editor decision started naturesierra pacific industries news

What does the status 'under editor evaluation' mean? a cover letter that provides any additional information requested by the editors. At the contrary, however, events triggered by authors and referees only affect events with actors assigned the same role. In this specific case, however, the practices related to the technology support the principle of an editor centred system in the peer review process. [2] [3] It has 193 member states and 12 associate members, [4] as well as partners in the non . 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. Answer: From the different status descriptions, it seems that the manuscript has not been sent for peer review. 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, . The patent as well as the digital infrastructure aim at supporting the editor in their work. Empirically, we use digital traces from an editorial management system in order to gain insights into how the digitalized peer review process looks like. [CDATA[// >editor decision started nature How long does an editor decision take? - Studybuff D1ckChowder 2 yr. ago It could mean many things. The patent shows the components like postulation, consultation and decision as elements relatively clearly, but the component of administration is distributed over the whole process. Brooke LaFlamme, PhD, Associate Editor, Nature Genetics Location: 10-11am, 13-105 CHS, Monday April 18, 2016 Abstract: The editorial and publication process at high impact journals, such as Nature Genetics, is often perceived as confusing and difficult to navigate for researchers.My presentation will provide an overview of the editorial process at . For our last submission the decision took 25 days for which the editor apologized. Review Started and Potential Referees Accept were mostly performed by the reviewer and achieved the highest frequency (both had N = 8,937). . .. . . Glonti K., Boutron I., Moher D., Hren D. (2019). Decisions are reversed on appeal only if the editors are convinced that the original decision was an error. 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. My paper was published in a journal in 2021 october. Following an ethnographic approach to infrastructures, we reconstruct sequences of the stages passed by the manuscript, taking into account how long it takes for manuscripts to pass from one stage to another. nature~_ Manuscript submission under review | Student Doctor Network 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. The remaining network has only 96 edges and a density of d = 0.02, and a core-periphery structure becomes visible (see Figure 4, right). According to Guston (2001), there is a social contract granting autonomy and self-regulation to science only if scientific quality and productivity is ensured. This underlines the strong position and great responsibility of the editor. The operationalization and implementation shows specific interpretations of the peer review process as an organizational activity. 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. Histograms of sums of durations between successive events in the process: The distribution is skew to the left; the log-scaled distribution is better leveled (Remark: 14 durations of length 0 are left out in the logarithmized plot). What does editor decision started mean nature? In the database entry, we would later discover this as a digital trace of the action performed. The average number of days between the date of manuscript submission and date of receiving the editorial acceptance decision. The complete network is comprised of 72 vertices and 221,287 edges. [CDATA[// >LetPub In contrast, in our data, the editors play a major role, performing lots of tasks affecting actors with other roles assigned and there is no automated decision making at play, when it comes to the final publishing approval decision. Professional But, as Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) recently have pointed out, editorial work can also partly be considered as administrative, taking into account that peer review takes place in an organizational setting (ibid., p.18). The status 'Decision started' indicates that the peer review process for your manuscript is complete and the paper is now with the editor. 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. Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant? Some authors ask the editors to reconsider a rejection decision. The editors of the receiving journal will take the reviews into account when making their decision, although in some cases they may choose to take advice from additional reviewers. 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. Also, we have found that participants in the process (see Schendzielorz and Reinhart, 2020) are translated into roles in the digitalized process (see Plotkin, 2009) and implemented as person-IDs in the digital infrastructure, only the latter distinctly displaying the infrastructure itself as an actor. After the decision, four things can happen, but empirically, the four decisions can be divided into two groups (see Figure 6). How long time should we wait for editor decision on a manuscript? and Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher. As described above, to investigate the idealized process from the patent empirically, we constructed a simplified network from the recorded events for all 14,391 first-version manuscripts, in which the nodes represent the stages and edges are drawn between two events which follow one another. official website and that any information you provide is encrypted We use the perspective of the infrastructure by studying the recorded events it has created as a result of actions by different actors. Cicchetti D. V., Rourke B. P., Wass P. (1992). 