editor decision started nature

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. 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. Such claims are difficult to make given the limitations many studies on editorial peer review face. The edges carry two attributes: the multiplicity (how often two events occur in direct sequence in the items histories) and, as weight attribute for layout algorithms, the logarithm of the sum of durations between two vertices. This may show that the submission procedure is standardised, possibly making some forms of research impossible to submit. The phase of data collection was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within project 01PQ16003. This indicates, that administratively, the ongoing process is only indirectly affected by the reviewers recommendations, but directly affected by the editors decisions. This could indicate two possibilities. 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. . While the elements provided are not always easy to distinguish empirically, it appears plausible to assume that they may reflect different roles in that process. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the Nature. For instance, 10,522 events triggered by editors affect referees. We do so by making use of the internal representation of manuscript life cycles from submission to decision for 14,000 manuscripts submitted to a biomedical publisher. Moving forward, the MDIIM continues to work with faculty members, areas, and program offices to prioritize - and expand - integrated management pedagogy and to develop bold new . These events document the time passing before a relevant step in the consultation or postulation, inasmuch as they control if editors, authors and referees perform their tasks timely. However, in contrast to the patent for the editorial process, where steps have a clear order, the infrastructure seems to allow for an open process: in principle, almost any event could follow any other, which leaves the responsibility for the process in the domain of the actors. //-->