Consensus decision-making or consensus process (often abbreviated to consensus) are group decision-making processes in which participants develop and decide on proposals with the aim, or requirement, of acceptance by all. Peer reviewers are assigned to manuscripts, reviewers recommendations are considered and the fate of a manuscript is decided about by the editor. Recently Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) provided a scheme for analysis of peer review with special regard to its control function in a decision-making process for the distribution of scarce resources. 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. If your manuscript is rejected by the editor without the peer-reviewed process, please share with the community how many days you got the rejection email from the editor's office. If it isn't, we encourage you to ask. How long does an editor decision take? - Studybuff Scholarly journals invest considerable effort in maintaining peer culture by establishing close links to authors, reviewers, and (guest) editors (Weller, 2001). We do so by making use of the internal representation of manuscript life cycles from submission to decision for 14,000 manuscripts submitted to a biomedical publisher. 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. D1ckChowder 2 yr. ago It could mean many things. These are considered appeals, which, by policy, take second place to consideration of normal submissions. Reviews for "Nature" - Page 1 - SciRev Since then the success of peer review in science was unprecedented and can be seen in the various ways peer review has been integrated for the evaluation of scholarly output, with varying expectations as to what it is to accomplish. The submission process is standardized through a web interface. . Of all 11,103 manuscripts which make it to a decision at least in one round, the first submitted version is rejected in the vast majority of the cases, whereas manuscripts which make it through the first round, stand a good chance to be accepted in the later stages, as is shown in Figure 1. Order of the process without and with noise reduction. Confirm that you would also like to sign up for free personalized email coaching for this stage. The first possibility is the short decision path from "Manuscript Consultation Started" directly to "Editor Decision Complete". It is clear from the status descriptions that your revised manuscript was sent for peer review again. [CDATA[> This led us to iteratively disintegrate the network by deleting the passage points. We oversee this process to ensure that your manuscript contains. 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. The journal covers topics including: -Lasers, LEDs and other light sources -Imaging, detectors and sensors -Optoelectronic devices and components -Novel materials and engineered structures -Physics of light propagation, interaction and behaviour -Quantum optics and cryptography -Ultrafast photonics -Biophotonics -Optical data storage Centrality is a relative measure, putting different nodes into an ordered relation. 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. In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles What does editor decision started mean nature? Reviewers read the manuscript and submit their reports. 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. Many journals now rely on editorial management systems, 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. Given the administrative responsibilities of the editors, it is plausible that some of these events refer to quality or process control related activities such as setting up automated mailings without a call for action. These organizational and administrative practices may not always be related to epistemic values, yet they are an important part of scholarly knowledge production as scholarly journals are important sites for community building, safeguarding scientific quality and expectations to science in general. Sometimes, it is mentioned, who is involved in the said actions, but sometimes not. Careers, Unable to load your collection due to an error, This article was submitted to Scholarly Communication, a section of the journal Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. We started our empirical analysis following the conceptual heuristics of Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020), who provided elements of a minimal and maximum model of the peer review process. These last three events were in the majority of the cases not recorded as triggered by the authors, but by the none role, displaying their additional observational or administrative character. 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. 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. Learn more. This becomes particularly apparent when comparing the implemented structure observed with the patent published in 2009 showing an increase in complexity: while the patent is fixed in time, the software has evolved. [CDATA[// >Decoding the decision letter - Cell Invite the authors to revise and resubmit their manuscript to address specific concerns. Also, the communication about the decision remains clearly in the editors hands, showing responsibility for the interaction with the scientific community. In the subsection above, we have shown for first submitted versions that the drafting of decision letters happens mostly for negative decisions. For this purpose, we use network analysis: the vertices represent the stages and a (directed) edge is drawn from one stage to another when it is directly following in one items history. The editor is reading your manuscript and figuring out whether or not she wants to send it for peer review. Due to the specific work environment at the publisher, where editors are employed as full-time staff in a shared office space, it must be easy for them to communicate with each other bypassing the editorial management system, which limits the potential of surveillance through the system. LetPub Scientific Journal Selector (2018-2021), Nature Energy published in 2016, UNITED STATES. Yet, calls for reforms in scholarly peer review have grown louder particularly emerging from critics about biases in peer review (Cicchetti et al., 1992; Harnad, 1983; Bornmann 2005). In the event of publication, the received date is the date of submission to the journal where the manuscript is published. We stopped disintegration at the iteration before the four different decision events Manuscript Rejected, Manuscript Revise and Re-Review, Manuscript Revise only and Manuscript Accepted fell apart from each other into different components.