All referees agree to Nature 's conditions before Nature sends them a manuscript to assess. Although Nature editors go to every effort to ensure manuscripts are assessed fairly, Nature is not responsible for the conduct of its referees.
Nature welcomes authors' suggestions for suitable independent referees with their contact details , but editors are free to decide themselves who to use as referees. Nature editors will normally honour requests that a paper not be sent to one or two but no more competing groups for review.
Nature uses a transparent peer review system, where for manuscripts submitted from February we can publish the reviewer comments to the authors and author rebuttal letters of published original research articles. Authors are provided the opportunity to opt out of this scheme at the completion of the peer review process, before the paper is accepted.
If the manuscript was transferred to us from another Nature Research journal, we will not publish reviewer reports or author rebuttals of versions of the manuscript considered by the originating Nature Research journal.
The peer review file is published online as a supplementary peer review file. Although we hope that the peer review files will provide a detailed and useful view into our peer review process, it is important to note that these files will not contain all the information considered in the editorial decision making process, such as the discussions between editors, editorial decision letters, or any confidential comments made by reviewers or authors to the editors.
This scheme only applies to original research Articles, and not to Review articles or to other published content. For more information, please refer to our FAQ page. All peer-reviewed content will carry an anonymous statement of peer reviewer acknowledgement, and for those reviewers who give their consent, we will publish their names alongside the published article.
We will continue to publish peer reviewer reports where authors opt in to our separate transparent peer review scheme. If the reviewers wish to be named their names will appear in alphabetical order at the end of the paper in a statement as below:. Any reviewers that wish to remain anonymous will be acknowledged using a slightly modified statement:. If no reviewers agree to be named, we will still acknowledge their valuable service using the statement below:.
Nature makes decisions about submitted papers as rapidly as possible. All manuscripts are handled electronically throughout the consideration process. Authors are usually informed within a week if the paper is not being considered. Most referees honour their prior agreement with Nature to deliver a report within seven days or other agreed time limit, and send their reports online.
Decisions by editors are routinely made very rapidly after receipt of reports, and Nature offers an advance online publication AOP service to an increasing number of manuscripts. All Articles published in Nature go through at least one round of review, usually two or three, sometimes more.
If Nature declines to publish a paper and does not suggest resubmission, authors are strongly advised to submit their paper for publication elsewhere. If an author wishes to appeal against Nature 's decision, the appeal must be made in writing, not by telephone, and should be confined to the scientific case for publication. As expected, authors of accepted manuscripts are more satisfied with the peer review experience than authors of rejected papers Table 6.
On a scale from 0 very bad to 5 excellent , they rate the process a 4, compared to a 2. A longer duration of the process is negatively associated with the rating, independent of the process outcome. To assess the independent associations between the characteristics of the process and the satisfaction of authors, a multivariate regression analysis was performed with the overall rating of the process as dependent variable Table 7.
This analysis shows that even when the other variables are taken into account, all three aspects, i. Interestingly, it also shows that, in spite of the longer duration in Economics and Business, Social sciences, and Mathematics and Computer sciences, authors in those fields are more positive about the process than authors in the General journals, Medicine and Public health, where processes are shorter.
Expectations thus clearly play a role. As expected, authors of accepted papers are even more positive if the journal has a higher impact factor. They are afterwards also less bothered by a longer duration of the first review round and by more than one review round.
We also find that authors rate the process more positive if they receive more referee reports, in particular after a long first review round and when the manuscript is rejected. This indicates that authors appreciate the work of reviewers and the feedback given on their manuscripts. Compared to authors from non-English-speaking countries, those from English-speaking countries are generally less satisfied with the process, particularly when their manuscript is rejected or in case of more than one review round.
This suggests that authors from English-speaking countries have higher expectations of the peer review process. Alberts, B. Reviewing peer review. Science, , Article Google Scholar. Allison, P. Missing data. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Azar, O. Rejections and the importance of first response times. International Journal of Social Economics, 31 3 , — The slowdown in first-response times of economics Journals: Can it be beneficial?
Economic Inquiry, 45 1 , — Scientific journal publishing: Yearly volume and open access availability. Information Research, 14, 1. Google Scholar.
