Against that background, the goals of this research are 1) to explore the structure of activities in the process of handling manuscripts based on insights gained from process generated data from an editorial management system, taking Schendzielorzs and Reinharts (2020) model of the peer review process as a conceptual heuristic. Valuable insights were gained from the categorization of events into the process element categories.
Dr. Katharina Weiss-Tuider - LinkedIn 2002 . Also, when we conceptually refer to the process, we write element or component for conglomerates of either actions or events which belong together. We use the perspective of the infrastructure by studying the recorded events it has created as a result of actions by different actors. Benjamin Franklin FRS FRSA FRSE (January 17, 1706 [O.S. on 30 Mar, 2017, This content belongs to the Journal submission & peer review Stage. Thus, it is rendered invisible as distinguishable component. These events document the time passing before a relevant step in the consultation or postulation, inasmuch as they control if editors, authors and referees perform their tasks timely. Scholarly journals invest considerable effort in maintaining peer culture by establishing close links to authors, reviewers, and (guest) editors (Weller, 2001). The focus of the patent is on how to facilitate the peer review process in a digital infrastructure. 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). 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. 10.1038/512126a [Google . We sorted seven events into this category (according to their labelling and the distribution of triggering roles), of which the event Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted is the event with the highest frequency in the database (N = 16,901), followed by Author Approved Converted Files (N = 13,978). 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. On the one hand, the observational procedures might help the editor to oversee whether other actors accomplish their tasks in time, on the other hand, actions of the editors are tracked as well. This underlines the strong position and great responsibility of the editor. 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. government site. To identify important passage points in the network, we chose node degree centrality with respect to edge multiplicity. The process sequence is very open in principle, but for a process leading from submission to decision, some regularity in the steps could be expected, that is, some nodes must be more likely than others to be passed and also, some edges must be more important than others respectively. In order to get more insights which kinds of events are represented by the editorial management system inside the above mentioned core component with 48 nodes, and adapted by the publisher, we analysed their frequency for the whole dataset and tried to categorize them according to the heuristic provided by Schendzielorz and Reinhart. Additionally, source and target vertices were inserted to make start and end of the process visible in plots. Digital infrastructures, as Gillespie (2015) argued, are not neutral, but intervene. The editorial peer review process for a single manuscript version is investigated from three perspectives: the perspective which considers the sequencialization (which stages are passed in which order) of the process, the pace (how long does a step take) of the manuscript during the process and the magnitude (how many manuscripts go along a specific path). 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. Peer reviewers are assigned to manuscripts, reviewers recommendations are considered and the fate of a manuscript is decided about by the editor. While the elements provided are not always easy to distinguish empirically, it appears plausible to assume that they may reflect different roles in that process. editor decision started under consideration. The multiplicity of edges expresses how often its ends occur in direct sequence in the whole dataset, that means, for all first version manuscripts together. If the manuscript is transferred, the original reviewer reports and identities will be shared with the receiving journal (with the exception of transfers to the npj Series and Scientific Reports). The performance of the editor can thus be controlled and evaluated by other stakeholders in the organization of the publisher. Answer (1 of 7): Most submissions are rejected by editors without review, and this should be fast - perhaps, two weeks (?).
Decoding your manuscript's status in Editorial Manager We were allowed to analyse the data but not to share or publish the dataset. 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. In the event of publication, the received date is the date of submission to the journal where the manuscript is published. Consequently, infrastructures may best be understood as manifestations of specific operations or sometimes even of a whole process (Niewhner, 2014, 6). The numbers indicate, how often a specific decision is reached for the respective version (the in-degree of the node). Secondly 2), we intent to gain insights into the ways editorial management systems shape or transform editorial practices, i.e., to explore the ways of how the technology has been implemented in the journal. This is known as a rescinding. Reviewers read the manuscript and submit their reports. How do I write an inquiry to the editor about my manuscript's current status? Cactus Communications. , Bewertung in und durch digitale Infrastrukturen, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, Digital Sociology: The Reinvention of Social Research, A Gesto On-Line Dos Manuscritos Na Profissionalizao Dos Peridicos. 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. manuscpt under consideration 40editor decision started~ In our study, we investigate editorial processes and practices with their data traces captured by an editorial management system. 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. The editorial management system makes these different roles visible, by attributing person-IDs as authors, editors and reviewers to manuscripts. You should hear back within a week or two. 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. According to Star and Bowker, infrastructures are used to enable, maintain and control collaboration among different actors (Star, 1999; Star and Bowker, 2006). Answer: From the different status descriptions, it seems that the manuscript has not been sent for peer review. Additionally, actions were recorded for person-IDs not having a role assigned for the respective manuscript. The two additional source and target nodes make start and end of the process visible. 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). 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. 2 wormified 4 yr. ago A month sounds optimistic to me :-) 2 [deleted] 4 yr. ago [removed] riricide 4 yr. ago 1.8+, SCI45, , , , , Editor Declined Invitation, Decision Letter Being Prepared , Decision in Process, , 5.Awaiting EA (Associated Editor) decision, lettercorrespondence, peer reviewdecline, in-house review, With editorrequired review completed, , Under ReviewRequired Reviews Complete, (naturescience), 90%, , , . The submission process is standardized through a web interface. The editor contacts potential reviewers to ask them to review the manuscript. Your revised manuscript should be submitted using the link provided in the decision email, and not as a new manuscript. Some editors keep a paper for long time, more than 6 months or a year, without a decision and when send them a reminder message they do not reply or sometimes reply for the first time saying that .
Editorial Decision Making at Nature Genetics Talk This could indicate two possibilities. 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. After the decision, four things can happen, but empirically, the four decisions can be divided into two groups (see Figure 6). 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). Also, the initial quality control of manuscripts, indicated by the events Initial QC Started (N = 14,499), Initial QC Complete (14,288) and Initial QC Failed (N = 418) referring to the submission (where QC stands for quality control and the relation of failed versus complete initial quality controls shows that this event is mostly independent from the decision category), can be attributed to that category, because it potentially would also allow for detecting structural problems in the quality of submissions, thereby informing the controlling of the process. GUID:EFC9DCE3-3C9C-46E8-B28A-8E8EFE53517D, editorial management systems, peer review, process generated data, digital transformation of scholarly publishing, digital infrastructure. These values and criteria can, for instance, be captured by studying aims and means of the patent (Plotkin, 2009) which serves as the technological basis for the editorial management system from our investigation. When the process is finished, the manuscript lies dormant in the database. As was said earlier, the infrastructure understands the process along the stages, a manuscript version passes through. If it isn't, we encourage you to ask. Nature 512, 126-129. The operationalization and implementation shows specific interpretations of the peer review process as an organizational activity. and JavaScript. Administrative practices of coordinating manuscripts, selecting reviewers and managing consultations are increasingly difficult to separate from observational practices without direct effect on the process, which can be, according to Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020, p.19), considered as relevant for controlling the peer review process.