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? 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. Cicchetti D. V., Rourke B. P., Wass P. (1992). If the manuscript is transferred, the original reviewer reports and identities will be shared with the receiving journal (with the exception of transfers to the npj Series and Scientific Reports). Can I ask the editor to publish a withdrawn manuscript after acceptance? But instead, decision making and communication at the concrete journals under investigation clearly remain in the human domain. HANDBOOK: Keep calm and wait: A guide to understanding journal statuses, Keep calm and wait: A guide to understanding journal statuses. We then continue by presenting major outcomes of the study, followed by a discussion about the editorial processes mediated by editorial management systems, and the role of automated decision making. 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. These changes in the ways of how the infrastructure is used may alter the boundaries between different types of practices carried out within organizations handling peer review (see next theoretical section), and ultimately the editorial role as such. HHS Vulnerability Disclosure, Help Administrative work at journals then comprises, for instance, the handling and coordination of manuscripts (ibid.). As described above, to investigate the idealized process from the patent empirically, we constructed a simplified network from the recorded events for all 14,391 first-version manuscripts, in which the nodes represent the stages and edges are drawn between two events which follow one another. To obtain For our last submission the decision took 25 days for which the editor apologized. Its development during the 1990s and 2000s changed the way brands and businesses use technology for marketing.As digital platforms became increasingly incorporated into . Editing and proofreading services for a publication-ready manuscript, Customized service packs to match all publication needs, Expert help for all academic translation needs. 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. In total, 278,098 events were filed in the database. The EiC may have seen merits in your paper after all (or a fit, if that was the issue). 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. 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. 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). 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. nature~. To the best of our knowledge, our analysis is one of the very few quantitative analyses of these processes. nature immunology about the editors About the Editors Like the other Nature titles, Nature Immunology has no external editorial board. The publisher provided us with processual data from their journal management system during an earlier research project with a focus on evaluation practices and sources of biases in peer review. Of major relevance for the peer review process is that it finally comes to a decision, based on consultation with internal and external actors. One issue for discussion in that process is the role of the editor. Abstract: Symbiotic microorganisms are omnipresent in nature, ubiquitously associated with animals, plants, fungi, protists, and all other life forms including humans, ranging fro 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. Yet, little is actually known about how the peer review process is practiced and how it is supported through administrative procedures, such as how reviewers are invited (Bs, 1998), how reviews are maintained, or decisions are communicated; activities which might be considered administrative in the first place. 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. If the editor is satisfied with your work, they will choose appropriate peer reviewers to evaluate your work, taking into account several factors including expertise, experience . In this specific case, however, the practices related to the technology support the principle of an editor centred system in the peer review process. 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. Cactus Communications. Confirm that you would also like to sign up for free personalized email coaching for this stage. On occasion, particularly if the editors feel that additional technical expertise is needed to make a decision, they may obtain advice from additional reviewers. In the database entry, we would later discover this as a digital trace of the action performed. This could indicate two possibilities. In light of their advice, I am delighted to say that we can in principle offer to publish it in Nature, provided that you revise the paper to address a number of further editorial points. The editorial peer review process for a single manuscript version is investigated from three perspectives: the perspective which considers the sequencialization (which stages are passed in which order) of the process, the pace (how long does a step take) of the manuscript during the process and the magnitude (how many manuscripts go along a specific path). . In the event of publication, the received date is the date of submission to the journal where the manuscript is published. //--> Mattamy Homes Garner, Nc, Eric Carmen Amy Murphy, Articles E