At this time, the AE read and evaluates the. Though many would agree that novel practices relating to different platforms have emerged (such as, for example, social bookmarking sites), many open questions remain as to whether such infrastructures have profoundly changed existing processes, values or practices of knowledge production (Horbach and Halffman, 2019). It appears that some of these calls presuppose knowledge about the complex interplay of actors and technologies in editorial processes. Motivation: Altogether, this was a positive experience. The focus of the patent is on how to facilitate the peer review process in a digital infrastructure. Typically, events referring to what Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) have called postulation are triggered by the authors. The infrastructure models the peer review process along the way of submitted (versions of) manuscripts, which enter the system during submission and pass through different stages afterwards. 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. If it goes for review, then it will be about a month before you get the comments. From an organizational perspective, the documentation of these events allows for carefully reconstructing and justifying difficult decisions, but it could also provide more insights into what happens at this stage of the process. The editor decides about opening and closing the external review (expressed by Manuscript Consultation Session Started (N = 5,816) and Manuscript Consultation Ended (N = 2,010)). Additionally, actions were recorded for person-IDs not having a role assigned for the respective manuscript. While focussing our analysis only on the case of one biomedical publisher, we may infer some more general observations for this realm of research. These last three events were in the majority of the cases not recorded as triggered by the authors, but by the none role, displaying their additional observational or administrative character. We sorted seven events into this category (according to their labelling and the distribution of triggering roles), of which the event Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted is the event with the highest frequency in the database (N = 16,901), followed by Author Approved Converted Files (N = 13,978). This led us to iteratively disintegrate the network by deleting the passage points. Answered by Editage Insights A Comparison of German Universities and Universities of Applied Sciences, Krger A. K., Hesselmann F., Hartstein J. Nine events could be attributed to this category, the most important being the four decision events Manuscript Accepted (N = 1,711), Manuscript Revise Only (893), Manuscript Revise and Re-Review (1,540) and Manuscript Rejected (9,835). //--> What is more, scholarship about peer review lacks from a structural perspective on that process, e.g., how much time and resources are bound by which kind of activities in the process of handling manuscripts at scholarly journals. The patent shows the components like postulation, consultation and decision as elements relatively clearly, but the component of administration is distributed over the whole process. If the editor decides to send the manuscript to peer reviewers, they will contact researchers with relevant expertise. Depending on the journal, the assignment may be done by technical staff, the journal's chief editor, or automatic by submission category or author suggestion. In the next section, we introduce the theoretical framework and main perspectives. If an appeal merits further consideration, the editors may send the authors' response or the revised paper to one or more reviewers, or they may ask one reviewer to comment on the concerns raised by another reviewer. The decision is framed by Editor Decision Started (N = 6,215, triggered often by the reviewer) and Editor Decision Complete (N = 13,973)the difference in size indicates, that the editors decision can happen directly without external consultation. Though many agree that scholarly publishing and peer review are social processes (Reinhart, 2010), investigations about the processes of scholarly publishing and peer review are rare, given that persons engaged in these processes actively resist investigation (Hirschauer, 2010, 73). Your manuscript entitled "xxxxxxxxx" has now been seen again by our original reviewers, whose comments are appended below. 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). This procedure is followed by most journals. 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. on 21 Oct, 2016. According to Guston (2001), there is a social contract granting autonomy and self-regulation to science only if scientific quality and productivity is ensured. If this is nature group and it is "editor decision started" then it means the editor did something, including receiving a review report or selecting a new reviewer (from what I have experienced) Why are papers rejected? Some editors keep a paper for long time, more than 6 months or a year, without a decision and when send them a reminder message they do not reply or sometimes reply for the first time saying that . Consequently, infrastructures may best be understood as manifestations of specific operations or sometimes even of a whole process (Niewhner, 2014, 6). 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. Similarly, disputes on factual issues need not be resolved unless they would have altered the final decision to publish or not. Reviewers are notidentified to the authors, except at the request of the reviewer. How long does an editor decision take? All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication. a cover letter that provides any additional information requested by the editors. Because of combinatorial explosion, large networks can be expected to be less dense than smaller ones. The administrative procedures appear to be well covered by Editor assigned (N = 17,499), Editor Replaced (N = 561) and Secondary Editor Replaced (N = 333) as well as events indicating the contacting or assignment of reviewers: the editors choose the reviewers (expressed by Potential Referees Assigned (N = 10,888) and Contacting Potential Referees (N = 19,878)) and are informed about the outcome of their request with All Referees Assigned (N = 3,607). In this regard, editorial management systems perform timekeeping, when they support and oversee the duration of sub-processes (Reviewer Waited too Long, Waiting for Authors Revision etc.). After initial checks are complete, the manuscript is assigned to an editor, who reads the paper, consults with the editorial team, and decides whether it should be sent for peer review. Based on the Nature Methods Review Speed Feedback System, it takes editor 146.00 days to accept manuscript. This means that a manuscript will usually loop through the review process more than once, depending on the editorial decisionin our case up to six times. The logarithm was chosen because the time between stages is distributed skew to the left (see Figure 2). Exploring a digital infrastructure without actually having access to it is challenging. The journal covers topics including: -Lasers, LEDs and other light sources -Imaging, detectors and sensors -Optoelectronic devices and components -Novel materials and engineered structures -Physics of light propagation, interaction and behaviour -Quantum optics and cryptography -Ultrafast photonics -Biophotonics -Optical data storage D1ckChowder 2 yr. ago It could mean many things. English Editing - Editage.com | Editage.jp | Editage.co.kr |SCI Editage.cn |publicao de artigos Editage.com.br | Editage.com.tw |Terms of UseforEnglish Editing Services. 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). 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. Moreover, infrastructures can be seen as structures emerging from situated knowledges, a term coined by Haraway (1988) with regard to people and communities with partial perspectives. January 6, 1705] - April 17, 1790) was an American polymath who was active as a writer, scientist, inventor, statesman, diplomat, printer, publisher, forger and political philosopher. We did not categorize the source and target nodes as they were introduced throughout our analysis and not created by the system in the first place. Editor assignment or invitation Based on the topic of the manuscript and suggestions by the authors, an editor is assigned to handle the manuscript. While these activities certainly would exist without editorial management systems, the latter makes them more visible and suspect to monitoring and optimization, because they can standardize editorial practices. Instead, all editorial decisions are made by a. Empirically, we use digital traces from an editorial management system in order to gain insights into how the digitalized peer review process looks like. The operationalization and implementation shows specific interpretations of the peer review process as an organizational activity. The phase of data collection was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within project 01PQ16003. Accordingly, our process elements are strongly linked by the first couple of passage points, because they indicate states of transition. At the same time, they emphasize a power perspective with regard to different degrees of involvement for actors, their role and participant status. Plotkin (2009) in laying out the basis of the editorial management system used in our case patented a process for computer implemented manuscript review and described a prototypical journal peer review process. The editorial management system however, does not only record which actor with which role releases or triggers an event. Since we draw from data of one publisher, we cannot make systematic claims about the usage of editorial management systems, but rather intend to generate new questions and perspectives for research in this area. In this principal depiction, the digital infrastructure of the editorial management system is presented to foster values such as timeliness and comprehensiveness. manuscpt under consideration 40editor decision started. //-->