nature~_ German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), Berlin, Germany, 2 Find submission status of your article / manuscript - Nature Support As Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) have outlined, differences in the governance of peer review systems become visible not only in how the process of peer review is transformed in a sequence of events, but also in how the different actors take part in this process and how they affect each others actions. How can we live a good life? With regard to roles and activities of the editor, there is support as well as control by the infrastructure. . We focus our analysis on editorial peer review, that is, processes related to editorial selection, management and decision making. Editorial management systems are digital infrastructures processing the submission, evaluation and administration of scholarly articles. 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started Decision sent to author NZip for reviewers 2022.10.10 9All Reviewers Assigned109Manuscript under consideration What does "Editor Decision Started" mean? : r/labrats - reddit 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 . The second possibility is the long decision path from "Manuscript Consultation Started" through external peer review to "Editor Decision Complete". 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. 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. This led to a network of 623 edges with a density of d = 0.12. How does the infrastructure support, strengthen or restrain editorial agency for administrating the process? Confirm that you would also like to sign up for free personalized email coaching for this stage. 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. Cactus Communications. To identify important passage points in the network, we chose node degree centrality with respect to edge multiplicity. 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? typoresubmitstagedecision sent to author&, proofproofnaturepublish, ScienceNatureScienceScience, Editor assigned (Peer-review) (discovery) (invention)novelunexpected)The criteria for a paper to be sent for peer-review are that the results seem novel, arresting (illuminating, unexpected or surprising), and that the work described has both immediate and far-reaching implicationsnaturescienceBoard of Reviewing EditorsscienceBoard of Reviewing EditorsBoard of Reviewing EditorsnaturescienceBoard of Reviewing Editorsscienceconnection, 22, Peer-review, Peer-review, 2. The use of editorial management systems as digital infrastructures for the management of collaboration hence requires processual knowledge about the peer review process. 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, . Because of combinatorial explosion, large networks can be expected to be less dense than smaller ones. Your manuscript entitled "xxxxxxxxx" has now been seen again by our original reviewers, whose comments are appended below. Our contribution is organized as follows. Research Square and Nature are two distinct publication venues. Hence, the infrastructure must offer its users a high degree of freedom regarding what they do next. Our results may inform future studies and allow for making more detailed observations of the editorial process. a cover letter that provides any additional information requested by the editors. Nature 512, 126-129. Rather, we intend to infer editorial practices from these sequences which may jointly emerge from the editors actions and the infrastructure, being aware that our perspective is limited. In the light of the transparent review process at this publisher, where editorial decision letters are published alongside accepted papers, this is especially interesting, because decision letters for successful submissions can be expected to have a much larger audience than for non-successful submissions. On the other hand, it has been argued that editorial management systems support the editorial role and reproduce or may even increase the instruments to regulate, administrate and ultimately control the process (Mendonca, 2017). SCI---Editideas - Reviewers read the manuscript and submit their reports. The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frma.2021.747562/full#supplementary-material, National Library of Medicine The submission process is standardized through a web interface. 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. For example, the event Preliminary Manuscript Data submitted happens for almost all manuscripts, which is why it does not help us to distinguish manuscript lifecycles in a meaningful way. The first possibility is the short decision path from Manuscript Consultation Started directly to Editor Decision Complete. This led us to iteratively disintegrate the network by deleting the passage points. 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. Authors may suggest reviewers; these suggestions are often helpful, although they are not always followed. Editor in Chief, Nature. For most of the analyses, a simplified network was used: loops were removed and multiple edges between the same two vertices were reduced to one. While these activities certainly would exist without editorial management systems, the latter makes them more visible and suspect to monitoring and optimization, because they can standardize editorial practices. 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). ~. .. . What does a quick change from 'Under consideration' to 'Decision made Sorted by: 2 Usually they decide in less than a week after the initial submission. Survey on Open Peer Review: Attitudes and Experience Amongst Editors, Authors and Reviewers, Die Regierung der Wissenschaft im Peer Review/Governing Science Through Peer Review. This means that a manuscript will usually loop through the review process more than once, depending on the editorial decisionin our case up to six times. If the editor is satisfied with your work, they will choose appropriate peer reviewers to evaluate your work, taking into account several factors including expertise, experience . We store the data in our institute for 10years according to the Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice (DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3923602) by the German Research Association (DFG). A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). Administrative work at journals then comprises, for instance, the handling and coordination of manuscripts (ibid.). There are certainly technological and organizational models in play fundamentally altering the role models of both reviewers and editors. 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. on 21 Oct, 2016. What does the status 'Decision started' mean? | Editage Insights 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). These are considered appeals, which, by policy, take second place to consideration of normal submissions. 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). 2 wormified 4 yr. ago A month sounds optimistic to me :-) 2 [deleted] 4 yr. ago [removed] riricide 4 yr. ago 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 editor decides about opening and closing the external review (expressed by Manuscript Consultation Session Started (N = 5,816) and Manuscript Consultation Ended (N = 2,010)). RETAIL ASSISTANT MANAGER (OPS) Opening At Talbots Located Within Share Improve this answer Follow answered Jul 2, 2014 at 10:14 user18118 21 1 Add a comment 0 [CDATA[> Before the decision, basically two things can happen (see Figure 5). Centrality is a relative measure, putting different nodes into an ordered relation. Also Revision Received (N = 2,498) was attributed to postulation representing a renewed claim of the author; and Halted Manuscript Deleted (N = 3,380) as this was triggered mainly by the authors. nature immunology about the editors About the Editors Like the other Nature titles, Nature Immunology has no external editorial board. The figure shows the decisions for the original manuscript version (v0) and resubmitted versions (v1v5). Lifting the curtain on editorial decisions - Springer Nature ]]> Dr. Katharina Weiss-Tuider - LinkedIn The first possibility is the short decision path from "Manuscript Consultation Started" directly to "Editor Decision Complete". 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). [CDATA[// >