a relative measure, putting different nodes into an ordered relation. But instead, decision making and communication at the concrete journals under investigation clearly remain in the human domain. 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. Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant? I submitted a paper in a journal. It's showing under consideration for Picking the right philosophy of life is a vital decision, write Massimo Pigliucci, Skye Cleary and Daniel A. Kaufman - whether your a Stoic, an Existentialist of an Aristotelian. We aim to compare empirical process generated data with this idealized process provided with the patent, because the processual data reflect local adaptations and uses of these technologies emerging from concrete demands of authors, reviewers and editors in the configurations of a journal (Horbach and Halffman, 2019, p.2), but are at the same time also constrained by the initial definition of roles and processes set up by the developers of the technology (Krger et al., 2021). The patent depicts peer review as an ordered process with actions (such as sub-processes, documents and stored data) and bifurcations (see Figure 3). HHS Vulnerability Disclosure, Help At the contrary, however, events triggered by authors and referees only affect events with actors assigned the same role. Moreover, the characteristics of both reviewers and editors are explored to a significant extent (Hirschauer, 2010, 73). 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started Decision sent to author NZip for reviewers 2022.10.10 9All Reviewers Assigned109Manuscript under consideration 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. resubmitnoveltyresubmit, 4. Though many agree that scholarly publishing and peer review are social processes (Reinhart, 2010), investigations about the processes of scholarly publishing and peer review are rare, given that persons engaged in these processes actively resist investigation (Hirschauer, 2010, 73). We do this by comparing the model laid out in the patent for the infrastructure (Plotkin, 2009) with the empirical data generated by the infrastructure. (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 . Our original resources for authors and journals will help you become an expert in academic publishing. 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. 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). The reviewer comments were very helpful to improve the quality of our work, and also the editor was helpful and responsive. When the process is finished, the manuscript lies dormant in the database. 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. The most interesting component of the disintegrated network was, of course, the one which included the four decision events. How do I write an inquiry to the editor about my manuscript's current status? And, as the digital traces show, the editors carry them out thoroughly. Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable Associate Editor. 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. Currently there is so far no systematic analysis of the structure of practices in the peer review process. Yet, the digital infrastructure accompanies each and every step of the editor, supporting the editors tasks, which could not be accomplished in an equal pace and magnitude without it. 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. While focussing our analysis only on the case of one biomedical publisher, we may infer some more general observations for this realm of research. Read Editage Insights in your favorite RSS Reader. Internet Explorer). 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. 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. What does a quick change from 'Under consideration' to 'Decision made Nature Methods | Peer-Review Duration, Review Speed, Revision Process Comparisons with novel digital infrastructures (and their implementations) for other publishers with different peer review models are necessary in order to more systematically judge or reflect on the influence of these infrastructural tools on innovation or stabilization in editorial work.
Recent Car Accidents In Perris, Ca, The Proctor Family Inbreeding, Pima County Jail Inmate Services, Teleperformance Refer A Friend Program, Articles E