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. Reviewers are notidentified to the authors, except at the request of the reviewer. From an organizational perspective, the documentation of these events allows for carefully reconstructing and justifying difficult decisions, but it could also provide more insights into what happens at this stage of the process. 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. In return, authors and reviewers experience less surveillance by the system, because only few formalized actions are recorded from them, because the system is clearly editor-centred. All Rights Reserved. We therefore deduce, that the participant group of none roles must in part be comprised of non-humans (i.e., the infrastructure itself). Magdalena is a geneticist by training and has considerable editorial and publishing experience: having started in Nature Publishing Group in 2001, she was Chief Editor of Nature Reviews Genetics, Senior Editor for genetics and genomics at Nature, and more recently Executive Editor for the Nature Partner Journals. This relates to recent research lines focusing on the stability and transformability of editorial practices by Horbach and Halffman (2020, p.3) arguing that existing editorial practices can be stabilized by infrastructures. If you need any assistance please contact us at Author Support, or contact the responsible editor for the journal. On occasion, particularly if the editors feel that additional technical expertise is needed to make a decision, they may obtain advice from additional reviewers. Consequently, infrastructures may best be understood as manifestations of specific operations or sometimes even of a whole process (Niewhner, 2014, 6). One of the core areas witnessing the introduction of digital tools is the realm of scientific publishing and peer review in particular (Jubb, 2015, pp.16). 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. Answer: It is clear from the status descriptions that your revised manuscript was sent for peer review again. 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 . How long should I wait for a response from the journal? According to Guston (2001), there is a social contract granting autonomy and self-regulation to science only if scientific quality and productivity is ensured. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Authors may suggest reviewers; these suggestions are often helpful, although they are not always followed. Internet Explorer). Giving Bolivian Women As Gift ideas When Trigidia Jimnez started to provide caahua, it was only for private consumption in Bolivia, but today it's produced and offered by more than 1,500 households. 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). While we do not have empirical material about the interpretations of the process by the actors themselves, processual data and the sequences of events may at least allow for abductive reasoning about how the editorial role is structured, and, in light of the literature about peer review, transformed, by using the infrastructure. Instead, all editorial decisions are made by a. 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. HHS Vulnerability Disclosure, Help According to Mendona (2017), they are designed to perform the management of manuscripts from submission to final decision, offering greater control, automation and logging of processes that were once manually done. How long does an editor decision take? The study has several implications on the study of publishing practices and processes addressed in the article collection about Change and Innovation in Manuscript Peer Review it is part of. 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). On the other hand, the users of type editor seem to have much leeway regarding which tasks they choose to perform in which order, hence the empirical process network has so many different edges. Mrowinski M. J., Fronczak A., Fronczak P., Nedic O., Ausloos M. (2016). . No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Accessibility This document provides an outline of the editorial process involved in publishing a scientific paper (Article) in Nature, and describes how manuscripts are handled by editors between submission. To obtain 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. By exploring process generated data from a publishers editorial management system, we investigate the ways by which the digital infrastructure is used and how it represents the different realms of the process of peer review. This network turned out to be relatively complex with 72 nodes and 623 edges, and relatively dense (with d = 0.12), which means, that 12 percent of all theoretically possible edges occur empirically. The editorial process as depicted in the patent (from: Plotkin (2009)). The reviewer comments were very helpful to improve the quality of our work, and also the editor was helpful and responsive. 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. 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. 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). 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. Research Square and Nature are two distinct publication venues. We concentrate on the core process now and delete the now isolated vertices, thus reducing the core process to the main component of the network with 48 vertices and a density of d = 0.04. ]]> resubmitnoveltyresubmit, 4. 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. What does the status 'under editor evaluation' mean? It is not our goal, however, to make a life cycle analysis of manuscripts at this publisher. What is the meaning of "decision in process" status? Hence, peer review processes at scholarly journals can be perceived as community work with the aim to establish consistent and sustainable networks between all actors involved. It has been stated that such infrastructures are also a source for negotiating innovations in peer review, as the system plays a major role in connecting and coordinating the various editorial practices (Horbach and Halffman, 2020, p.11). Empirically, a panoply of orders occur in the manuscript histories, which means that for most of the stages, it is not predetermined in the systems implementation what happens next in the process. If we rule out automated decision making (which we elaborate on later in this text). 