In the ten countries with the highest number of submissions, we found a large significant association between country and review type ( p value < 0.001, df = 10, Cramer’s V = 0.189). We had 58,920 records with normalised institutions and a THE rank, and we found that corresponding authors from the less prestigious institutions are more likely to choose double-blind review ( p value < 0.001, df = 2, Cramer’s V = 0.106). We had gender information for 50,533 corresponding authors and found no statistically significant difference in the distribution of peer review model between males and females ( p value = 0.6179). We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type ( p value < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.054, df = 2). We also performed logistic regression modelling with author update, out-to-review, and acceptance as response, and journal tier, author gender, author country, and institution as predictors.Īuthor uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). We employed descriptive statistics for data exploration, and we tested our hypotheses using Pearson’s chi-square and binomial tests. The prestige of the corresponding author’s institutions was measured from the data of the Global Research Identifier Database (GRID) by dividing institutions in three prestige groups with reference to the 2016 Times Higher Education (THE) ranking.
The gender (male, female, or NA) of the corresponding authors was determined from their first name using a third-party service (Gender API).
We then studied the manuscripts’ editorial outcome in relation to review model and author’s characteristics. We investigated the uptake of double-blind review in relation to journal tier, as well as gender, country, and institutional prestige of the corresponding author. Data includes 128,454 manuscripts received between March 2015 and February 2017 by 25 Nature-branded journals.
0 kommentar(er)
