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). In this specific case, however, the practices related to the technology support the principle of an editor centred system in the peer review process. 稿件状态显示Decision sent to author，但快两周了没有收到任何邮件，是悲剧了么？ - 论文投稿 - 小木虫 - 学术 科研 ... 19 days ago I submitted my manuscript to a journal under Nature publishing. The biggest share – 112,475 out of all 278,098 events filed in the database – were triggered by editors, or, to be more precise, by actors assigned an editorial role for the respective manuscripts in the system. The editor contacts potential reviewers to . government site. SACRAMENTO, Calif. California 's Employment Development Department [EDD] has launched a new program to reach out to claimants in hopes of better controlling its months-long wait time for . (2021). 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. 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). Tata Steel. Why my manuscript is still in "Under consideration" even ... - Editage The complete network is comprised of 72 vertices and 221,287 edges. Journal Editor's Perspectives on the Roles and Tasks for Peer Reviewers in Biomedical Journals: A Qualitative Study, Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research, Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective, Peer Commentary on Peer Review: A Case Study in Scientific Quality Control, Peer Review Verfahren auf dem Prüfstand/Peer Review Research–Reviewed. 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. 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. The .gov means it’s official. Editorial decision. The given network cannot be completely chaotic, instead some structure must be there but need sharpening. This dimensionality reduction probably obfuscates some properties of the implemented process, such as if it may have been acyclic in higher dimensionality, which we cannot observe any more, limiting the potential for our investigation. Careers, Unable to load your collection due to an error. 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”. Before the decision, basically two things can happen (see Figure 5). “Review Started” and “Potential Referees Accept” were mostly performed by the reviewer and achieved the highest frequency (both had N = 8,937). The site is secure. 70.0 days The average number of days from manuscript submission to the initial editorial decision on the article. Additionally, source and target vertices were inserted to make start and end of the process visible in plots. But since the beginning, the status was "under consideration", until now. If your manuscript is sent to reviewers, please share with the community how many days the evaluated process took by editor's office (not include the evaluated process of reviewers). The actions are attributed with manuscripts they belong to, and points in time when they were carried out, which is why we are able to infer the order of actions, choices at forks and pace of the process. For our analyses, only the internal representation of the process in the systems database was used, we did not investigate the frontend of the editorial management software. The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. 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. Because of combinatorial explosion, large networks can be expected to be less dense than smaller ones. More research would be needed in order to more closely reconstruct these events. Hence, we draw from a growing theoretical literature on digital infrastructures from science and technology studies and also from literature about processes and practices in peer review from the social studies of science. 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. Editors between Support and Control by the Digital Infrastructure ... Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief. We have no insights into how triggering and affecting is defined for the infrastructure but can only infer from the fact that the infrastructure registers the person-ID as triggering or affected from its limited perspective. I am anxious as I heard that usually the editor just needs 1 week to decide if a paper deserves to be sent for peer review or not. npj Precision Oncology-期刊论坛，投稿经验-MedSci.cn As the case studied here shows, editorial management systems can be and are adapted to their context. A pre-screening of our data showed that the first round of peer review differs from the subsequent ones. In total, 278,098 events were filed in the database. 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 this regard, editorial management systems perform timekeeping, when they support and oversee the duration of sub-processes (Reviewer Waited too Long, “Waiting for Authors Revision” etc.). Also, there are only ∼29 directed links between the entities, resulting in a network density of ∼0.1, meaning that 10 percent of all theoretically possible edges occur. 