The status 'Decision started' indicates that the peer review process for your manuscript is complete and the paper is now with the editor. It appears that some of these calls presuppose knowledge about the complex interplay of actors and technologies in editorial processes. In this paper, we present an empirical case study: processual data from a journal management system provide insights into how the peer review process is carried out at four journals of a specific publisher in the biomedical field. While they draw in their examples from grant peer review, they explicitly claim their depiction to enable comparative analyses of different peer review processes along the elements of a minimal process: postulation, consultation, decision and administration. Nature. The latter means to us that while the system itself is hidden from us, we use what we have access to: traces of how the digital infrastructure is used. If the editor is satisfied with your work, they will choose appropriate peer reviewers to evaluate your work, taking into account several factors including expertise, experience . In the data used for our investigation, we see traces of actions and participant roles in different processes. . For the investigation of actions with regard to the different roles in the process, the whole dataset was used. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. This is supported by the process sequence empirically showing regularities but being very open in principle. If we rule out automated decision making (which we elaborate on later in this text). We have shown in our contribution, that the peer review process in digital infrastructures is complex: We started from an abstract description of a minimal peer review process with four elements according to Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020), acknowledged an ideal digitalized process with seventeen positioned components according to a patent (Plotkin, 2009) and empirically found an open process with 72 events in it. In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles In the event of publication, the received date is the date of submission to the journal where the manuscript is published. var d=new Date(); yr=d.getFullYear();document.write(yr); Because it was sitting in my barn / shop for over 12 years!! We did not use a clustering algorithm, because those usually are based on cohesion or distance metrics: they regard those parts of graphs as different components, which are only weakly linked or distant from each other, whereas nodes belong to the same cluster component if they are strongly linked or close to each other. Moreover, the characteristics of both reviewers and editors are explored to a significant extent (Hirschauer, 2010, 73). The network was then investigated iteratively, each descriptive step pointing to a new direction to follow and the insights gained were grouped together and will be discussed against each other in the end. For most of the analyses, a simplified network was used: loops were removed and multiple edges between the same two vertices were reduced to one. For some time, the manuscript items are actively maintained when they undergo consultation eventually, when they are decided about, and when the editorial decision is communicated to the authors and/or the manuscript is sent to production. . [CDATA[> Editorial management systems may then be interpreted as representations and manifestations of the peer review process which is itself an internal element of the self-governance within the sciences. Review Time in Peer Review: Quantitative Analysis and Modelling of Editorial Workflows, Perspektiven der Infrastrukturforschung: care-full, relational, ko-laborativ, Schlsselwerke der Science & Technology Studies, Ggraph: An Implementation of Grammar of Graphics for Graphs and Networks, From Manuscript Evaluation to Article Valuation: The Changing Technologies of Journal Peer Review, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Peer Review Practices: A Content Analysis of External Reviews in Science Funding, Zwischen Reputation und Markt: Ziele, Verfahren und Instrumente von (Selbst)Evaluationen aueruniversitrer, ffentlicher Forschungseinrichtungen. While different studies about the roles and tasks of both reviewers and editors were published (Hirschauer, 2010; Glonti et al., 2019), editorial practices are only rarely investigated (Weller, 2001). Thus, it is rendered invisible as distinguishable component. This is exactly the reason why the digital infrastructure allows for the investigation of its users in so many different ways. . Administrative work at journals then comprises, for instance, the handling and coordination of manuscripts (ibid.). Many journals now rely on editorial management systems (Taubert, 2012), which are supposed to support the administration and decision making of editors, while aiming at making the process of communication faster and more transparent to both reviewers and authors (Mendona, 2017). We focus our analysis on editorial peer review, that is, processes related to editorial selection, management and decision making. We were allowed to analyse the data but not to share or publish the dataset. Empirically, we use digital traces from an editorial management system in order to gain insights into how the digitalized peer review process looks like. Also, Editor Recommendation Started (N = 431) was attributed to this category. The multiplicity of edges expresses how often its ends occur in direct sequence in the whole dataset, that means, for all first version manuscripts together. An official website of the United States government. Hopefully, you will be informed of the decision soon. Benjamin Franklin FRS FRSA FRSE (January 17, 1706 [O.S. Today, peer review is not only practiced to judge the quality and appropriateness of scholarly manuscripts for specific journals, but also to evaluate grant proposals (Reinhart, 2010), persons (such as in calling committees) (Kleimann and Hckstdt, 2021) or even research organizations (Rbbecke and Simon, 1999). 