Thus, the heterogeneity of roles affected by editors shows their coordinating role in the process, due to what Reinhart and Schendzielorz have called the administrative practices of peer review. 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). After several rounds of revision, when the revised manuscript was submitted, the status showed 'quality check started' - 'peer review' - 'decision started.' If an appeal merits further consideration, the editors may send the authors' response or the revised paper to one or more reviewers, or they may ask one reviewer to comment on the concerns raised by another reviewer. 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. 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 .
What does "Editor Decision Started" mean? : r/labrats - reddit 1124. Before the decision, basically two things can happen (see Figure 5). Today, peer review is not only practiced to judge the quality and appropriateness of scholarly manuscripts for specific journals, but also to evaluate grant proposals (Reinhart, 2010), persons (such as in calling committees) (Kleimann and Hckstdt, 2021) or even research organizations (Rbbecke and Simon, 1999).
UNESCO - Wikipedia As was said earlier, the infrastructure understands the process along the stages, a manuscript version passes through. This characteristic of the peer review process we must consider specific for this publisher, according to our data, and not a general feature, as the editorial management software could also be used otherwise.
Scilit | Article - Grand Challenges to Launching an Ideal Platform for The editor contacts potential reviewers to ask them to review the manuscript. Nine events could be attributed to this category, the most important being the four decision events Manuscript Accepted (N = 1,711), Manuscript Revise Only (893), Manuscript Revise and Re-Review (1,540) and Manuscript Rejected (9,835). Batagelj V., Ferligoj A., Squazzoni F. (2017). The accepted manuscripts as well as those subject to revision are not processed further in this graph component. 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. 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. English Editing - Editage.com | Editage.jp | Editage.co.kr |SCI Editage.cn |publicao de artigos Editage.com.br | Editage.com.tw |Terms of UseforEnglish Editing Services. 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. All Rights Reserved. LetPub Scientific Journal Selector (2018-2021), Nature Energy published in 2016, UNITED STATES. The numbers indicate, how often a specific decision is reached for the respective version (the in-degree of the node). There are certainly technological and organizational models in play fundamentally altering the role models of both reviewers and editors. The publisher provided us with processual data from their journal management system during an earlier research project with a focus on evaluation practices and sources of biases in peer review. Katharina is a communications expert, science communicator, non-fictional book author and now Communications Director at the foundation "Gesunde Erde - Gesunde Menschen".<br><br>While earning her doctorate, she taught with a focus on cultural and media studies at the LMU Munich. Different to what may be expected by critical observers of digital platforms (Gillespie, 2015), editorial management systems do not always result in imposing pre-packaged models on scholarly publishing. That is why we also focus our structural analysis of the peer review process on this first round of peer review. To obtain manuscpt under consideration 40editor decision started~ The patent shows a limited perspective on the peer review process, rendering the system itself invisible as a component (see Figure 7). D1ckChowder 2 yr. ago It could mean many things. UNESCO. Research Square and Nature are two distinct publication venues. Article proofs sent to author 4. 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). The status 'Decision started' indicates that the peer review process for your manuscript is complete and the paper is now with the editor. 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. 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. Making an editorial decision. 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. Consequently, infrastructures may best be understood as manifestations of specific operations or sometimes even of a whole process (Niewhner, 2014, 6). 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. Additionally, source and target vertices were inserted to make start and end of the process visible in plots. FOIA //-->PLOS Sustainability and Transformation If the editor decides to send the manuscript to peer reviewers, they will contact researchers with relevant expertise. It also files who is affected by an event (Table 2). 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. This may as well reflect how editors take their responsibility as members of the scientific community. Yet, little is actually known about how the peer review process is practiced and how it is supported through administrative procedures, such as how reviewers are invited (Bs, 1998), how reviews are maintained, or decisions are communicated; activities which might be considered administrative in the first place. LetPub - Scientific Journal Selector | Nature Energy The performance of the editor can thus be controlled and evaluated by other stakeholders in the organization of the publisher. 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. Though many agree that scholarly publishing and peer review are social processes (Reinhart, 2010), investigations about the processes of scholarly publishing and peer review are rare, given that persons engaged in these processes actively resist investigation (Hirschauer, 2010, 73). If the manuscript has been peer-reviewed, authors should include a note explaining any changes made to the manuscript compared to the original Nature Microbiology submission, along with a separate point-by-point response to the reviewer reports. Whether digital infrastructures such as editorial management systems are transforming the peer review process with regard to these two tasks is hard to tell, given the difficulties of exploring the process. The editor-in-chief is primarily responsible for initial receipt of the manuscript and assignment to an associate editor. The EiC may have seen merits in your paper after all (or a fit, if that was the issue). We were allowed to analyse the data but not to share or publish the dataset.
editor decision started nature If we rule out automated decision making (which we elaborate on later in this text). 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). government site. Internet Explorer). These are considered appeals, which, by policy, take second place to consideration of normal submissions. 2 wormified 4 yr. ago A month sounds optimistic to me :-) 2 [deleted] 4 yr. ago [removed] riricide 4 yr. ago
Does the status 'Decision in process' without peer review imply If you're being encouraged to revise, it should be clear from the letter and reviews you receive what you need to do. Such claims are difficult to make given the limitations many studies on editorial peer review face. 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. The production process after acceptance, however, was very annoying and involved a lot of back and forth with Nature's production team, which also caused a rather long delay between acceptance and publication. In the subsection above, we have shown for first submitted versions that the drafting of decision letters happens mostly for negative decisions. var d=new Date(); yr=d.getFullYear();document.write(yr); Editors often communicate their decisions with individualised letters, putting much effort into decision-communication about non-successful submissions, which may show how they acknowledge authors individual pursuits of crafting and improving knowledge claims.