Page 1
ral
ssBioMed CentHead & Face Medicine
Open AcceResearch
A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer
review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary
open access journal Head & Face Medicine
Thomas Stamm*†1, Ulrich Meyer†2, Hans-Peter Wiesmann†3,
Johannes Kleinheinz†3, Murat Cehreli†4 and Zafer C Cehreli†5
Address: 1Poliklinik für Kieferorthopädie, Universitätsklinikum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany, 2Klinik und Poliklinik für
Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie, Heinrich Heine Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany, 3Klinik und Poliklinik für Mund-, Kiefer- und
Gesichtschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum, Westfälische WiIhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany, 4CosmORAL Oral and Dental Health Polyclinics,
Cinnah 7/5 Kavaklýdere, Ankara, Turkey and 5Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
Email: Thomas Stamm* - stammt@uni-muenster.de; Ulrich Meyer - Ulrich.Meyer@med.uni-duesseldorf.de; Hans-
Peter Wiesmann - wiesmap@uni-muenster.de; Johannes Kleinheinz - joklein@uni-muenster.de; Murat Cehreli - mccehreli@yahoo.com;
Zafer C Cehreli - zcehreli@yahoo.com
* Corresponding author †Equal contributors
Abstract
Background: Head & Face Medicine (HFM) was launched in August 2005 to provide
multidisciplinary science in the field of head and face disorders with an open access and open peer
review publication platform. The objective of this study is to evaluate the characteristics of
submissions, the effectiveness of open peer reviewing, and factors biasing the acceptance or
rejection of submitted manuscripts.
Methods: A 1-year period of submissions and all concomitant journal operations were
retrospectively analyzed. The analysis included submission rate, reviewer rate, acceptance rate,
article type, and differences in duration for peer reviewing, final decision, publishing, and PubMed
inclusion. Statistical analysis included Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-square test, regression analysis,
and binary logistic regression.
Results: HFM received 126 articles (10.5 articles/month) for consideration in the first year.
Submissions have been increasing, but not significantly over time. Peer reviewing was completed
for 82 articles and resulted in an acceptance rate of 48.8%. In total, 431 peer reviewers were invited
(5.3/manuscript), of which 40.4% agreed to review. The mean peer review time was 37.8 days. The
mean time between submission and acceptance (including time for revision) was 95.9 days.
Accepted papers were published on average 99.3 days after submission. The mean time between
manuscript submission and PubMed inclusion was 101.3 days. The main article types submitted to
HFM were original research, reviews, and case reports. The article type had no influence on
rejection or acceptance. The variable 'number of invited reviewers' was the only significant (p <
0.05) predictor for rejection of manuscripts.
Conclusion: The positive trend in submissions confirms the need for publication platforms for
Published: 11 June 2007
Head & Face Medicine 2007, 3:27 doi:10.1186/1746-160X-3-27
Received: 5 January 2007
Accepted: 11 June 2007
This article is available from: http://www.head-face-med.com/content/3/1/27
© 2007 Stamm et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Page 1 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
multidisciplinary science. HFM's peer review time comes in shorter than the 6-weeks turnaround
time the Editors set themselves as the maximum. Rejection of manuscripts was associated with the
Page 2
Head & Face Medicine 2007, 3:27 http://www.head-face-med.com/content/3/1/27
number of invited reviewers. None of the other parameters tested had any effect on the final
decision. Thus, HFM's ethical policy, which is based on Open Access, Open Peer, and transparency
of journal operations, is free of 'editorial bias' in accepting manuscripts.
Original data: Provided as a downloadable tab-delimited text file (URL and variable code available
under section 'additional files').
Background
Head & Face Medicine (HFM) was launched in August
2005 to provide multidisciplinary research with a state-of-
the-art publication platform [1-3]. Being clinicians, we
realized that the ongoing fragmentation of medical spe-
cialties may increase specialist medical knowledge but
that any effect of this knowledge on traditional and estab-
lished therapy strategies is slow. We also realized that,
with the increase of new specialties; the borders between
the fields had become increasingly blurry. Much impor-
tant clinical research takes place between different fields,
which in turn necessitates a multidisciplinary platform to
disseminate the results of research to the relevant audi-
ence. However, after a period of one year, no answer could
be found to the question as to whether HFM will be an
ideal platform to disseminate multidisciplinary knowl-
edge in the area of head and face disorders. HFM still is
developmental in character and the journal's ethical pol-
icy based on open access and open peer review results in
a commitment to a regular self-analysis of HFM's matura-
tion. The aim of the present paper was therefore to evalu-
ate the characteristics of submissions, the effectiveness of
the open peer reviewing process, and factors biasing
acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. This analysis
attempts to generate information to assess the journal's
development and was also conducted for the sake of trans-
parency and objectivity in all journal operations of Head
& Face Medicine.