The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetics, 7, — Cherkashin, I. The inside scoop: Acceptance and rejection at the journal of international economics. Journal of International Economics, 77, — Ellison, G. The slowdown of the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy, 5 , — Evolving standards for academic publishing: A q-r theory.
Etkin, A. A new method and metric to evaluate the peer review process of scholarly journals. Pub Res Q, 30, 23— Scientometrics, , — Hamermesh, D. Facts and myths about refereeing. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8 1 , — Hardy, M. Regression with dummy variables. Jinha, A. Article 50 million: An estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence.
Learned Publishing, 23, — Kareiva, P. Slow-moving journals hinder conservation efforts. Nature, , Lewin, A. The peer-review process: The good, the bad, the ugly, and the extraordinary. Management and Organization Review, 10 2 , — Lotriet, C. Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay.
Australasian Medical Journal, 5 1 , 26— Moizer, P. Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, — Nicholas, D. Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 28 1 , 15— Onitilo, A. A core-item reviewer evaluation CoRE system for manuscript peer review.
Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 21, — Park, I. Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review. Nature, , 93— Pautasso, M. Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals. Scientometrics, 84, — Peters, D. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again.
The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, — Plume, A. Publish or perish? The rise of the fractional author: Research Trends.
Resnik, D. Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: An exploratory study. Solomon, D. Publication fees in open access publishing: Sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. Thompson, G. Does paying referees expedite reviews? Southern Economic Journal, 76 3 , — Tite, L. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A Survey, Cintinuing Professional Education, 61, 9— Ware, M. The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing.
Download references. You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar. I need the initial reviews to be completed soon so as to be able to meet a "profession-related" deadline. Asked on 04 Dec, I understand that waiting for the journal to get back to you is a stressful and nailbiting time, more so since you want your paper to be published by a certain deadline. The time it takes for a journal to get the review process completed varies across journals and fields.
While some take a month or two, others can take up to 6 months or more. But do not get stressed. First of all, check the journal's website for information regarding expected review timelines.
If you fail to find this or you think their timelines are too extended for you to get your paper accepted by the deadline you have in mind, I think you should contact the journal editor. Explain your situation to him or her in detail and request for an update.
You will find a template for writing to the editor for a status update here: How long should I wait for a response from the journal? You can customize it to suit your request. Particularly if English is not your first language, before submitting your manuscript you may wish to have it edited for language. This is not a mandatory step, but may help to ensure that the academic content of your paper is fully understood by journal editors and reviewers. Language editing does not guarantee that your manuscript will be accepted for publication.
Authors are liable for all costs associated with such services. Please note: permission to reproduce copyright material, for print and online publication in perpetuity, must be cleared and if necessary paid for by the author; this includes applications and payments to DACS, ARS, and similar licensing agencies where appropriate.
Evidence in writing that such permissions have been secured from the rights-holder must be made available to the editorial office. It is also the author's responsibility to include acknowledgements as stipulated by the particular institutions.
Further information on permissions can be found at Rights and Permissions. It is a condition of publication in the Journal that authors assign their copyright to the Past and Present Society. This ensures that requests from third parties to reproduce articles are handled efficiently and consistently and will also allow the article to be as widely disseminated as possible. Authors may use their own material in other publications provided that the Journal is acknowledged as the original place of publication, and Oxford University Press is notified in writing and in advance.
Please notify OUP immediately if your details change. If your article is accepted for publication OUP will contact you using the email address you have used in the registration process.
Please note that some funders require open access publication as a condition of funding. If you are unsure whether you are required to publish open access, please do clarify any such requirements with your funder or institution. Should you wish to publish your article open access, you should select your choice of open access licence in our online system after your article has been accepted for publication.
You will need to pay an open access charge to publish under an open access licence. Details of the open access licences and open access charges. OUP has a growing number of Read and Publish agreements with institutions and consortia which provide funding for open access publishing.
This means authors from participating institutions can publish open access, and the institution may pay the charge. Find out if your institution is participating. CrossRef Funding Data Registry In order to meet your funding requirements authors are required to name their funding sources, or state if there are none, during the submission process.
0コメント