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. With respect to the tasks the editor performs, we can see that the editor is the most powerful actor in the process as represented in the traces of digital infrastructures as opposed to a more automated process powered by the infrastructure. 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. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). The focus on establishing agreement of at least the majority or the supermajority and avoiding unproductive opinion differentiates consensus from unanimity, which requires . The status 'Decision started' indicates that the peer review process for your manuscript is complete and the paper is now with the editor. Against that background, the goals of this research are 1) to explore the structure of activities in the process of handling manuscripts based on insights gained from process generated data from an editorial management system, taking Schendzielorzs and Reinharts (2020) model of the peer review process as a conceptual heuristic. (2019). Again actors assigned editorial roles stand out, because their actions significantly affect actors with other roles assigned. Sometimes, it is mentioned, who is involved in the said actions, but sometimes not. If you're being encouraged to revise, it should be clear from the letter and reviews you receive what you need to do. We therefore deduce, that the participant group of none roles must in part be comprised of non-humans (i.e., the infrastructure itself). The original ideas and values attached to the system are expressed well by the developers of the technology, who, by aiming at facilitating the process of peer review, defined major entities and activities for administrating manuscripts. We use the perspective of the infrastructure by studying the recorded events it has created as a result of actions by different actors. The only aspect, for which we could not clearly reject the potential automated decision making was the Initial Quality Controlsupposedly a check for a correctly completed submission form. 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. Also, it shows that there must exist parallel sub-processes (e.g., communication with different reviewers), which must, by construction, have been projected onto one timeline in the history dataset we were provided with. unfortunately, the editor dont respond about reject and accept. Of major relevance for the peer review process is that it finally comes to a decision, based on consultation with internal and external actors. The editor and the editorial team decide whether or not to send the manuscript out to review; the corresponding author is contacted with the decision. When all the reviewer reports are received, the editors decide to either: If you are invited to revise and resubmit your manuscript, you should follow the instructions provided by the editor in their decision email. While focussing our analysis only on the case of one biomedical publisher, we may infer some more general observations for this realm of research. Marres (2017) points out that by dealing with data from digital infrastructures, research agency is twisted: the data often prompt the researcher to their perspective and methodology, resulting in that digital research requires an at once critical and creative approach to method (p.115). It is clear from the status descriptions that your revised manuscript was sent for peer review again. 8600 Rockville Pike So to reduce the noise and to uncover the core process, we deleted all edges, which had a multiplicity of less than 1% of the number of items. Also, Editor Recommendation Started (N = 431) was attributed to this category. In the light of the transparent review process at this publisher, where editorial decision letters are published alongside accepted papers, this is especially interesting, because decision letters for successful submissions can be expected to have a much larger audience than for non-successful submissions. In the next section, we introduce the theoretical framework and main perspectives. Christin (2020) coined the term algorithmic refraction aiming at bypassing algorithmic opacity to address drawing conclusions under the circumstances of incomplete information. 117. . The patent as well as the digital infrastructure aim at supporting the editor in their work. The editor and the editorial team discuss the reviewer reports, and decide whether the manuscript or a revised version of it could be published in the journal. They enable, support or constrain some behaviours, but they can also make certain activities more visible and thereby more relevant than others, they pick and choose (ibid., 1). 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)). R Package Version 1.14.0. Hence, the infrastructure must offer its users a high degree of freedom regarding what they do next. In the patents process flow chart (see Figure 3), only 17 entities occur: start and end, six process items, four decisions, three documents and two storage operations. Moreover, the characteristics of both reviewers and editors are explored to a significant extent (Hirschauer, 2010, 73). Usually, the times vary from two to six months, but there is no fixed rule. Nature is a British weekly scientific journal founded and based in London, England.As a multidisciplinary publication, Nature features peer-reviewed research from a variety of academic disciplines, mainly in science and technology. (Bloomberg) -- U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson committed tens of billions of pounds for a controversial new high speed rail line linking London with cities to the north, despite soaring costs and mounting anger from his own Conservative Party colleagues.The High Speed 2 (HS2) development will become Europe's largest infrastructure project but it has suffered delays and criticism of its .