Please log in to your personal My Springer Nature profile and click on "Your submissions" to start tracking your articles. First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. https://www.grid.ac. "This is an extension of the wisdom-of-crowds theory that allows us to relax the assumption that being in big groups is always the best way to make a . The following is an example of a poor cover letter: Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am sending you our manuscript entitled "Large Scale Analysis of Cell Cycle Regulators in bladder cancer" by Researcher et al. https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzw009. We employed a Wald test to evaluate the statistical significance of each coefficient in the model by testing the hypothesis that the coefficient of an independent variable in the model is significantly different from zero. We used a significance threshold of 0.05. Nature Support Solution home Author and Peer Reviewer Support Submission Rejection of your paper / manuscript Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM Springer is committed to your. You have completed the submission and approval steps, and the article has been submitted to the journal. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. How long time should we wait for editor decision on a manuscript? and 0000005727 00000 n In the out-to-review analysis, we observed a significant difference between the OTR rate of papers by male and female corresponding authors of DBPR papers. The binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. 2002;17(8):34950. If authors choose DBPR, their details (names and affiliations) are removed from the manuscript files, and it is the authors responsibility to ensure their own anonymity throughout the text and beyond (e.g. In the context of scientific literature, an analysis of 2680 manuscripts from seven journals found no overall difference in the acceptance rates of papers according to gender, while at the same time reporting a strong effect of number of authors and country of affiliation on manuscripts acceptance rates [9]. Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) Tulare Ca Obituaries, Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. Examines all aspects of your scientific document. This is a statistically significant result, with a small effect size; the results of Pearsons chi-square test of independence are as follows: 2=1533.9, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.147. Our main question concerns a possible gender bias; therefore, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and gender, still including both direct submissions and transfers (Table8). We note here that, in recent years, trends in scholarly publishing have emerged that strongly propose transparent, or open, peer review as a model that could potentially improve the quality and robustness of the peer review process [18]. reparationstapet kllare . Data from Web of Science was used; more information regarding the details of article categories and approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. Nature. There are several factors that influence the time taken for review, most notably availability of article referees. Several Nature journals (see list below) follow a transparent peer review system, publishing details about the peer review process as part of the publication (including the reviewer comments to. However, we did not achieve a good fit, as per the binned plot of residuals against expected values, and the C-index (used to assess the discriminatory ability of standard logistic models) is 0.68, so well below the threshold of 0.8 for good fit. Trends Ecol Evol. I am not a robot. We only considered 83,256 (out of the 106,373) manuscripts for which the gender assigned to the corresponding authors name by Gender API had a confidence score of at least 80 and the gender was either male or female (the Gender Dataset, excluding transfers). The decision involved a ruling on a motion to . This work was supported by The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1. We have analysed a large dataset of submissions to 25 Nature journals over a period of 2years by review model and in dependence of characteristics of the corresponding author. Editorial Manager displays status terms as described in the table below. We would like to thank Michelle Samarasinghe for the help in collecting the data from the manuscript tracking system and Sowmya Swaminathan for the comments on the study and feedback on the manuscript draft. Let us suggest an alternative journal within our esteemed publishing portfolio for resubmitting your manuscript (and any reviewer comments) for fast, effortless publication. Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. Any pending input will be lost. In this scheme, authors are given the option to publish the peer review history of the paper alongside their published research. by | May 28, 2022 | vga white light on asus motherboard | anskan om utbyte av utlndskt krkort | May 28, 2022 | vga white light on asus motherboard | anskan om utbyte av utlndskt krkort After reviewing the reports, you can proceed to making decisions on papers. On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Eigenfactor Score calculation is based on the number of times articles from the journal published in the past five years have been cited in the JCR year, but it also considers which journals have contributed these citations so that highly cited journals will influence the network more than lesser cited journals. Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). 0000007420 00000 n Nature. This is because authors cannot modify their choice of review model at the transfer stage, and thus transfers cannot contribute to the uptake analysis. This might indicate that authors are more likely to choose DBPR when the stakes are higher in an attempt to increase their success chances by removing any implicit bias from the referees. Why did this happen? We also analysed the OTR rates by gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review type. Corresponding author defined. 0000004174 00000 n The dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. ~. Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. In the following analysis, we will refer to the data where the gender field is not NA as the Gender Dataset. The available data cannot tell us if other factors, such as the quality of the work, play a role in the choice of the review model. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. Cohen-Friendly association plot for Table5. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Springer Nature. journals - All Reviewers Assigned : Nature Communications revised Corresponding author defined. The aims of this study are to analyse the demographics of corresponding authors choosing double-blind peer review and to identify differences in the editorial outcome of manuscripts depending on their review model. The UC's agreement with Springer Nature is a three-year-plus agreement, through 2023, that increases both UC's access to Springer Nature journals and support for the open access publication of UC research. No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. Here, we define the corresponding author as the author who is responsible for managing the submission process on the manuscript tracking system and for all correspondence with the editorial office prior to publication. Median values and the graphed interval (minimum and maximum values), are indicated. %PDF-1.3 % This result does not change significantly if we focus on the three institution groups we defined (high-, medium-, and low-prestige), thus excluding the fourth group for which no THE rank was found (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=49.405, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.064), which means that authors from less prestigious institutions tend to be rejected more than authors from more prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. Click on the journal name to where you submitted your manuscript. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. It is calculated by multiplying the Eigenfactor Score by 0.01 and dividing by the number of articles in the journal, normalized as a fraction of all articles in all publications. Just select the In Review option when you submit your next article to one of the participating journals. This reply will be sent to the author of the Correspondence before publication. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. We inspected the gender assigned via the Gender API, which assigns an accuracy score between 0 and 100 to each record. 0000014682 00000 n We found that 10 countries contributed to 80% of all submissions, and thus, we grouped all other countries under the category Others. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. This measure is roughly analogous to the 5-Year Journal Impact Factor in that it is a ratio of a journal's citation influence to the size of the journal's article contribution over a period of five years. All papers submitted from January 2016 qualify for this scheme. Your new or revised submission has been sent back by the Editorial Team for changes prior to review. Journals can customize the wording of status terms. 0000008637 00000 n Decision-making: Theory and practic e 145. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. Correspondence to We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Pathobiology. Manuscript Submission Guidelines: Natural Product Communications: SAGE https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820, Newcombe NS, Bouton ME. While these shortcomings of the data are beyond our control, we have made it clear in the Results section when and why we have excluded a subset of the dataset in each aspect of the analysis. Most journals have online submission systems, which have definitely made it easier and quicker for authors to submit their manuscripts. Springer is committed to your publishing success: If your research is of good quality, then it may be suitable for another journal. When analysing data for the entire portfolio, we only included direct submissions (106,373) and we excluded manuscripts that were rejected by one journal and then transferred to another. Methods Data includes 128,454 manuscripts . Did you find it helpful? And here is a list of journals currently onIn Review. 0000006171 00000 n The dataset consisted of 133,465 unique records, with 63,552 different corresponding authors and 209,057 different institution names. While the metrics presented here are not intended to be a definitive list, we hope that they will prove to be informative. We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. MOYcs@9Y/b6olCfEa22>*OnAhFfu J 1m,&A mc2ya5a'3jyoJx6Fr?pW6'%c?,J;Gu"BB`Uc!``!,>. wuI-\Z&fy R-7. We fitted logistic regression models and report details on their goodness of fit. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. The system will also immediately post a preprint of your manuscript to the In Review section of Research Square, in easy-to-read HTML, and with a citeable DOI. 9.3 weeks. This resulted in 17,379 (14%) instances of manuscripts whose corresponding author was female, 83,830 (65%) manuscripts with male corresponding author, and 27,245 (21%) manuscripts with gender NA. sciencenature - 0000003764 00000 n Nature Communications is an open access, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research in all areas of the biological, physical, chemical and Earth sciences. Sodexo Disney Springs, Yes 2016;14(1):85. PLOS ONE. Renee Wever. All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. In order to see whether the OTR outcome could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. 0000065294 00000 n . We did not find a significant association between gender and review type (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=0.24883, df=1, p value=0.6179). As there are many steps involved in the editorial process, this may in some cases take longer than you had anticipated. . Help us to improve this site, send feedback. Trends Ecol Evol. Add a footnote to the article displaying the electronic link to the correction notice. . Either behaviour may apply to different demographics of authors. Proc Natl Acad Sci. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Nature . 0000001795 00000 n A study analysing 940 papers submitted to an international conference on economics held in Sweden in 2008 found no significant difference between the grades of female- and male-authored papers by review type [12]. 0000013573 00000 n Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model We investigated the relationship between review type and institutional prestige (as measured by the institution groups) by testing the null hypothesis that the review type is independent from prestige. Proofs are sent before publication; authors are welcome to discuss proposed changes with Nature's subeditors, but Nature reserves the right to make the final decision about matters of style and the size of figures. Help us improve this article with your feedback. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Krumholz HM. The target number of required reviews has been completed, and the Handling Editor is considering the reviews. Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on any editor bias. However, we recommend you check the Junk/ Spam folder in your mailbox to see if the journal's decision letter is present. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? When the decision is finalized, you will receive a direct email with the overall editorial decision, Editor and/or reviewer comments, and further instructions. Nature. 00ple`a`0000r9%_bxbZqsaa`LL@` N endstream endobj 53 0 obj 142 endobj 11 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 6 0 R /Resources 12 0 R /Contents [ 24 0 R 28 0 R 30 0 R 32 0 R 34 0 R 36 0 R 38 0 R 40 0 R ] /MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] /CropBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] /Rotate 0 >> endobj 12 0 obj << /ProcSet [ /PDF /Text /ImageC /ImageI ] /Font << /TT2 18 0 R /TT4 16 0 R /TT6 14 0 R /TT8 15 0 R /TT9 25 0 R >> /XObject << /Im1 51 0 R >> /ExtGState << /GS1 44 0 R >> /ColorSpace << /Cs6 22 0 R /Cs8 21 0 R >> >> endobj 13 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /Ascent 905 /CapHeight 0 /Descent -211 /Flags 96 /FontBBox [ -517 -325 1082 998 ] /FontName /JEGBJH+Arial,Italic /ItalicAngle -15 /StemV 0 /FontFile2 45 0 R >> endobj 14 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 117 /Widths [ 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 0 0 0 556 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 0 0 0 0 0 333 0 278 556 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /JEGBJH+Arial,Italic /FontDescriptor 13 0 R >> endobj 15 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 121 /Widths [ 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 333 278 0 0 556 556 556 556 556 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 722 722 722 722 667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 833 0 0 667 0 0 667 611 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 0 0 278 889 611 611 611 0 389 556 333 611 0 0 0 556 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /JEGBLI+Arial,Bold /FontDescriptor 20 0 R >> endobj 16 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 122 /Widths [ 278 0 0 0 0 0 667 191 333 333 0 0 278 333 278 278 556 556 556 556 0 556 556 556 0 556 278 278 0 0 0 0 0 667 667 722 722 667 611 778 0 278 500 0 556 833 722 0 667 0 722 667 611 0 0 944 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 556 500 556 556 278 556 556 222 222 500 222 833 556 556 556 556 333 500 278 556 500 722 500 500 500 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /JEGBJF+Arial /FontDescriptor 19 0 R >> endobj 17 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /Ascent 891 /CapHeight 0 /Descent -216 /Flags 34 /FontBBox [ -568 -307 2000 1007 ] /FontName /JEGBIE+TimesNewRoman /ItalicAngle 0 /StemV 0 /FontFile2 43 0 R >> endobj 18 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 32 /Widths [ 250 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /JEGBIE+TimesNewRoman /FontDescriptor 17 0 R >> endobj 19 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /Ascent 905 /CapHeight 718 /Descent -211 /Flags 32 /FontBBox [ -665 -325 2000 1006 ] /FontName /JEGBJF+Arial /ItalicAngle 0 /StemV 94 /XHeight 515 /FontFile2 42 0 R >> endobj 20 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /Ascent 905 /CapHeight 718 /Descent -211 /Flags 32 /FontBBox [ -628 -376 2000 1010 ] /FontName /JEGBLI+Arial,Bold /ItalicAngle 0 /StemV 133 /FontFile2 50 0 R >> endobj 21 0 obj [ /Indexed 22 0 R 255 41 0 R ] endobj 22 0 obj [ /ICCBased 49 0 R ] endobj 23 0 obj 1151 endobj 24 0 obj << /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 23 0 R >> stream What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager? - Elsevier These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. Transfer of papers between Cell Press journals and Molecular Plant. We found that a smaller proportion of DBPR papers are sent to review compared with SBPR papers and that there is a very small but significant association between review type and outcome of the first editorial decision (results of a chi-square test: 2=1623.3, df=1, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.112). Decisions are to be made by consensus. This first-of-its-kindoption, called In Review, brought to you by our partners at Research Square, makes it easy to share a preprint of your manuscript on the Research Square platform andgives you real time updates onyour manuscripts progress through peer review. Moreover, some records were not complete if authors made spelling mistakes when entering the names of their country or institution, as this would have made it impossible to match those names with normalised names for countries or for institutions using GRID. For some journals, the status may include the decision term e.g. Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings. r/biology I buried a dead rat (killed by delayed rat poison or a neighbor's cat) in an iron barrel with soil on Sep 8. In the following analysis, we will refer to the data for groups 1, 2, and 3 as the Institution Dataset. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. 0000003952 00000 n 0000008659 00000 n The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. Comment on/see emerging science in full HTMLin both phone and desktop-friendly sizes, Find new discoveries with fully-indexed search, Gain insight into the peer review pipeline at participating journals, Authors original submitted version and all versions are released in real time as peer review progresses. We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. The aims of this study are to analyse the demographics of corresponding authors choosing double-blind peer review and to identify differences in the editorial outcome of manuscripts depending on their review model. It is calculated by dividing the number of citations in the JCR year by the total number of articles published in the five previous years. Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by Make the correction notice free to view. Decision Sent to Author 2020-07-09 08:38:16 Decision Pending 2020-06-29 08:28:42 Under Review 2020-06-25 09:38:03 Under Editorial Consideration 2020-06-23 10:09:56 Manuscript Submission 2020-04-09 14:44:05 Stage Start Date Manuscript Ready for Publication 2020-07-16 10:45:24 . Information for other options are available on our Springer Nature Transfer Desk page. Nature Communications is incorporating transparent peer review into the journal on a permanent basis, following a successful ten-month trial. Our results show that we cannot say that there is a significant difference between authors from prestigious institutions and authors from less prestigious institutions for DBPR-accepted manuscripts. Reviews for "Nature Communications" - Page 1 - SciRev 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. Table13 shows the proportion of manuscripts that are sent for review and accepted or rejected with different peer review model and by gender of the corresponding author. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. Concerning the institutions, we defined four categories according to their THE ranks and used these as a proxy for prestige: category 1 includes institutions with THE rank between 1 and 10 (corresponding to 7167 manuscripts, 6% of all manuscripts), category 2 is for THE ranks between 11 and 100 (25,345 manuscripts, 20% of all manuscripts), category 3 for THE ranks above 100 (38,772 manuscripts, 30% of all manuscripts), and category 4 for non-ranked institutions (57,170 manuscripts, or 45% of all manuscripts). Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. Journal Metrics | Nature Communications In our case, this analysis was hampered by the lack of an independent measure of quality, by potential confounders such as potential editor bias towards the review model or author characteristics, and by the lack of controlled experiments in which the same paper is reviewed under both SBPR and DBPR, or in which DBPR is compulsory, thus eliminating the effect of bias towards the review model. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? 15 days You can make one of the following decisions: Accept, Revise or Reject. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. More information regarding the approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. Our aim was to understand the demographics of author uptake and infer the presence of any potential implicit bias towards gender, country, or institutional prestige in relation to the corresponding author. At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. No, Modified on: Mon, 5 Sep, 2022 at 6:52 PM. We have informational videos that pertain to our Journal Suggester and Transfer Desk that take about five minutes each to listen to if you are interested in learning more about them. (major revision)6 (revision)3 (Covid-19) 3. bounded rationality . 