editor decision started nature

. . The main aims of our study are hence the following: By investigating process generated data from a publishers editorial management system, we aim to explore the ways by which the digital infrastructure is used and how it represents the process of peer review. We were allowed to analyse the data but not to share or publish the dataset. //-->Decoding the decision letter - Cell 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. After several rounds of revision, when the revised manuscript was submitted, the status showed 'quality check started' - 'peer review' - 'decision started.' 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 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. 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. 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. In any case, not assigning a role to some actors shows that those are regarded less relevant for the editorial process by design. While they draw in their examples from grant peer review, they explicitly claim their depiction to enable comparative analyses of different peer review processes along the elements of a minimal process: postulation, consultation, decision and administration. For instance, the editor might become aware of their own velocity in deciding or transferring manuscripts (Mrowinski et al., 2016), hence administrating the process. Of major relevance for the peer review process is that it finally comes to a decision, based on consultation with internal and external actors. Sometimes they are more busy. 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. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. We thank Taiane Linhares and Nikita Sorgatz for help with data preparation. Such critics also fueled debates about new forms of open peer review, as technological or organizational innovations are imagined to ultimately alter editorial practices at scholarly journals (Ross-Hellauer et al., 2017). Across all Wolters Kluwer journals, the average time that a manuscript moves through the submission process from submission to first decision takes about 30 days, and to a final . Subscribe and get curated content that will give impetus to your research paper. Nature CommunationsNature, @14:NatureComm.Manuscptunderconsideration)zipforreviewerzip, editordecisionstartednaturechemistry[], NatureComm.Manuscptunderconsideration), @13:editordecisionstartednaturechemistry, @38:ejournals, @13:editordecisionstartednaturechemistry, @5:NatureMatealsUnderReview.manuscptunderconsiderationEditorDecisionStartedmanuscptunderconsideration, @41:, naturecommunicationunderconsideration20, scichina life awaiting admin pcessing, IEICE The 1st Evaluation has been completed, 2010104Awaiting Reviewer Assignment, Submissions Being Pcessed(1)Submissions with a Decision (1), AngewSubmitted,Under review,. Furthermore, the editor is described as optional in the patent: The publishing organization can, optionally, assign an editor, monitoring editor, or associate editor to oversee the review process [] and make the final publishing approval decision. (Plotkin, 2009, p.4), but also the patent is open to an automated decision making. Additionally, due to the full-time character of the editorial work, a high proficiency with the system can be expected, which is confirmed by the fact that the process in practice is not so very much streamlined but the principal openness of the process order is occurring empirically in the data. They enable, support or constrain some behaviours, but they can also make certain activities more visible and thereby more relevant than others, they pick and choose (ibid., 1). 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. Stage 1: Initial quality check This stage includes checks on authorship, competing interests, ethics approval and plagiarism. Moving forward, the MDIIM continues to work with faculty members, areas, and program offices to prioritize - and expand - integrated management pedagogy and to develop bold new . They employ single-blind peer review, which means that the reviewers are aware of the authors identities unless otherwise requested by the authors. Year Publication Started 2016 *Crowdsourced data. In our study, we investigate editorial processes and practices with their data traces captured by an editorial management system. The network was then investigated iteratively, each descriptive step pointing to a new direction to follow and the insights gained were grouped together and will be discussed against each other in the end. Additionally, actions were recorded for person-IDs not having a role assigned for the respective manuscript. The accepted manuscripts as well as those subject to revision are not processed further in this graph component. Some authors claim transformative changes would be at play for practices of editors handling manuscripts: Taubert (2012) for instance has stated that journal editorial management systems standardise the peer review process and constrain the degrees of freedom for editors. [CDATA[// >