Methods
Manuscripts submitted to Head & Face Medicine undergo
a strictly uniform editorial process. Based on this work-
flow, the following journal operations were extracted
from HFM's Content Management System for submis-
sions between August 2005 and August 2006.
Number of complete/incomplete submissions
Date of submission
Number of reviewers invited
Number of agreements to review
Number of reports returned
Number of acceptances/rejections
Date of acceptance/rejection
Date of publishing (provisional)
Date of PubMed record
The following times were calculated based on the
obtained data.
Peer review time (PRT): The time between date of sub-
mission and date when reports are returned to the
authors. PRT is at any time greater than the time used for
processing the review because of the time differential
between invitation to review and agreement of peer
reviewers. PRT does not include revision time and re-
review time.
Acceptance/rejection time (A/RT): The time between
date of submission and "editorial" acceptance or rejec-
tion. A/RT includes revision time and re-review time. Edi-
torial acceptance is different from full acceptance and
concerns the content of the paper and positive reports
only. Full acceptance is declared when the paper complies
with the formatting requirements laid out in the instruc-
tions for authors. Full acceptance is, in general, equal to
the provisional publication of the article.
Publishing time (PT): The time between date of submis-
sion and date of provisional publication of the paper.
With its provisional publication on the HFM website, the
paper is immediately accessible via the Internet and
searchable by any web browser.
PubMed availability time (PAT): The time between date
of submission and date of inclusion into PubMed of the
final title and abstract. The PubMed entry was obtained
from the EDAT tag.
Additionally, the following data were evaluated.
Submission and acceptance rates
Type of submissionPage 2 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
Date of report
Page 3
Head & Face Medicine 2007, 3:27 http://www.head-face-med.com/content/3/1/27
Editorial workload. Editorial work is difficult to meas-
ure. The only quantifiable data are the number of submis-
sions and the number of e-mails generated through
communication between authors, reviewers, and editors.
Statistics
The Mann-Whitney U test was chosen to assess differences
in journal operations between accepted and rejected
papers. Crosstabs with Chi-square test was used to evalu-
ate differences between various types of articles.
Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to iden-
tify variables most responsible for the prediction of
acceptance or rejection (editorial bias). For this purpose,
the observed event 'editorial decision' was dichotomized
to two values, which represent the occurrence (accept-
ance) or non-occurrence (rejection) of the event.
Results
Submission and acceptance rates
In total, 126 manuscripts were submitted between August
2005 and July 2006. An additional number of 40 manu-
scripts were submitted incomplete and therefore not yet
under review. Figure 1 shows a slightly increasing submis-
sion rate over the last 12 months with a distinct peak in
February, the month before the article processing charge
(APC) was introduced. On average, 10.5 articles were sub-
mitted per month. Excluding the peak in February
(assuming the same number of 12 submissions as in Jan-
uary), the rate would decrease to 8.2 articles per month.
Between August 2005 and August 2006, peer reviewing
was completed for 82 articles. Of those, 40 manuscripts
were rejected and two were withdrawn, which is equal to
an acceptance rate of 48.8%.
Peer review process
Prospective reviewers for all manuscripts were selected
from the Editorial Board and from PubMed only. In total,
431 experts were invited to review 82 manuscripts. 174
peer reviewers agreed to review and 52 of them reviewed
more than one paper. 199 invited experts declined to
review, while six experts agreed but did not provide any
report. The maximum number of invitations sent before
two reports were finally received was 18. On average, 5.3
experts were invited per manuscript.
HFM's peer review process is based on a minimum of two
reports per manuscript. The peer review time for the first
and seond reports were 33.8 and 41.9 days, respectively.
In total, the mean PRT was 37.8 days, which comes in
shorter than the 6-weeks turnaround time the Editors set
themselves as the maximum. The PRT of rejected manu-
scripts was shorter (35.3 days) when compared to
accepted papers (40.3 days), but not to a significant extent
(p > 0.05).
The mean acceptance time was 95.9 days. Taking into
account the time needed for re-reviews required after
authors' revisions, this figure calculates down to approxi-
mately 95.9-40.3 = 55.6 days for revision. The mean rejec-
tion time was 49 days. The Editors-in-Chief needed
approximately 49-35.3 = 13.7 days for the final decision
by assessing the reports and manuscripts.
The mean publishing time (PT) was 99.3 days. After this
time, the authors' work was first made available to the sci-
entific community because title, abstract, and a provi-
sional PDF of the manuscript were published on the HFM
website and thus, became both accessible and retrievable
via the Internet. PubMed availability time, the time
between submission and inclusion into PubMed of the
title and abstract, was on average 101.3 days.