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). This may as well reflect how editors take their responsibility as members of the scientific community. About the editorial process: We store the data in our institute for 10 years according to the “Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice” (DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3923602) by the German Research Association (DFG). While these technical adaptations reflect the processual or organizational demands, they may also create novel arenas for monitoring and control neither foreseen by the developers nor by organizational professionals of peer review work. Received 2021 Jul 26; Accepted 2021 Sep 20. They employ single-blind peer review, which means that the reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities unless otherwise requested by the authors. Algorithms as Culture: Some Tactics for the Ethnography of Algorithmic Systems, Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Social Consequences of ICTs, Online Editorial Management-Systeme und die Produktion wissenschaftlicher Fachzeitschriften, Open Access und Digitalisierung aus der Sicht von Wissenschaftsverlagen, Wissenschaftliches Publizieren: Zwischen Digitalisierung, Leistungsmessung, Ökonomisierung und medialer Beobachtung, Online Collaboration: Scientists and the Social Network, Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Cicchetti D. V., Rourke B. P., Wass P. (1992). This is exactly the reason why the digital infrastructure allows for the investigation of its users in so many different ways. The edge widths show, how many manuscripts experience the respective evolutionary path. The patent as well as the digital infrastructure aim at supporting the editor in their work. The identical numbers for both events indicate that they are released upon acceptance of the reviewer. When the process is finished, the manuscript lies dormant in the database. A closer look at process generated data allows us to explore which elements of the peer review and decision making process in scholarly journals are communicated and shared on a digital infrastructure, how the process of peer review is transformed into countable events and made visible. Yet, as Horbach and Halffmann (2019) have outlined, peer review as an institutional practice at scholarly journals has a far more recent history, beginning in late 19th century in scientific societies which established the first disciplinary scholarly journals (Csiszar, 2018). Events triggered by (columns) and affective to (rows) the different roles assigned. Again actors assigned editorial roles stand out, because their actions significantly affect actors with other roles assigned. 1 Drawing from the theoretical considerations explained above, we first present results regarding the different roles which the editorial management system supports and enables in order to understand how the governance of the process is represented and performed by the editorial management system. Also, the communication about the decision remains clearly in the editor’s hands, showing responsibility for the interaction with the scientific community. Tracking your manuscript status in journal submission systems We focus our analysis on editorial peer review, that is, processes related to editorial selection, management and decision making. Peer review at scholarly journals, however, does also have a function in protecting scientific autonomy by safeguarding quality. If that assumption is right, administrative activities might indeed more closely be intertwined with what Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) have called observational activities (p.19), enlarging editor’s control on the process, but also putting more pressure on this role. nature communications 1-2周给结果，一般都是没送审 . In order to make such comparisons, we employed social network analysis with the events in the manuscript lifecycle as nodes which are connected through their relation in time. 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. Yet, the digital infrastructure accompanies each and every step of the editor, supporting the editor’s tasks, which could not be accomplished in an equal pace and magnitude without it. This would mean that your manuscript would be held in a queue and will be actioned only after other manuscripts have been acted upon. There are certainly technological and organizational models in play fundamentally altering the role models of both reviewers and editors. (For one manuscript, no first version was present in the inventory – hence, the difference between 14,392 and 14,391 manuscripts). The most central node is “Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted” which has 27,910 ingoing and outgoing edges, whereas the least central node is “Initial QC failed” (where QC stands for quality control) which has only 147 edges. The disintegrated network consisted of eleven isolated components, of which 10 were consisting of three vertices or less and one component with 22 vertices, containing the decisions (see Supplementary Material). In the second category, which Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) have called consultation, we subsumed nine events, which are mainly performed by editors, reviewers and “none” roles. Moreover, the characteristics of both reviewers and editors are explored to a significant extent (Hirschauer, 2010, 73). Moreover, infrastructures can be seen as structures emerging from “situated knowledges”, a term coined by Haraway (1988) with regard to people and communities with partial perspectives. Also, infrastructures in science such as editorial management systems are embedded in highly structured practices, such as the selection of reviewers, formats for presenting and evaluating manuscripts from which they cannot be separated. 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). R Package Version 1.14.0. 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). 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. npj Precision Oncology. 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. Different to what the patent for the technology suggests, the actual use of the infrastructure may be particularly complex, revealing the difficulties in managing and maintaining collaboration among different types of actors. The quantitative analyses were performed with the use of R (R Core Team, 2020) and the following contributed packages: igraph (Csardi and Nepusz, 2006), tidyverse (Wickham et al., 2019), lubridate (Grolemund and Wickham, 2011), data.table (Dowle and Srinivasan, 2021) and ggraph (Pedersen, 2021). 