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). If this is nature group and it is "editor decision started" then it means the editor did something, including receiving a review report or selecting a new reviewer (from what I have experienced) Why are papers rejected? nature~. The patent depicts peer review as an ordered process with actions (such as sub-processes, documents and stored data) and bifurcations (see Figure 3). , Bewertung in und durch digitale Infrastrukturen, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, Digital Sociology: The Reinvention of Social Research, A Gesto On-Line Dos Manuscritos Na Profissionalizao Dos Peridicos. 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. You could ask how soon they think they will answer, or give a deadline yourself, warning them that, after that deadline without having heard, you will submit the text to another publisher. To the best of our knowledge, our analysis is one of the very few quantitative analyses of these processes. 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. 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. 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. We thank Martin Reinhart for data acquisition and consultation as well as Felicitas Hesselmann for data acquisition and feedback. on 21 Oct, 2016. Hopefully, you will be informed of the decision soon. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). This indicates, that administratively, the ongoing process is only indirectly affected by the reviewers recommendations, but directly affected by the editors decisions. The manuscript and associated materials are checked for quality and completeness by the journals editorial assistant. How can we live a good life? 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? Our original resources for authors and journals will help you become an expert in academic publishing. HANDBOOK: Keep calm and wait: A guide to understanding journal statuses, Keep calm and wait: A guide to understanding journal statuses. 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. That is why it would be difficult to make claims about changes between a pre-digital and a digital scholarly journal world: we simply do not know enough about organizational practices of peer review as such, though research about peer review has grown recently (Batagelj et al., 2017). Secondly 2), we intent to gain insights into the ways editorial management systems shape or transform editorial practices, i.e., to explore the ways of how the technology has been implemented in the journal. That means, the first round is crucial to the manuscripts fate and, moreover, the preceding rounds might predetermine the shape of the process in the later rounds. The accepted manuscripts as well as those subject to revision are not processed further in this graph component. 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. 2 wormified 4 yr. ago A month sounds optimistic to me :-) 2 [deleted] 4 yr. ago [removed] riricide 4 yr. ago You should hear back within a week or two. Consequently, infrastructures may best be understood as manifestations of specific operations or sometimes even of a whole process (Niewhner, 2014, 6). Therefore we deleted the first nine passage points (including source and target). One-click to visualize your research performance Researchain.net Nature Ecology and Evolution Submission Timeline & Revision Speed Duration from Submission to 1 st Editorial Decision 4.4 days The average number of days from manuscript submission to the initial editorial decision on the article. 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). 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. 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. We are able to compare the elements and events described in the patent (Plotkin, 2009) with its adaptation at the publisher in question, where the elements of the process could only be identified by taking event labels, performing actors and sequence of steps together. 2002 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. Some authors ask the editors to reconsider a rejection decision. 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). These representations on the one hand relate to the effort and the diversity of activities that go into scientific publishing (Taubert, 2016), but on the other hand, differences in the representation of peer review activities may also point to recent tensions in publishing as events indicating oversight or control may be expressions of commercial interest (Horbach and Halffman, 2019, p.12). The editor and the editorial team decide whether or not to send the manuscript out to review; the corresponding author is contacted with the decision. !1997 F350 XLT 4x4 Crew Cab (4 door) 7.3 Liter V-8 Diesel Powerstroke, Automatic with overdrive, Dana 60 front axle, Weld Racing Wheels and Toyo Open Country Radials (tires and wheels cost $4500) only 66,000 original miles Located in Seattle Washington 98188 1 mile from Seatac AirportI . Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable Associate Editor. 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. One of the most insightful critiques that has been published on this topic in years, our guest, Steve Krakauer, who is the author, has been around media for . However, in contrast to the patent for the editorial process, where steps have a clear order, the infrastructure seems to allow for an open process: in principle, almost any event could follow any other, which leaves the responsibility for the process in the domain of the actors. With regard to roles and activities of the editor, there is support as well as control by the infrastructure. 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. Article proofs sent to author 4. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Journal decisions 6. In the second section of the results, we aim at tracing the order of the events in the editorial management system. Picking the right philosophy of life is a vital decision, write Massimo Pigliucci, Skye Cleary and Daniel A. Kaufman - whether your a Stoic, an Existentialist of an Aristotelian. Receive industry news, advice from editors & gallerists, exclusive deadlines, entry to the best images occasions and more on a weekly basis. Some editors keep a paper for long time, more than 6 months or a year, without a decision and when send them a reminder message they do not reply or sometimes reply for the first time saying that . The performance of the editor can thus be controlled and evaluated by other stakeholders in the organization of the publisher. Because of combinatorial explosion, large networks can be expected to be less dense than smaller ones. How does the infrastructure support, strengthen or restrain editorial agency for administrating the process? For instance, 10,522 events triggered by editors affect referees. If it goes for review, then it will be about a month before you get the comments. Moreover, the characteristics of both reviewers and editors are explored to a significant extent (Hirschauer, 2010, 73). ]]> From an ethnographic perspective this also means that the infrastructure itself cannot evaluate reviewers opinions due to its implementation and consequentially would not even be able to compile automated decisions. 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. nature immunology about the editors About the Editors Like the other Nature titles, Nature Immunology has no external editorial board. 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. However, digital infrastructures supporting peer review have been established to support decision making and communication in the process of publishing scholarly manuscripts (Horbach and Halffman, 2019), enabling the investigation of the corresponding new digital practices. 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. January 6, 1705] - April 17, 1790) was an American polymath who was active as a writer, scientist, inventor, statesman, diplomat, printer, publisher, forger and political philosopher. 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. 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. manuscpt under consideration 40editor decision started~ In this work, editorial management systems are perceived as an infrastructure supporting peer reviewed scientific publishing. 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. Based on Nature's website it looks like the editor sends a letter regardless of the decision so your editor is probably just writing the decision and it could be anything from accept without revision (hopefully) all the way to reject without reconsideration. However, based on our analysis, we explore what can be known from editorial management systems and in what ways decisions jointly emerge from editorial decision and structures provided by the infrastructure. Also, the process as described in the patent and inscribed in the software would be technically open to integrate all kinds of checks at this point even automated detection of content similarity with other papers as presupposition for plagiarism prevention. Authors may suggest reviewers; these suggestions are often helpful, although they are not always followed. Christin (2020) coined the term algorithmic refraction aiming at bypassing algorithmic opacity to address drawing conclusions under the circumstances of incomplete information. The graphic below shows how a typical manuscript goes through the Editorial Manager system, along with some of the terms used to describe the manuscript's status. Peer review at scholarly journals, however, does also have a function in protecting scientific autonomy by safeguarding quality. Recent research into platforms (Blmel, 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.

5 Ps Formulation Example, Formation Of A Tombolo, Paul King Hawaii Net Worth, Articles E