Pentecostal Churches In South Korea, Andrei Karlov Assassination Full Video, Articles E

The performance of the editor can thus be controlled and evaluated by other stakeholders in the organization of the publisher. After several rounds of revision, when the revised manuscript was submitted, the status showed 'quality check started' - 'peer review' - 'decision started.' An example would be a researcher filling in a form in a web frontend including uploading a manuscript (activity/action), which the infrastructure would be recording as Manuscript submitted by user X (event/stage). If it isn't, we encourage you to ask. The only aspect, for which we could not clearly reject the potential automated decision making was the Initial Quality Controlsupposedly a check for a correctly completed submission form. The editor-in-chief is primarily responsible for initial receipt of the manuscript and assignment to an associate editor. Editorial management systems may be understood as aiming at representing such abstract roles and processual elements. 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. LetPub However, based on our analysis, we explore what can be known from editorial management systems and in what ways decisions jointly emerge from editorial decision and structures provided by the infrastructure. Before In any case, not assigning a role to some actors shows that those are regarded less relevant for the editorial process by design. The .gov means its official. UNESCO. As the case studied here shows, editorial management systems can be and are adapted to their context. Some authors ask the editors to reconsider a rejection decision. Also, there are no actions recorded without two person-IDs involved, which means, that automated actions, if recorded, must be included with person-IDs. Journal decisions 6. When we plot the network with Kamada-Kawai layout, the high network density causes the network to appear as a circle (see Figure 4, left) with no visually detectable pattern between source and target. It has been stated that such infrastructures are also a source for negotiating innovations in peer review, as the system plays a major role in connecting and coordinating the various editorial practices (Horbach and Halffman, 2020, p.11). Stage 1: Initial quality check This stage includes checks on authorship, competing interests, ethics approval and plagiarism. Lifting the curtain on editorial decisions - Springer Nature The focus on establishing agreement of at least the majority or the supermajority and avoiding unproductive opinion differentiates consensus from unanimity, which requires . The accepted manuscripts as well as those subject to revision are not processed further in this graph component. Editorial contacts can be found by clicking on the "Help & support" button under. In the patent, it says: A users role includes one or more of the following relationships between the manuscript and the associated person: author, editor, associate editor, reviewer, or staff member. (Plotkin, 2009 p.5). We use the perspective of the infrastructure by studying the recorded events it has created as a result of actions by different actors. nature~_ [CDATA[// >Nature paper - Manuscript timeline : r/labrats - reddit Nature. 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. Your revised manuscript should be submitted using the link provided in the decision email, and not as a new manuscript. Hereinafter, to demarcate different perspectives, we speak of actions or activities, when we refer to what is done, and we talk about events or stages, when we refer to what is recorded in the infrastructure and found in the data traces. UNESCO - Wikipedia 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. Consequently, infrastructures may best be understood as manifestations of specific operations or sometimes even of a whole process (Niewhner, 2014, 6). Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant? Moreover, the characteristics of both reviewers and editors are explored to a significant extent (Hirschauer, 2010, 73). 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. LetPub - Scientific Journal Selector | Nature Energy Editage Insights offers a wealth of free academic research and publishing resources and is a one-stop guide for authors and others involved in scholarly publishing.