editor decision started nature

Reconstructing the processes applying social network analysis, we found that the individual steps in the process have no strict order, other than could be expected with regard to the software patent. 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. Motivation: Altogether, this was a positive experience. The editors of the receiving journal will take the reviews into account when making their decision, although in some cases they may choose to take advice from additional reviewers. At the same time, expectations that a stronger use of digital infrastructures would inevitably push forward innovations in peer review may be disappointed. . Yet, the analysis of processual data from an editorial management system may lead to research paying more attention to organizational issues of scholarly publishing, that is, practices related with maintaining and binding reviewers, authors and editors to a scholarly journal. Answer: It is clear from the status descriptions that your revised manuscript was sent for peer review again. and JavaScript. From the start of manuscript consultation until the editors decision: The figure shows that there is a short way (red) without external consultation and the long and complex way with external reviewers (grey). The remaining network has only 96 edges and a density of d = 0.02, and a core-periphery structure becomes visible (see Figure 4, right). 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. Furthermore, the following events were attributed to postulation: Manuscript File Added (N = 6,356), Manuscript File Replaced (N = 3,261) and Manuscript Withdrawn (N = 228), the latter being attributed to postulation because authors can decide as to whether they want to keep or withdraw their claim. The editor contacts potential reviewers to ask them to review the manuscript. The analysis may also provide first insights to what extent the events recorded are automatically generated. Surprisingly fine grained is the representation of the communication about the decision. Digital marketing - Wikipedia Moreover, acceleration, control and efficiency have been main arguments for establishing editorial management systems in the first place (Jubb, 2015; Mendona, 2017), putting pressure on publishers and editors of journals to implement streamlined procedures. 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). This characteristic of the peer review process we must consider specific for this publisher, according to our data, and not a general feature, as the editorial management software could also be used otherwise. [CDATA[// >