Thus, it is rendered invisible as distinguishable component. We have shown in our contribution, that the peer review process in digital infrastructures is complex: We started from an abstract description of a minimal peer review process with four elements according to Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020), acknowledged an ideal digitalized process with seventeen positioned components according to a patent (Plotkin, 2009) and empirically found an open process with 72 events in it. While focussing our analysis only on the case of one biomedical publisher, we may infer some more general observations for this realm of research. Empirically, a panoply of orders occur in the manuscript histories, which means that for most of the stages, it is not predetermined in the systems implementation what happens next in the process. The status 'Decision started' indicates that the peer review process for your manuscript is complete and the paper is now with the editor. 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. The editorial management system however, does not only record which actor with which role releases or triggers an event. 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. 8600 Rockville Pike These are considered appeals, which, by policy, take second place to consideration of normal submissions. The use of editorial management systems as digital infrastructures for the management of collaboration hence requires processual knowledge about the peer review process. The second possibility is the long decision path from Manuscript Consultation Started through external peer review to Editor Decision Complete. The numbers indicate, how often a specific decision is reached for the respective version (the in-degree of the node). In the last 15years, novel digital infrastructures of different forms and shapes have been established, aiming at supporting communication, dissemination and evaluation of scientific research (Van Noorden, 2014; Taubert, 2016; Blmel, 2021). According to Guston (2001), there is a social contract granting autonomy and self-regulation to science only if scientific quality and productivity is ensured. 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. . Bethesda, MD 20894, Web Policies The idea to apply peer culture to science in order to protect the community of knowledge makers emerged in the Royal Society in late 17th century (Shapin 1994). The editor is probably going through the reviews to arrive at a decision. Hence, there is no such thing as a uniform process put into place by a technology. Although, the latter sounds like a decision event, it is mainly recorded as triggered by the reviewers and is clearly located in the network before the decision. Please see our guidelines for initial submission to make sure that you provide us with all necessary information at this stage. As Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) have outlined, differences in the governance of peer review systems become visible not only in how the process of peer review is transformed in a sequence of events, but also in how the different actors take part in this process and how they affect each others actions. Because it was sitting in my barn / shop for over 12 years!! In the third section, the data and their preparation are described in more detail, elaborating on why a social network approach appears to be suitable for exploring relationships between events of the editorial process mediated by the system. 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. One issue for discussion in that process is the role of the editor. Like other journals in the Nature family, Nature Microbiology has no external editorial board involved in editorial decision-making. We store the data in our institute for 10years according to the Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice (DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3923602) by the German Research Association (DFG). Moreover, the characteristics of both reviewers and editors are explored to a significant extent (Hirschauer, 2010, 73). The accepted manuscripts as well as those subject to revision are not processed further in this graph component. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frma.2021.747562/full#supplementary-material, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=data.table, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggraph, https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-116609, Manuscript identifier with version indicator, Role of person acting (relative to manuscript). In total, 278,098 events were filed in the database. The editor is reading your manuscript and figuring out whether or not she wants to send it for peer review. nature scienceBoard of Reviewing Editors scienceBoard of Reviewing Editors Board of Reviewing Editorsnaturescience Board of Reviewing Editorsscience connection [CDATA[// >
Clerk Of The Course Horse Racing Jobs,
Removing Paint From Drywall With Heat Gun,
Mendocino County Death Notices,
Melvin Capital Margin Call,
Articles E
editor decision started nature
