the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in In the minimal process of peer review according to Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020), we would find the four processual elements being mutually connected with each other. journals - All Reviewers Assigned : Nature Communications revised They enable, support or constrain some behaviours, but they can also make certain activities more visible and thereby more relevant than others, they pick and choose (ibid., 1). The institution of scholarly peer review as the main instance for scientific quality assurance appears to be comparably stable since more than three hundred years, despite several technical changes (Reinhart, 2010; Pontille and Torny, 2015; Horbach and Halffman, 2019). Peer reviewers are assigned to manuscripts, reviewers recommendations are considered and the fate of a manuscript is decided about by the editor. There are certainly technological and organizational models in play fundamentally altering the role models of both reviewers and editors. 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. The second possibility is the long decision path from Manuscript Consultation Started through external peer review to Editor Decision Complete. Reviewers read the manuscript and submit their reports. Further consideration may be merited if a reviewer made substantial errors of fact or there is significant evidence of bias, but only if a reversal of that reviewer's opinion would have changed the original decision. The publisher uses the system EJournalPress to manage their editorial peer review lead by full-time staff editors in a shared office space. Your revised manuscript should be submitted using the link provided in the decision email, and not as a new manuscript. Editing and proofreading services for a publication-ready manuscript, Customized service packs to match all publication needs, Expert help for all academic translation needs. While the data explored do not allow for mining reviewers recommendations, and the data in this article say little about how editors deal with data about reviewers or authors, it does document well the various steps taken by the editors to reach to both authors and reviewers, to communicate and prepare selections and decisions. Centrality is a relative measure, putting different nodes into an ordered relation. Reviewer selection is critical to the review process, and we work hard to ensure that the different technical and conceptual aspects of the work are covered. Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. Manuscript submission under review | Student Doctor Network It is not our goal, however, to make a life cycle analysis of manuscripts at this publisher. Because of combinatorial explosion, large networks can be expected to be less dense than smaller ones. 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.
editor decision started nature