editor decision started nature

Answer: From the different status descriptions, it seems that the manuscript has not been sent for peer review. The editorial process as depicted in the patent (from: Plotkin (2009)). But there is a significant proportion of events triggered by actors with no role assigned (see Table 2). APA has partnered with LetPub to provide a full suite of author services. 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. What is the meaning of "decision in process" status? Article proofs sent to author 4. Though many would agree that novel practices relating to different platforms have emerged (such as, for example, social bookmarking sites), many open questions remain as to whether such infrastructures have profoundly changed existing processes, values or practices of knowledge production (Horbach and Halffman, 2019). It also files who is affected by an event (Table 2). The strong presence of observational events underlines the property of editorial management systems being a knowledge based infrastructure enhancing the editors competence rather than only being a small tool. Peer review at scholarly journals, however, does also have a function in protecting scientific autonomy by safeguarding quality. 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. All Rights Reserved. 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. . We devote our program to one of the most scathing and insightful indictments of the modern-day corporate media, particularly their subservience to power centers and how they eagerly spread disinformation campaigns in service to that power. Editors are often perceived as the gate keepers of science (Crane, 1967), distributing credit and reputation by deciding about papers to be published against field and journal specific values and criteria (Jubb, 2015, p.14). 10.1038/512126a [Google . Improve the chances of your manuscripts acceptance by learning how to prepare a manuscript for journal submission and handle the peer review process. Additionally, source and target vertices were inserted to make start and end of the process visible in plots. Your manuscript entitled "xxxxxxxxx" has now been seen again by our original reviewers, whose comments are appended below. The EiC may have seen merits in your paper after all (or a fit, if that was the issue). 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). We thank Taiane Linhares and Nikita Sorgatz for help with data preparation. 1124. Does "Under Review" mean that the paper has passed the editorial check? 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. Reviewers are notidentified to the authors, except at the request of the reviewer. January 6, 1705] - April 17, 1790) was an American polymath who was active as a writer, scientist, inventor, statesman, diplomat, printer, publisher, forger and political philosopher. 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. Glonti K., Boutron I., Moher D., Hren D. (2019). Based on Nature's website it looks like the editor sends a letter regardless of the decision so your editor is probably just writing the decision and it could be anything from accept without revision (hopefully) all the way to reject without reconsideration. 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. However, on occasion editors might consult with expert researchers when deciding whether to review a paper. government site. Based on the Nature Methods Review Speed Feedback System, it takes editor 146.00 days to accept manuscript. In our study, we investigate editorial processes and practices with their data traces captured by an editorial management system. Also, the database is, of course, more complex and stores lots of information from user accounts to e-mail communication, but our analyses refer exclusively to the manuscript life cycle. You could ask how soon they think they will answer, or give a deadline yourself, warning them that, after that deadline without having heard, you will submit the text to another publisher. Research suggests that editorial management systems as digital infrastructures are adapted to the local needs at scholarly journals and reflect main realms of activities. 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). (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 . 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. . Currently there is so far no systematic analysis of the structure of practices in the peer review process. 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. [CDATA[// >