editor decision started nature

The editor-in-chief is primarily responsible for initial receipt of the manuscript and assignment to an associate editor. What does editor decision started mean nature? [CDATA[> Reviews Submit a Review. After several rounds of revision, when the revised manuscript was submitted, the status showed 'quality check started' - 'peer review' - 'decision started.' ISSN 2058-5276 (online). The editor is probably going through the reviews to arrive at a decision. Can I ask the editor to publish a withdrawn manuscript after acceptance? But there is a significant proportion of events triggered by actors with no role assigned (see Table 2). Digital infrastructures, as Gillespie (2015) argued, are not neutral, but intervene. 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. All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication. According to Star and Bowker, infrastructures are used to enable, maintain and control collaboration among different actors (Star, 1999; Star and Bowker, 2006). This led to a network of 623 edges with a density of d = 0.12. Exploring a digital infrastructure without actually having access to it is challenging. 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. manuscpt under consideration 40editor decision started~ !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 . 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). 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 identical numbers for both events indicate that they are released upon acceptance of the reviewer. 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. We did not use a clustering algorithm, because those usually are based on cohesion or distance metrics: they regard those parts of graphs as different components, which are only weakly linked or distant from each other, whereas nodes belong to the same cluster component if they are strongly linked or close to each other. 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. Thank you for visiting nature.com. Reviewers read the manuscript and submit their reports. Manuscript received)->Editor assigned->Manuscript under consideration->Editor Decision StartedDecision sent to author->Waiting for revision, ->Revision receivedManuscript #A1Manuscript under submission->Manuscript received->Editor assigned->Manuscript under consideration->Editor Decision Started, . How does the infrastructure support, strengthen or restrain editorial agency for administrating the process? 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? Also, we have found that participants in the process (see Schendzielorz and Reinhart, 2020) are translated into roles in the digitalized process (see Plotkin, 2009) and implemented as person-IDs in the digital infrastructure, only the latter distinctly displaying the infrastructure itself as an actor. In total, 278,098 events were filed in the database. Once you have submitted your manuscript, it goes through the following editorial process: The journals editorial assistant will check that the manuscript and associated materials are complete. Based on the Nature Methods Review Speed Feedback System, it takes editor 146.00 days to accept manuscript. We thank Taiane Linhares and Nikita Sorgatz for help with data preparation. While these activities certainly would exist without editorial management systems, the latter makes them more visible and suspect to monitoring and optimization, because they can standardize editorial practices. The .gov means its official. 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. Please share with the community how many days the entire process took by the editor's office. Additionally, source and target vertices were inserted to make start and end of the process visible in plots. In this principal depiction, the digital infrastructure of the editorial management system is presented to foster values such as timeliness and comprehensiveness. AEditor Decision Complete, BManuscript Revise and Re-Review, CWaiting to Send Decision to Author, DManuscript Rejected, EManuscript Revise Only, FManuscript Accepted, GDrafting Decision Letter Started, HDrafting Decision Letter Completed, IManuscript Consultation Session Ended. Events after decision with multiplicity and median duration show that editors thoroughly communicate about negative decisions. Making an editorial decision. Events triggered by (columns) and affective to (rows) the different roles assigned. 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, konomisierung und medialer Beobachtung, Online Collaboration: Scientists and the Social Network, Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Given the administrative responsibilities of the editors, it is plausible that some of these events refer to quality or process control related activities such as setting up automated mailings without a call for action. Such claims are difficult to make given the limitations many studies on editorial peer review face. Wickham H., Averick M., Bryan J., Chang W., McGowan L., Franois R., et al. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. At the contrary, however, events triggered by authors and referees only affect events with actors assigned the same role. If an appeal merits further consideration, the editors may send the authors' response or the revised paper to one or more reviewers, or they may ask one reviewer to comment on the concerns raised by another reviewer. Many journals now rely on editorial management systems, 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. Because of combinatorial explosion, large networks can be expected to be less dense than smaller ones. With editor (Decision Letter Being PreparedReviewers invited) Decision Letter Being Prepared Reviewer (s) invited Under review decline //-->