117. The identical numbers for both events indicate that they are released upon acceptance of the reviewer. One issue for discussion in that process is the role of the editor. We did not categorize the source and target nodes as they were introduced throughout our analysis and not created by the system in the first place. Although editorial management systems have been introduced in the dawn of the current millenium, research about process generated data from these systems within scholarly journals has to the best of our knowledge not been published so far. After noise-reduction, a core component emerges. This procedure is followed by most journals. We also thank the editor and the two reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. Please share with the community how many days the entire process took by the editor's office. After several rounds of revision, when the revised manuscript was submitted, the status showed 'quality check started' - 'peer review' - 'decision started.' This may show that the submission procedure is standardised, possibly making some forms of research impossible to submit. Sincerely Cite 1 Recommendation One. Cactus Communications. This matched with what we would have expected to happen: there are editorial decisions without peer review, which is also represented by the editorial management system. Also, the review-process is partly made transparent ex-post, expressed by the fact that published papers are accompanied by online supplementary material comprised of the reviewers comments, editorial decision letters and communication between authors and editorial office, unless otherwise requested by the authors. Further consideration may be merited if a reviewer made substantial errors of fact or there is significant evidence of bias, but only if a reversal of that reviewer's opinion would have changed the original decision. We found that the labelling of the events indicates that at least all elements of the minimal model of peer review processes are represented, that is, postulation, consultation, administration and decision. Innovating Editorial Practices: Academic Publishers at Work, Peer Review: The Current Landscape and Future Trends, Selection Criteria in Professorial Recruiting as Indicators of Institutional Similarity? Established in 1947, the company is known for modern classic style that's both tim In our study, we investigate editorial processes and practices with their data traces captured by an editorial management system. We thank Taiane Linhares and Nikita Sorgatz for help with data preparation. Yet, the analysis of processual data from an editorial management system may lead to research paying more attention to organizational issues of scholarly publishing, that is, practices related with maintaining and binding reviewers, authors and editors to a scholarly journal. The patent shows a limited perspective on the peer review process, rendering the system itself invisible as a component (see Figure 7). 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. The editor-in-chief is primarily responsible for initial receipt of the manuscript and assignment to an associate editor. . 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. 2 wormified 4 yr. ago A month sounds optimistic to me :-) 2 [deleted] 4 yr. ago [removed] riricide 4 yr. ago At the same time, they emphasize a power perspective with regard to different degrees of involvement for actors, their role and participant status. In other words, events can be thought of as the ways of how activities are conceived by the infrastructure. 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. The second possibility is the long decision path from Manuscript Consultation Started through external peer review to Editor Decision Complete. 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. 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. It also files who is affected by an event (Table 2). Is there any regulation for enforcing he editor for appropriate reply about accept or reject? If it goes for review, then it will be about a month before you get the comments. The operationalization and implementation shows specific interpretations of the peer review process as an organizational activity. We focus our analysis on editorial peer review, that is, processes related to editorial selection, management and decision making. 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. Either rejection or sending it out for review. The editor contacts the author with the decision. You will know soon. As the case studied here shows, editorial management systems can be and are adapted to their context. 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. Editorial contacts can be found by clicking on the "Help & support" button under. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frma.2021.747562/full#supplementary-material, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=data.table, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggraph, https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-116609, Manuscript identifier with version indicator, Role of person acting (relative to manuscript). [CDATA[> The preliminary analysis of events indicates that the editorial management system adapted in our case represents these activities with ample differentiation. Therefore we deleted the first nine passage points (including source and target). In the majority of cases, at least two reports will be received which are broadly in agreement, making it possible to assess reviewer comments easily and reach a straightforward decision. Reviewer selection is critical to the review process, and we work hard to ensure that the different technical and conceptual aspects of the work are covered. SHORT ANSWER. Learn more. Editorial decision making at Nature Genetics. Also, in contrast to what Taubert (2012) describes, we can assume, that the digital infrastructure in our case is not only imposed on the editors but is understood by them as a tool, which works otherwise, they could adjust the system configuration or even collectively demand to abolish it. These changes in the ways of how the infrastructure is used may alter the boundaries between different types of practices carried out within organizations handling peer review (see next theoretical section), and ultimately the editorial role as such. In contrast for our case, we hypothesize that the important things happen, where manuscripts differ from each other this means that the passage points tend to carry less information about the process elements. More research would be needed in order to more closely reconstruct these events. Received 2021 Jul 26; Accepted 2021 Sep 20. 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.

Travis Schlenk Family, Rent To Own Homes In Laplace, La, Articles E