Also, the communication about the decision remains clearly in the editors hands, showing responsibility for the interaction with the scientific community. This may show that the submission procedure is standardised, possibly making some forms of research impossible to submit. Brooke LaFlamme, PhD, Associate Editor, Nature Genetics Location: 10-11am, 13-105 CHS, Monday April 18, 2016 Abstract: The editorial and publication process at high impact journals, such as Nature Genetics, is often perceived as confusing and difficult to navigate for researchers.My presentation will provide an overview of the editorial process at . For instance, the editor might become aware of their own velocity in deciding or transferring manuscripts (Mrowinski et al., 2016), hence administrating the process. The second possibility is the long decision path from "Manuscript Consultation Started" through external peer review to "Editor Decision Complete". On the other hand, Initial QC failed does not happen so very often and manuscripts facing this stage must have something special with them. dmsder moderne staatZeitschrift fr Public Pol. 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). The editor is probably going through the reviews to arrive at a decision. Christin (2020) coined the term algorithmic refraction aiming at bypassing algorithmic opacity to address drawing conclusions under the circumstances of incomplete information. How can we live a good life? In the second section of the results, we aim at tracing the order of the events in the editorial management system. 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. Upon transfer, if the manuscript is assessed by the receiving journal to be a good fit and technically sound, it may be accepted without further review. For this purpose, we use network analysis: the vertices represent the stages and a (directed) edge is drawn from one stage to another when it is directly following in one items history. If we rule out automated decision making (which we elaborate on later in this text). These organizational and administrative practices may not always be related to epistemic values, yet they are an important part of scholarly knowledge production as scholarly journals are important sites for community building, safeguarding scientific quality and expectations to science in general. They employ single-blind peer review, which means that the reviewers are aware of the authors identities unless otherwise requested by the authors. 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. Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. If the editor decides to send the manuscript to peer reviewers, they will contact researchers with relevant expertise. In the majority of cases, at least two reports will be received which are broadly in agreement, making it possible to assess reviewer comments easily and reach a straightforward decision. We therefore deduce, that the participant group of none roles must in part be comprised of non-humans (i.e., the infrastructure itself). Our contribution is organized as follows. 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). Again actors assigned editorial roles stand out, because their actions significantly affect actors with other roles assigned. 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. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. 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. In the context of the editorial decision about publication, the inventors suggest: Alternatively, the decision to publish may be automated based upon a ranking of the review decisions received from the reviewers. (Plotkin, 2009, p.5).
How Many Nuclear Warheads Are On A Trident Missile?,
Articles E