2017-07-13 11:21. We decided to exclude the gender values NA and we observed a significant but very small difference in the acceptance rate by gender (Pearsons chi-square test of independence: 2=3.9364, df=1, p value=0.047; Cramers V=0.015), leading us to conclude that manuscripts by female corresponding authors are slightly less likely to be accepted. This study provides insight on authors behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. If you need any assistance please contact us at Author Support, or contact the responsible editor for the journal. Barbara McGillivray. Once all author information has been resolved and extraneous or incorrect information removed, the system will guide you to the Manuscript Information tab. How Many Seats Are Premium Economy On Emirates A380?, 2016;1(2):1637. This can potentially skew our results if, for example, there are differences in the proportion of names that cannot be attributed between genders. JAMA. nature physics. 8. nature1. Nature does not consider Communications Arising on papers published in other journals. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? Am J Roentgenol. . Double-blind peer review (DBPR) has been proposed as a means to avoid implicit bias from peer reviewers against characteristics of authors such as gender, country of origin, or institution. The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. The full model has a pseudo R2 of 0.06, which means that the model only represents a 6% improvement over simply guessing the most frequent outcome, or in other words, the model is not powerful enough to predict the uptake of DB with high reliability. New submissions that remain Incomplete more than 90 days will be removed. Finally, we investigated the uptake of the peer review models by country of the corresponding author for the entire portfolio, using data on all of the 106,373 manuscripts. "More Manuscript Info and Tools. We believe that Impact Factor is just one of a number of metrics that can be used to evaluate a journal, and a small number of highly cited papers can have a disproportionate effect on the mean number of citations per paper. We then mapped the normalised institution names from our dataset to the normalised institution names of the THE rankings via a Python script. Here to foster information exchange with the library community. If an author believes the decision regarding their manuscript was affected by a publication ethics breach, . In Review clearly links your manuscript to the journal reviewing it, while its in review. Depending upon the nature of the revisions, the revised paper may be sent out for additional review or it may be accepted directly. How do I find and access my journal's submission system. We did not find a significant association between OTR and gender (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=0.015641, df=1, p value=0.9005). In Review | SpringerNature | Authors | Springer Nature botln botkyrka kommun. Linkping University. by | May 28, 2022 | vga white light on asus motherboard | anskan om utbyte av utlndskt krkort | May 28, 2022 | vga white light on asus motherboard | anskan om utbyte av utlndskt krkort Correct the online article. . Once your articleis accepted for publication, you can track its status with the track your accepted article tool. If we compare male authors and female authors acceptance rates for SBPR papers (44 vs. 46%), we find that there is not a significant difference in female authors and male authors for SBPR-accepted manuscripts (results of two-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction test: 2=3.6388, df=1, p value=0.05645). 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. In Review. 0000011063 00000 n Third review was never returned so decision was at least partly based on two reviews from the same discipline. We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. The effect of blinding on review quality. Vintage Cardboard Christmas Decorations, In order to assign a measure of institutional prestige to each manuscript, we used the 2016/2017 Times Higher Education rankings (THE [20]) and normalised the institution names using the GRID API. The proportion of authors that choose double-blind review is higher when they submit to more prestigious journals, they are affiliated with less prestigious institutions, or they are from specific countries; the double-blind option is also linked to less successful editorial outcomes. If you have previously submitted a paper to a Nature Portfolio journal and would like an update on the status of your submission, please login to the manuscript tracking account for the . This status will remain until you begin the process of submitting your revision. A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . The result was a p value below 0.05, which shows that removing any of the predictors would harm the fit of the best model. Locate submission instructions for a Springer journal, Submit a manuscript with your ORCID number, Submit a Nature Portfolio manuscript for Open Access publishing, Submit multimedia files to be published online with your article.
Jason Jolkowski Websleuths, What Challenges Did Lyndon B Johnson Face, Articles D