editor decision started nature

Received 2021 Jul 26; Accepted 2021 Sep 20. Receive industry news, advice from editors & gallerists, exclusive deadlines, entry to the best images occasions and more on a weekly basis. Reviews Submit a Review. Once your manuscript passes the initial quality check, we assign it to a member of Editorial Board, who is an active researcher in your field. 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. 117. 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). According to Star and Bowker, infrastructures are used to enable, maintain and control collaboration among different actors (Star, 1999; Star and Bowker, 2006). 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. Many journals now rely on editorial management systems (Taubert, 2012), 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 (Mendona, 2017). The patent depicts peer review as an ordered process with actions (such as sub-processes, documents and stored data) and bifurcations (see Figure 3). More specifically, we hence thirdly 3), also aim at exploring as to whether one can find traces of automated decision making, something which could more radically alter editorial peer review and scholarly publishing. 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. What is more, scholarship about peer review lacks from a structural perspective on that process, e.g., how much time and resources are bound by which kind of activities in the process of handling manuscripts at scholarly journals. 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. We found that there is no standardized role for automated processing or decision making: the digital infrastructure itself is not explicitly listed as actor in the patent, but is only visible in the digital traces. 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. 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. In contrast for our case, we hypothesize that the important things happen, where manuscripts differ from each other this means that the passage points tend to carry less information about the process elements. In the patents process flow chart (see Figure 3), only 17 entities occur: start and end, six process items, four decisions, three documents and two storage operations. The editors of the receiving journal will take the reviews into account when making their decision, although in some cases they may choose to take advice from additional reviewers. 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. Your manuscript entitled "xxxxxxxxx" has now been seen again by our original reviewers, whose comments are appended below. 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. We use the perspective of the infrastructure by studying the recorded events it has created as a result of actions by different actors. 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. official website and that any information you provide is encrypted The site is secure. The patent shows a limited perspective on the peer review process, rendering the system itself invisible as a component (see Figure 7). How long does an editor decision take? However, on occasion editors might consult with expert researchers when deciding whether to review a paper. 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. Established in 1947, the company is known for modern classic style that's both tim The editorial process as depicted in the patent (from: Plotkin (2009)). GUID:EFC9DCE3-3C9C-46E8-B28A-8E8EFE53517D, editorial management systems, peer review, process generated data, digital transformation of scholarly publishing, digital infrastructure. Does "Under Review" mean that the paper has passed the editorial check? Marres (2017) points out that by dealing with data from digital infrastructures, research agency is twisted: the data often prompt the researcher to their perspective and methodology, resulting in that digital research requires an at once critical and creative approach to method (p.115). 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. 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. The infrastructure models the peer review process along the way of submitted (versions of) manuscripts, which enter the system during submission and pass through different stages afterwards. manuscpt under consideration 40editor decision started~ Apparently, appeal plays a minor role with Waiting for Appeal (N = 355), Appeal Received (N = 358) and Appeal Request Accepted (N = 355), but with overall low numbers. From the start of manuscript consultation until the editors decision: The figure shows that there is a short way (red) without external consultation and the long and complex way with external reviewers (grey). Wickham H., Averick M., Bryan J., Chang W., McGowan L., Franois R., et al. We aim to compare empirical process generated data with this idealized process provided with the patent, because the processual data reflect local adaptations and uses of these technologies emerging from concrete demands of authors, reviewers and editors in the configurations of a journal (Horbach and Halffman, 2019, p.2), but are at the same time also constrained by the initial definition of roles and processes set up by the developers of the technology (Krger et al., 2021). Batagelj V., Ferligoj A., Squazzoni F. (2017). . Hopefully, you will be informed of the decision soon. 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. 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 editors control on the process, but also putting more pressure on this role. Yet, given our limited reconstruction of the event history, we cannot confirm this hypothesis. This service is available to authors at the time of decision or at a later time. .. . Although, the latter sounds like a decision event, it is mainly recorded as triggered by the reviewers and is clearly located in the network before the decision. What is the meaning of "decision in process" status? While the elements provided are not always easy to distinguish empirically, it appears plausible to assume that they may reflect different roles in that process. More research would be needed in order to more closely reconstruct these events. On occasion, particularly if the editors feel that additional technical expertise is needed to make a decision, they may obtain advice from additional reviewers. 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. [CDATA[// >

Is Executive Career Partners Legitimate, Arizona Law On False Reporting, Is 2h2 + O2 2h2o A Redox Reaction, Articles E