The submission process is standardized through a web interface. Whether digital infrastructures such as editorial management systems are transforming the peer review process with regard to these two tasks is hard to tell, given the difficulties of exploring the process. Hence, peer review processes at scholarly journals can be perceived as community work with the aim to establish consistent and sustainable networks between all actors involved. English Editing - Editage.com | Editage.jp | Editage.co.kr |SCI Editage.cn |publicao de artigos Editage.com.br | Editage.com.tw |Terms of UseforEnglish Editing Services. In the subsection above, we have shown for first submitted versions that the drafting of decision letters happens mostly for negative decisions. The editorial management system however, does not only record which actor with which role releases or triggers an event. If it goes for review, then it will be about a month before you get the comments. 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. Nature 512, 126-129. With regard to roles and activities of the editor, there is support as well as control by the infrastructure. The editor-in-chief is primarily responsible for initial receipt of the manuscript and assignment to an associate editor. The reviewer comments were very helpful to improve the quality of our work, and also the editor was helpful and responsive. A pre-screening of our data showed that the first round of peer review differs from the subsequent ones. Authors may suggest reviewers; these suggestions are often helpful, although they are not always followed. . Editor in Chief, Nature. Answer: From the different status descriptions, it seems that the manuscript has not been sent for peer review. We have also gained specific insights into how editors take their role in the peer review process seriously: despite automation of some administrative steps, decision-making as well as decision-communication remains in the human domain. While focussing our analysis only on the case of one biomedical publisher, we may infer some more general observations for this realm of research. Editors decide whether to send a manuscript for peer review based on the degree to which it advances our understanding of the field, the soundness of conclusions, the extent to which the evidence presented - including appropriate data and analyses - supports these conclusions, and the wide relevance of these conclusions to the journals readership. 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. UNESCO. We focus our analysis on editorial peer review, that is, processes related to editorial selection, management and decision making. Consequently, the analysis shows how much organizational effort goes into what Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) have called the administrative parts of the peer review process to which this article pays particular attention. That is why we also focus our structural analysis of the peer review process on this first round of peer review. We thank Martin Reinhart for data acquisition and consultation as well as Felicitas Hesselmann for data acquisition and feedback. Digital infrastructures, as Gillespie (2015) argued, are not neutral, but intervene. The most central node is Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted which has 27,910 ingoing and outgoing edges, whereas the least central node is Initial QC failed (where QC stands for quality control) which has only 147 edges. This may show that the submission procedure is standardised, possibly making some forms of research impossible to submit. Yet, the digital infrastructure accompanies each and every step of the editor, supporting the editors tasks, which could not be accomplished in an equal pace and magnitude without it. In order to make such comparisons, we employed social network analysis with the events in the manuscript lifecycle as nodes which are connected through their relation in time. GUID:EFC9DCE3-3C9C-46E8-B28A-8E8EFE53517D, editorial management systems, peer review, process generated data, digital transformation of scholarly publishing, digital infrastructure. //--> The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. There are certainly technological and organizational models in play fundamentally altering the role models of both reviewers and editors. (2019). All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. You should hear back within a week or two. Journal decisions 6. This underlines the strong position and great responsibility of the editor. Also, Manuscript Transferred (N = 995), Manuscript Ready for Publication (N = 1,705) and Manuscript Sent To Production (N = 1,694) are events covering the transfer of publications after the review process was completed, referring to their relationship with the publishing house and their facilities. HANDBOOK: Keep calm and wait: A guide to understanding journal statuses, Keep calm and wait: A guide to understanding journal statuses. Usually, the associate editor makes the publication decision (I'm sure the editor in chief can overrule this decision, but it usually doesn't happen). The patent depicts peer review as an ordered process with actions (such as sub-processes, documents and stored data) and bifurcations (see Figure 3). 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.
Fatal Car Accident Mn Yesterday,
Longueuil Calendrier Collecte 2021 2022,
Articles E