Editorial Process & Peer Review | Nature Microbiology After initial checks are complete, the manuscript is assigned to an editor, who reads the paper, consults with the editorial team, and decides whether it should be sent for peer review. 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 operationalization and implementation shows specific interpretations of the peer review process as an organizational activity. The edge widths show, how many manuscripts experience the respective evolutionary path. Digital marketing - Wikipedia 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 editor and the editorial team decide whether or not to send the manuscript out to review; the corresponding author is contacted with the decision. From an organizational perspective, the documentation of these events allows for carefully reconstructing and justifying difficult decisions, but it could also provide more insights into what happens at this stage of the process. For our analyses, only the internal representation of the process in the systems database was used, we did not investigate the frontend of the editorial management software. Nature 512, 126-129. What does "Editor Decision Started" mean? : r/labrats - reddit It can mean many things, if the status has been same since you resubmitted your manuscript then editor might still be waiting for all the reviewers to send the editors their review reports, in some cases when one reviewer is too much busy and needs more time to finalize his review report, editors waits for him to send his comments then they contact the author and make a decision on the basis . The focus of the patent is on how to facilitate the peer review process in a digital infrastructure. For the investigation of actions with regard to the different roles in the process, the whole dataset was used. GUID:EFC9DCE3-3C9C-46E8-B28A-8E8EFE53517D, editorial management systems, peer review, process generated data, digital transformation of scholarly publishing, digital infrastructure. Our approach therefore is explorative; we aim at making these data accessible and provide early interpretations of their structures. Decoding the decision letter - Cell We have no insights into how triggering and affecting is defined for the infrastructure but can only infer from the fact that the infrastructure registers the person-ID as triggering or affected from its limited perspective. A Comparison of German Universities and Universities of Applied Sciences, Krger A. K., Hesselmann F., Hartstein J. Also, it shows that there must exist parallel sub-processes (e.g., communication with different reviewers), which must, by construction, have been projected onto one timeline in the history dataset we were provided with. 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. Digital infrastructures such as editorial management systems allow for processing data about the submission, evaluation and decision of manuscripts in novel ways, taking particularly the velocity, role specificity and consistence of the peer review process into account. Boris Johnson Backs $129 Billion HS2 U.K. Rail Plan Despite Rising Costs How do I write an inquiry to the editor about my manuscript's current status? After noise-reduction, a core component emerges. LetPub - Scientific Journal Selector | Nature Energy Editorial management systems are digital infrastructures processing the submission, evaluation and administration of scholarly articles. 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. 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. Editorial management systems may then be interpreted as representations and manifestations of the peer review process which is itself an internal element of the self-governance within the sciences. Please note, this decision must be made at the time of initial submission and cannot be changed later. This underlines the strong position and great responsibility of the editor. 1.8+, SCI45, , , , , Editor Declined Invitation, Decision Letter Being Prepared , Decision in Process, , 5.Awaiting EA (Associated Editor) decision, lettercorrespondence, peer reviewdecline, in-house review, With editorrequired review completed, , Under ReviewRequired Reviews Complete, (naturescience), 90%, , , . 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. . What does the status 'under editor evaluation' mean? Also, there are no actions recorded without two person-IDs involved, which means, that automated actions, if recorded, must be included with person-IDs. sharing sensitive information, make sure youre on a federal 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). Our contribution is organized as follows. 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started Decision sent to author NZip for reviewers 2022.10.10 9All Reviewers Assigned109Manuscript under consideration 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. In the second section of the results, we aim at tracing the order of the events in the editorial management system. 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). , Bewertung in und durch digitale Infrastrukturen, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, Digital Sociology: The Reinvention of Social Research, A Gesto On-Line Dos Manuscritos Na Profissionalizao Dos Peridicos. Additionally, due to the full-time character of the editorial work, a high proficiency with the system can be expected, which is confirmed by the fact that the process in practice is not so very much streamlined but the principal openness of the process order is occurring empirically in the data. UNESCO. Before We did not categorize the source and target nodes as they were introduced throughout our analysis and not created by the system in the first place. SCI---Editideas - The manuscript and associated materials are checked for quality and completeness by the journals editorial assistant. Batagelj V., Ferligoj A., Squazzoni F. (2017). Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. This procedure is followed by most journals. While focussing our analysis only on the case of one biomedical publisher, we may infer some more general observations for this realm of research. Nature paper - Manuscript timeline : r/labrats - reddit They can only choose to participate in it or not. (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 . A pre-screening of our data showed that the first round of peer review differs from the subsequent ones. These changes in the ways of how the infrastructure is used may alter the boundaries between different types of practices carried out within organizations handling peer review (see next theoretical section), and ultimately the editorial role as such. Drawing from the theoretical considerations explained above, we first present results regarding the different roles which the editorial management system supports and enables in order to understand how the governance of the process is represented and performed by the editorial management system. Typically, events referring to what Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) have called postulation are triggered by the authors. on 21 Oct, 2016. 