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. In contrast, in our data, the editors play a major role, performing lots of tasks affecting actors with other roles assigned and there is no automated decision making at play, when it comes to the final publishing approval decision. This matched with what we would have expected to happen: there are editorial decisions without peer review, which is also represented by the editorial management system. Editors are often perceived as the gate keepers of science (Crane, 1967), distributing credit and reputation by deciding about papers to be published against field and journal specific values and criteria (Jubb, 2015, p.14). We are able to compare the elements and events described in the patent (Plotkin, 2009) with its adaptation at the publisher in question, where the elements of the process could only be identified by taking event labels, performing actors and sequence of steps together. The phase of data collection was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within project 01PQ16003. .. . We preliminarily conclude that the partial perspective through the eyes of the digital infrastructure provides valuable insights into the peer review process, which are difficult to obtain otherwise. Please share with the community how many days the entire process took by the editor's office. 2002 Given that our data set is situated and that digital practices are related and aligned by the infrastructure, we follow the infrastructures and aim at studying how they structure and reflect the practices of its users. This indicates, that administratively, the ongoing process is only indirectly affected by the reviewers recommendations, but directly affected by the editors decisions. Editorial management systems are perceived as an infrastructure in this work. The editors consider reviewer feedback and their own evaluation of the manuscript in order to reach a decision. The use of editorial management systems as digital infrastructures for the management of collaboration hence requires processual knowledge about the peer review process. Such claims are difficult to make given the limitations many studies on editorial peer review face. Decisions are reversed on appeal only if the editors are convinced that the original decision was an error. Instead, all editorial decisions are made by a. After noise-reduction, a core component emerges. Nine events were attributed to the administrative activities of the peer review process, according to Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) comprising processes, where postulations are received, their treatments are initiated or being coordinated. The figure shows the decisions for the original manuscript version (v0) and resubmitted versions (v1v5). Research Square and Nature are two distinct publication venues. 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. These changes in the ways of how the infrastructure is used may alter the boundaries between different types of practices carried out within organizations handling peer review (see next theoretical section), and ultimately the editorial role as such. The editors of the receiving journal will take the reviews into account when making their decision, although in some cases they may choose to take advice from additional reviewers. While focussing our analysis only on the case of one biomedical publisher, we may infer some more general observations for this realm of research. Different to what the patent for the technology suggests, the actual use of the infrastructure may be particularly complex, revealing the difficulties in managing and maintaining collaboration among different types of actors. Usually, the times vary from two to six months, but there is no fixed rule. Decline publication, typically on grounds of either there being insufficient support for the conclusions or a reassessment of the level of interest or advance in light of the reviewers' comments. Events triggered by (columns) and affective to (rows) the different roles assigned. Innovating Editorial Practices: Academic Publishers at Work, Peer Review: The Current Landscape and Future Trends, Selection Criteria in Professorial Recruiting as Indicators of Institutional Similarity? The editorial management system makes these different roles visible, by attributing person-IDs as authors, editors and reviewers to manuscripts. The event information was further enriched with year of submission, pseudonym of journal, and by (pseudonymized) data about the roles (editor, author, reviewer or none) of the person-IDs with regard to the respective manuscripts. How long should I wait for a response from the journal? Manuscript received)->Editor assigned->Manuscript under consideration->Editor Decision StartedDecision sent to author->Waiting for revision, ->Revision receivedManuscript #A1Manuscript under submission->Manuscript received->Editor assigned->Manuscript under consideration->Editor Decision Started, . The reviewers further triggered Review Received (N = 8,672), First Referee Accepted (N = 2,766) and Review Complete (N = 3,222), the latter indicating that a consultation event has actually taken place. The other possibility, as you have correctly judged, is that the manuscript might receive a desk rejection. //-->