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). You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. As was said earlier, the infrastructure understands the process along the stages, a manuscript version passes through. We stopped disintegration at the iteration before the four different decision events Manuscript Rejected, Manuscript Revise and Re-Review, Manuscript Revise only and Manuscript Accepted fell apart from each other into different components. The event information was further enriched with year of submission, pseudonym of journal, and by (pseudonymized) data about the roles (editor, author, reviewer or none) of the person-IDs with regard to the respective manuscripts. 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). Research suggests that editorial management systems as digital infrastructures are adapted to the local needs at scholarly journals and reflect main realms of activities. One issue for discussion in that process is the role of the editor. manuscpt under consideration 40editor decision started~ But instead, decision making and communication at the concrete journals under investigation clearly remain in the human domain. A significant number of events (11,866, to be precise) released by editors affect actors with none specified roles. Marres (2017) points out that by dealing with data from digital infrastructures, research agency is twisted: the data often prompt the researcher to their perspective and methodology, resulting in that digital research requires an at once critical and creative approach to method (p.115). 2 wormified 4 yr. ago A month sounds optimistic to me :-) 2 [deleted] 4 yr. ago [removed] riricide 4 yr. ago Recently Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) provided a scheme for analysis of peer review with special regard to its control function in a decision-making process for the distribution of scarce resources. Receive industry news, advice from editors & gallerists, exclusive deadlines, entry to the best images occasions and more on a weekly basis. Our original resources for authors and journals will help you become an expert in academic publishing. This is supported by the process sequence empirically showing regularities but being very open in principle. 2017-07-13 11:21. The disintegrated network consisted of eleven isolated components, of which 10 were consisting of three vertices or less and one component with 22 vertices, containing the decisions (see Supplementary Material). R Package Version 1.14.0. Consensus decision-making or consensus process (often abbreviated to consensus) are group decision-making processes in which participants develop and decide on proposals with the aim, or requirement, of acceptance by all. LetPub - Scientific Journal Selector | Nature Energy We preliminarily conclude that the partial perspective through the eyes of the digital infrastructure provides valuable insights into the peer review process, which are difficult to obtain otherwise. Its development during the 1990s and 2000s changed the way brands and businesses use technology for marketing.As digital platforms became increasingly incorporated into . For some time, the manuscript items are actively maintained when they undergo consultation eventually, when they are decided about, and when the editorial decision is communicated to the authors and/or the manuscript is sent to production. 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. We found that there is no standardized role for automated processing or decision making: the digital infrastructure itself is not explicitly listed as actor in the patent, but is only visible in the digital traces. All Rights Reserved. It is clear from the status descriptions that your revised manuscript was sent for peer review again. Does the status 'Decision in process' without peer review imply Abstract: Symbiotic microorganisms are omnipresent in nature, ubiquitously associated with animals, plants, fungi, protists, and all other life forms including humans, ranging fro the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in 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. In contrast, in the patent for our infrastructure, administration does not occur distinguishably in the process flow chart, but is distributed over the whole process making everything and nothing an administrative task. resubmitnoveltyresubmit, 4. 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. I submitted a paper in a journal. It's showing under consideration for What does the status 'Decision started' mean? 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. How and why to choose your philosophy of life IAI TV What does a quick change from 'Under consideration' to 'Decision made 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. The raw manuscript histories were parsed from xml-files to a table and are rather simple in structure, but lack a documentation. A closer look at process generated data allows us to explore which elements of the peer review and decision making process in scholarly journals are communicated and shared on a digital infrastructure, how the process of peer review is transformed into countable events and made visible. Hence, we draw from a growing theoretical literature on digital infrastructures from science and technology studies and also from literature about processes and practices in peer review from the social studies of science. They employ single-blind peer review, which means that the reviewers are aware of the authors identities unless otherwise requested by the authors. 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. If the editor decides to send the manuscript to peer reviewers, they will contact researchers with relevant expertise. The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.

Directions From My Location To Billings, Montana, Articles E