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. The editor is probably going through the reviews to arrive at a decision. 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. We also thank the editor and the two reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. (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, . Also, the communication about the decision remains clearly in the editors hands, showing responsibility for the interaction with the scientific community. Accordingly, our process elements are strongly linked by the first couple of passage points, because they indicate states of transition. 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). Journal decisions 6. Such critics also fueled debates about new forms of open peer review, as technological or organizational innovations are imagined to ultimately alter editorial practices at scholarly journals (Ross-Hellauer et al., 2017). More information about the manuscript transfer service can be found here. [CDATA[> This is partly caused by several automated steps present in the process, which can take only one second to happen. 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. Authors as well as reviewers have no possibilities to bypass the system easily, as far as we can see. Mrowinski M. J., Fronczak A., Fronczak P., Nedic O., Ausloos M. (2016). 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. Editor's decision in Nature and under review in Research Square editor decision started nature Also, there are only 29 directed links between the entities, resulting in a network density of 0.1, meaning that 10 percent of all theoretically possible edges occur. What is worth noting is that the content of reviewers opinions is not visible in the process, although the reviews are clearly processed by the infrastructure. SHORT ANSWER. .png //-->sciencenature - In order to make such comparisons, we employed social network analysis with the events in the manuscript lifecycle as nodes which are connected through their relation in time. My paper was published in a journal in 2021 october. In our study, we investigate editorial processes and practices with their data traces captured by an editorial management system. Valuable insights were gained from the categorization of events into the process element categories. You should hear back within a week or two. 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. At the same time, expectations that a stronger use of digital infrastructures would inevitably push forward innovations in peer review may be disappointed. 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. ISSN 2058-5276 (online). 1 The reviewer comments were very helpful to improve the quality of our work, and also the editor was helpful and responsive. [2] [3] It has 193 member states and 12 associate members, [4] as well as partners in the non . 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. Further, it indicates respect for the authors as sentient beings possibly frustrated about a negative decision. Talbots is a leading omni-channel specialty retailer of women's clothing, shoes and accessories. Answer (1 of 7): Most submissions are rejected by editors without review, and this should be fast - perhaps, two weeks (?). This dimensionality reduction probably obfuscates some properties of the implemented process, such as if it may have been acyclic in higher dimensionality, which we cannot observe any more, limiting the potential for our investigation. According to Guston (2001), there is a social contract granting autonomy and self-regulation to science only if scientific quality and productivity is ensured. Cactus Communications. Editorial process : Nature Support Scilit | Article - Grand Challenges to Launching an Ideal Platform for 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). Hence, there is no such thing as a uniform process put into place by a technology. This is exactly the reason why the digital infrastructure allows for the investigation of its users in so many different ways. 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. resubmitnoveltyresubmit, 4. I submitted a paper in a journal. It's showing under consideration for Moreover, the characteristics of both reviewers and editors are explored to a significant extent (Hirschauer, 2010, 73). When should you challenge an editors decision to reject a paper? Editorial Decision Making at Nature Genetics Talk journals - All Reviewers Assigned : Nature Communications revised Subscribe and get curated content that will give impetus to your research paper. 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. 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. 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.). Usually, the times vary from two to six months, but there is no fixed rule. Different to what the patent for the technology suggests, the actual use of the infrastructure may be particularly complex, revealing the difficulties in managing and maintaining collaboration among different types of actors. 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. If you need any assistance please contact us at Author Support, or contact the responsible editor for the journal. Glonti K., Boutron I., Moher D., Hren D. (2019). Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant? The institution of scholarly peer review as the main instance for scientific quality assurance appears to be comparably stable since more than three hundred years, despite several technical changes (Reinhart, 2010; Pontille and Torny, 2015; Horbach and Halffman, 2019). Nature Consensus decision-making - Wikipedia The EiC may have seen merits in your paper after all (or a fit, if that was the issue). Hopefully, you will be informed of the decision soon. .. . The idea to apply peer culture to science in order to protect the community of knowledge makers emerged in the Royal Society in late 17th century (Shapin 1994). Article proofs sent to author 4.