From the start of manuscript consultation until the editors decision: The figure shows that there is a short way (red) without external consultation and the long and complex way with external reviewers (grey). 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. Nature (journal) - Wikipedia The complete network is comprised of 72 vertices and 221,287 edges. 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. We were provided with data from an editorial management system by a biomedical publisher. Digital marketing - Wikipedia Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. What does a quick change from 'Under consideration' to 'Decision made Our results may inform future studies and allow for making more detailed observations of the editorial process. Decline publication, typically on grounds of either there being insufficient support for the conclusions or a reassessment of the level of interest or advance in light of the reviewers' comments. But in June 2022, the journal was removed from SCI indexing, what can i do, so much of work in it with two revsions taking more than a year,what can be done, Why is a PhD essential to become a peer-reviewer. 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. After the decision, four things can happen, but empirically, the four decisions can be divided into two groups (see Figure 6). To identify important passage points in the network, we chose node degree centrality with respect to edge multiplicity. Received 2021 Jul 26; Accepted 2021 Sep 20. Does the status 'Decision in process' without peer review imply Cactus Communications. 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). Careers, Unable to load your collection due to an error, This article was submitted to Scholarly Communication, a section of the journal Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. 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. 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. 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. Editors decide whether to send a manuscript for peer review based on the degree to which it advances our understanding of the field, the soundness of conclusions, the extent to which the evidence presented - including appropriate data and analyses - supports these conclusions, and the wide relevance of these conclusions to the journals readership. 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. This is known as a rescinding. The process elements postulation (P), consultation (C), decision (D) and administration (A), adapted after Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020), are mutually connected with each other, but seen by the infrastructure from the standpoint of administration. Thus, it is rendered invisible as distinguishable component. Peer reviewers are assigned to manuscripts, reviewers recommendations are considered and the fate of a manuscript is decided about by the editor. One issue for discussion in that process is the role of the editor. Additionally, source and target vertices were inserted to make start and end of the process visible in plots. You will know soon. About the Editors | Nature Immunology sharing sensitive information, make sure youre on a federal [2] [3] It has 193 member states and 12 associate members, [4] as well as partners in the non . If the editor decides to send the manuscript to peer reviewers, they will contact researchers with relevant expertise. 117. 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. RETAIL ASSISTANT MANAGER (OPS) Opening At Talbots Located Within 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). Making an editorial decision - BioMed Central For instance, 10,522 events triggered by editors affect referees. 2 wormified 4 yr. ago A month sounds optimistic to me :-) 2 [deleted] 4 yr. ago [removed] riricide 4 yr. ago 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. Therefore we deleted the first nine passage points (including source and target). Christin (2020) coined the term algorithmic refraction aiming at bypassing algorithmic opacity to address drawing conclusions under the circumstances of incomplete information. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation We use the perspective of the infrastructure by studying the recorded events it has created as a result of actions by different actors. 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. These different forms of actors can be best perceived as specified roles, describing and demarcating specific types of activity, that is, for instance, making claims (authors), handling and coordinating manuscripts (editors), evaluating claims (reviewers) and deciding about whether to publish a manuscript or not (editors). Answered by Editage Insights With editor (Decision Letter Being PreparedReviewers invited) Decision Letter Being Prepared Reviewer (s) invited Under review decline The performance of the editor can thus be controlled and evaluated by other stakeholders in the organization of the publisher. 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. 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). How much time does the scientific journal 'Nature' take from - Quora Many researchers, reviewers and editors do have opinions about the roles and responsibilities of both editors and reviewers (Glonti et al., 2019), some of which contradict each other (Glonti et al., 2019, p.1). and JavaScript. Again actors assigned editorial roles stand out, because their actions significantly affect actors with other roles assigned. On the other hand, the editors decisions are stored in four different elements. Accordingly, our process elements are strongly linked by the first couple of passage points, because they indicate states of transition. The categorization table is attached as supplementary material to this paper. The two additional source and target nodes make start and end of the process visible. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. One of the core areas witnessing the introduction of digital tools is the realm of scientific publishing and peer review in particular (Jubb, 2015, pp.16). FOIA 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. The graphic below shows how a typical manuscript goes through the Editorial Manager system, along with some of the terms used to describe the manuscript's status. Our contribution is organized as follows. If it isn't, we encourage you to ask. 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. An official website of the United States government. Nevertheless, our approach leads to methodological questions of digital inquiries. 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. [CDATA[// >