Such critics also fueled debates about new forms of open peer review, as technological or organizational innovations are imagined to ultimately alter editorial practices at scholarly journals (Ross-Hellauer et al., 2017). Glonti K., Boutron I., Moher D., Hren D. (2019). 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. Nevertheless, our approach leads to methodological questions of digital inquiries. Today, peer review is not only practiced to judge the quality and appropriateness of scholarly manuscripts for specific journals, but also to evaluate grant proposals (Reinhart, 2010), persons (such as in calling committees) (Kleimann and Hckstdt, 2021) or even research organizations (Rbbecke and Simon, 1999). In contrast, in the patent for our infrastructure, administration does not occur distinguishably in the process flow chart, but is distributed over the whole process making everything and nothing an administrative task. HHS Vulnerability Disclosure, Help Learn more. [CDATA[// >Benjamin Franklin - Wikipedia What is the meaning of "decision in process" status? Due to the specific work environment at the publisher, where editors are employed as full-time staff in a shared office space, it must be easy for them to communicate with each other bypassing the editorial management system, which limits the potential of surveillance through the system. This document provides an outline of the editorial process involved in publishing a scientific paper (Article) in Nature, and describes how manuscripts are handled by editors between submission. A pre-screening of our data showed that the first round of peer review differs from the subsequent ones. Editage Insights is funded by Editage and endorses services provided by Editage but is editorially independent. The following decision types are available: Reject; Major revision; Minor revision; Accept; Decisions are communicated to the corresponding author in a formal letter, along with reviewer feedback and any other requirements from the . 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.
About MDIIM | Desautels Faculty of Management - McGill University The patent as well as the digital infrastructure aim at supporting the editor in their work. While different studies about the roles and tasks of both reviewers and editors were published (Hirschauer, 2010; Glonti et al., 2019), editorial practices are only rarely investigated (Weller, 2001). One of the most insightful critiques that has been published on this topic in years, our guest, Steve Krakauer, who is the author, has been around media for . The study has several implications on the study of publishing practices and processes addressed in the article collection about Change and Innovation in Manuscript Peer Review it is part of. We thank Martin Reinhart for data acquisition and consultation as well as Felicitas Hesselmann for data acquisition and feedback. D1ckChowder 2 yr. ago It could mean many things. In our case, the digital traces particularly point to the editors procedural choices.
We found multiple observations for each manuscript with a stage name, a time stamp and two pseudonymized person-identity numbers (hereinafter, person-IDs), in the system originally identifying individual users assigned to it the person who triggered an event and the person affected by an event (judging by the xml-tags assigned to the information). The process sequence is very open in principle, but for a process leading from submission to decision, some regularity in the steps could be expected, that is, some nodes must be more likely than others to be passed and also, some edges must be more important than others respectively. On the other hand, the users of type editor seem to have much leeway regarding which tasks they choose to perform in which order, hence the empirical process network has so many different edges. var d=new Date(); yr=d.getFullYear();document.write(yr); The editor is probably going through the reviews to arrive at a decision. While Decision Sent to Author plays a major role (N = 13,933), we also find a noteworthy amount of Drafting Decision Letter Started (N = 1,949) and Drafting Decision Letter Completed (N = 2,421). //-->