editor decision started nature

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). They can only choose to participate in it or not. If we rule out automated decision making (which we elaborate on later in this text). 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. Moreover, acceleration, control and efficiency have been main arguments for establishing editorial management systems in the first place (Jubb, 2015; Mendona, 2017), putting pressure on publishers and editors of journals to implement streamlined procedures. This procedure is followed by most journals. Hopefully, you will be informed of the decision soon. This procedure is followed by most journals. Digital infrastructures, as Gillespie (2015) argued, are not neutral, but intervene. We do so by making use of the internal representation of manuscript life cycles from submission to decision for 14,000 manuscripts submitted to a biomedical publisher. Hence, there is no such thing as a uniform process put into place by a technology. An official website of the United States government. The editor-in-chief is primarily responsible for initial receipt of the manuscript and assignment to an associate editor. Many journals now rely on editorial management systems (Taubert, 2012), 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 (Mendona, 2017). For this purpose, we use network analysis: the vertices represent the stages and a (directed) edge is drawn from one stage to another when it is directly following in one items history. 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. Given that our data set is situated and that digital practices are related and aligned by the infrastructure, we follow the infrastructures and aim at studying how they structure and reflect the practices of its users. Yet, given our limited reconstruction of the event history, we cannot confirm this hypothesis. After the decision, four things can happen, but empirically, the four decisions can be divided into two groups (see Figure 6). Our results may inform future studies and allow for making more detailed observations of the editorial process. To the best of our knowledge, our analysis is one of the very few quantitative analyses of these processes. With regard to roles and activities of the editor, there is support as well as control by the infrastructure. nature~. At the contrary, however, events triggered by authors and referees only affect events with actors assigned the same role. The raw manuscript histories were parsed from xml-files to a table and are rather simple in structure, but lack a documentation. Peer review at scholarly journals, however, does also have a function in protecting scientific autonomy by safeguarding quality. With respect to the tasks the editor performs, we can see that the editor is the most powerful actor in the process as represented in the traces of digital infrastructures as opposed to a more automated process powered by the infrastructure. All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Icons made by various authors from www.flaticon.com, Experiential Live Edit: How to improve Biomed manuscripts. Similarly, disputes on factual issues need not be resolved unless they would have altered the final decision to publish or not. 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. Professional Moreover, the characteristics of both reviewers and editors are explored to a significant extent (Hirschauer, 2010, 73). .. . Nature might offer the option to send a submission to Research Square so that it is made public (and time stamped) while still in the review process, but the only system which matters for their reviewing process is that of Nature. resubmitnoveltyresubmit, 4. manuscpt under consideration 40editor decision started~ 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. 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. Accordingly, our process elements are strongly linked by the first couple of passage points, because they indicate states of transition. 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. Your manuscript entitled "xxxxxxxxx" has now been seen again by our original reviewers, whose comments are appended below. . 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. We also thank the editor and the two reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. When we plot the network with Kamada-Kawai layout, the high network density causes the network to appear as a circle (see Figure 4, left) with no visually detectable pattern between source and target. 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. NatureNatureNatureNature Mater . If you're being encouraged to revise, it should be clear from the letter and reviews you receive what you need to do. 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. However, patterns can be observed, as to which stages manuscripts are most likely to go through in an ordered fashion. [CDATA[> 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. government site. Editor assigned (Peer-review) (discovery) (invention)novelunexpected) 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. Established in 1947, the company is known for modern classic style that's both tim Also Revision Received (N = 2,498) was attributed to postulation representing a renewed claim of the author; and Halted Manuscript Deleted (N = 3,380) as this was triggered mainly by the authors. (2021). Bethesda, MD 20894, Web Policies One possibility is that it will be accepted as is, which is extremely rare. . Review Time in Peer Review: Quantitative Analysis and Modelling of Editorial Workflows, Perspektiven der Infrastrukturforschung: care-full, relational, ko-laborativ, Schlsselwerke der Science & Technology Studies, Ggraph: An Implementation of Grammar of Graphics for Graphs and Networks, From Manuscript Evaluation to Article Valuation: The Changing Technologies of Journal Peer Review, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Peer Review Practices: A Content Analysis of External Reviews in Science Funding, Zwischen Reputation und Markt: Ziele, Verfahren und Instrumente von (Selbst)Evaluationen aueruniversitrer, ffentlicher Forschungseinrichtungen.