大n投稿记录 - 知乎 - 知乎专栏 Keep reminding the Editor about the status of your paper. 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. The patent shows a limited perspective on the peer review process, rendering the system itself invisible as a component (see Figure 7). Such heterogeneous uses influence and transform the infrastructure as an assemblage of situated digitally mediated practices (Horbach and Halffman, 2020, p.2), that is, practices which can only be understood in the context of their local usage (e.g., a specific function accomplished within the context of a specific journal). On day 4 they told the corresponding author that a subject editor had been assigned to handle my manuscript. 前往期刊查询. the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Centrality is a relative measure, putting different nodes into an ordered relation. Authors as well as reviewers have no possibilities to bypass the system easily, as far as we can see. A Comparison of German Universities and Universities of Applied Sciences, Krüger A. K., Hesselmann F., Hartstein J. In this principal depiction, the digital infrastructure of the editorial management system is presented to foster values such as timeliness and comprehensiveness. 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. The description of the variables was mainly derived from the field names, their values and the xml-structure in the raw data and is given in Table 1. For the investigation of actions with regard to the different roles in the process, the whole dataset was used. 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. We thank Martin Reinhart for data acquisition and consultation as well as Felicitas Hesselmann for data acquisition and feedback. The process elements postulation (P), consultation (C), decision (D) and administration (A), adapted after Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020), are mutually connected with each other, but seen by the infrastructure from the standpoint of administration. What does the typical workflow of a journal look like? How should I ... Also, it shows that there must exist parallel sub-processes (e.g., communication with different reviewers), which must, by construction, have been projected onto one timeline in the history dataset we were provided with. Moreover, acceleration, control and efficiency have been main arguments for establishing editorial management systems in the first place (Jubb, 2015; Mendonça, 2017), putting pressure on publishers and editors of journals to implement streamlined procedures. As acquiring complete inventory data from not fully open peer review is very difficult, we used the hereby presented study to exploit more of the potential of the data. 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). 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. Our goal in posing these questions is to gain insights into how novel editorial management systems change or stabilize knowledge production. The strong presence of observational events underlines the property of editorial management systems being a knowledge based infrastructure enhancing the editor’s competence rather than only being a small tool. We preliminarily conclude that the partial perspective through the eyes of the digital infrastructure provides valuable insights into the peer review process, which are difficult to obtain otherwise. HHS Vulnerability Disclosure, Help If we rule out automated decision making (which we elaborate on later in this text). From the start of manuscript consultation until the editor’s decision: The figure shows that there is a short way (red) without external consultation and the long and complex way with external reviewers (grey). A significant number of events (11,866, to be precise) released by editors affect actors with “none” specified roles. waiting to send decision to author nature - franklinpublishing.org 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 manuscript shall be accepted as it is. (2019). 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. Hence, there is no such thing as a uniform process put into place by a technology. But instead, decision making and communication at the concrete journals under investigation clearly remain in the human domain. Given that our data set is situated and that digital practices are related and aligned by the infrastructure, we follow the infrastructures and aim at studying how they structure and reflect the practices of its users. 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. Sometimes, it is mentioned, who is involved in the said actions, but sometimes not. Also, with Friedman and Nissenbaum (1996), we argue, that the infrastructure itself is shaped by assumptions from its developers about how the world is like and should be. We only find “Review Started” and “Review Received” in this respect, but we have, based on the event history only, no information as to what the reviewers might have recommended. The decision is framed by “Editor Decision Started” (N = 6,215, triggered often by the reviewer) and “Editor Decision Complete” (N = 13,973)—the difference in size indicates, that the editors’ decision can happen directly without external consultation. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher. Yet, little is known about how these infrastructures support, stabilize, transform or change existing editorial practices. Elsevier: Submission status explainer Watch on If you have submitted your manuscript to an Editorial Manager journal but you have not yet received a final decision, you can check its status online. Surprisingly fine grained is the representation of the communication about the decision. 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. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, The administrative procedures appear to be well covered by “Editor assigned” (N = 17,499), “Editor Replaced” (N = 561) and “Secondary Editor Replaced” (N = 333) as well as events indicating the contacting or assignment of reviewers: the editors choose the reviewers (expressed by “Potential Referees Assigned” (N = 10,888) and “Contacting Potential Referees” (N = 19,878)) and are informed about the outcome of their request with “All Referees Assigned” (N = 3,607). How long time should we wait for editor decision on a manuscript? and ... This is supported by the process sequence empirically showing regularities but being very open in principle. As Horbach and Halffman (2020, p.4) have argued, such infrastructural “systems of classification and standards constitute ‘invisible mediators of action” establishing “templates (…) by which performances are compared and which define what one enactment is a performance of” (ibid). Reconstructing the processes applying social network analysis, we found that the individual steps in the process have no strict order, other than could be expected with regard to the software patent. It also files who is affected by an event (Table 2). Peer reviewers are assigned to manuscripts, reviewers’ recommendations are considered and the fate of a manuscript is decided about by the editor. 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. Subscribe to Journal Submission & Peer Review. 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. 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. Based on the reviews, the editors decide whether: The manuscript shall be rejected. 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. According to Star and Bowker, infrastructures are used to enable, maintain and control collaboration among different actors (Star, 1999; Star and Bowker, 2006). All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication. How do I draft and send an Author Decision Letter in Editorial Manager ... Nine events were attributed to the administrative activities of the peer review process, according to Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) comprising processes, where “postulations are received, their treatments are initiated or being coordinated”. 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. 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. Recent research into platforms (Blümel, 2021) has argued that novel digital infrastructures are considered as agents of change for scholarly practices by incorporating several functions relevant for decision making and quality control. 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. 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. Exploring data from that infrastructure, we complement others’ research investigating views and perceptions of peer review practices with a new procedural perspective explicitly taking algorithms and digital affordances of digital infrastructures into account. In other words, events can be thought of as the ways of how activities are conceived by the infrastructure. If an author wishes to appeal against Nature's decision, the appeal must be made in writing, . Editorial management systems may be understood as aiming at representing such abstract roles and processual elements. However, we decided to restrict our analysis of the sequence of stages to the 14,391 first-version manuscripts with 206,896 events to avoid obfuscation of the prototypical process by manuscript versions with a past. Today, peer review is not only practiced to judge the quality and appropriateness of scholarly manuscripts for specific journals, but also to evaluate grant proposals (Reinhart, 2010), persons (such as in calling committees) (Kleimann and Hückstädt, 2021) or even research organizations (Röbbecke and Simon, 1999). 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). GUID: EFC9DCE3-3C9C-46E8-B28A-8E8EFE53517D, editorial management systems, peer review, process generated data, digital transformation of scholarly publishing, digital infrastructure. The figure shows the decisions for the original manuscript version (v0) and resubmitted versions (v1–v5). Do not list group authors here. The accepted manuscripts as well as those subject to revision are not processed further in this graph component. Popular answers (1) Antonio Pirisi Agris Sardegna Hi, it depends from the Journal but normally you can wait more days. Also, “Manuscript Transferred” (N = 995), “Manuscript Ready for Publication” (N = 1,705) and “Manuscript Sent To Production” (N = 1,694) are events covering the transfer of publications after the review process was completed, referring to their relationship with the publishing house and their facilities. These different forms of actors can be best perceived as specified roles, describing and demarcating specific types of activity, that is, for instance, making claims (authors), handling and coordinating manuscripts (editors), evaluating claims (reviewers) and deciding about whether to publish a manuscript or not (editors). Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. 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.

Reaktionstest Personenbeförderungsschein, Multifokale Kontaktlinsen Erfahrungen, Articles W