Type of submission
The main article types submitted to HFM were original
research articles, reviews, and case reports (Figure 2). All
other types represented less than 8% of the submitted
manuscripts. Research papers were accepted by reviewers
most frequently, whereas case reports were rejected more
often than other types of articles. Although accepted and
rejected papers differed by article type (χ2, p < 0.05), there
is no increased probability for case reports to be rejected
(p > 0.05). In general, the variable 'article type' is not a
Submissions to HFM between August '05 and August '06Figure 1
Submissions to HFM between August '05 and August '06. The
second call for papers to prospective authors was e-mailed in
September (CFP2) and a further call in January (CFP3).
PubMed inclusion started on 2nd December. The article Page 3 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
predictor for rejection or acceptance. There is also no sig-
nificant relation between article type and the time of peer
processing charge (APC) was introduced in March '06.
Page 4
Head & Face Medicine 2007, 3:27 http://www.head-face-med.com/content/3/1/27
reviewing (Figure 3). Case reports had a shorter publish-
ing time (p < 0.05) when compared to research papers
and reviews.
Editorial workload
In general, the means of communication used between all
parties concerned was e-mail. Only two manuscripts were
sent to reviewers by mail or fax. Between August 2005 and
August 2006, the HFM e-mail account held 2521 e-mails.
The correspondence with authors and reviewers com-
prised 1607 e-mails. 501 of them were exchanged
between BMC and HFM and 413 e-mails were sent to the
editorial co-workers. On average, approximately 6.9 e-
mails were written per day to ensure the daily editorial
workflow. These sums up to 19.7 e-mails per submitted
article. Considering the current acceptance rate of 48.8%,
an average of 73 e-mails were exchanged for each pub-
lished article.
The e-mail rate in Figure 4 shows a pattern similar to the
submission rate (Figure 1). In contrast to the characteris-
tics of the latter one, the correspondence decreased
slightly over time. This was due to functionality improve-
ments (FI) of the peer reviewing system. Because there was
no handbook at all and the editorial team was unaware of
the full functionality of the BMC online peer reviewing
system, a considerable amount of correspondence was
exchanged offline (manually) at the beginning of HFM.
The first significant improvement (FI1) of the online sys-
tem was the e-mail archiving in November 2005. Any e-
mails sent by the editors were then automatically added to
a history page, resulting in a chronological overview
which facilitates evaluation of the whole peer reviewing
process. Because of a further functionality improvement
(FI2) in March 2006, multiple notifications to authors and
reviewers were eliminated. From that point in time, only
the following was performed independently from the edi-
torial managemet tools: a) informing authors if revisions
were required, b) requesting re-review of a manuscript if
required after revisions, and c) accepting a manuscript.
This resulted in a significant reduction of e-mails from
March to April '06 (Figure 4). Two further improvements
were introduced in April and June '06: accepting articles
(FI3) and requesting revisions online (FI4).
Decision bias
Except for one parameter, none of the obtained variables
had an effect on the decision to accept or reject papers.
Binary logistic regression revealed a significant relation-
ship (p < 0.05) between rejection of a paper and the
number of invited reviewers. The probability of rejection
PR could be computed by the logistic equation
, where z is computed as z = constant +P
e
R z
=
+ −
1
1( )
The peer review time (PRT) was not significantly different betwe n article typesFigur 3
The peer review time (PRT) was not significantly different
between article types.
Article types showed significant differences (χ2, p < 0.05) when comparing accepted with reject d manuscriptsFigur 2
Article types showed significant differences (χ2, p < 0.05)
when comparing accepted with rejected manuscripts. Case
reports were rejected most frequently whereas research
papers were accepted more often than other types. In gen-
eral, 'article type' is not a predictor for rejection or accept-Page 4 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
regression coefficient.ance (p > 0.05).
Page 5
Head & Face Medicine 2007, 3:27 http://www.head-face-med.com/content/3/1/27
Based on our data z = -0.519+0.148. The graphical repre-
sentation is shown in Figure 5. The computed model cor-
responds to our rejection rate (51.2%). As a mean of 5.3
reviewers were invited, there is a probability of PR = 0.57
that the paper will be rejected.
Discussion
Medical journals have to assume a high level of ethical
responsibility because by disseminating scientific findings
they cause far-reaching consequences for patients. Due to
the global availability of the Internet, the volume and the
speed of dissemination of medical data has grown expo-
nentially. However, such a fortunate consequence for
medical science, also puts a strain on control schemes
(such as peer reviewing) that are supposed to ensure the
quality of the published outcomes.
An important step related to process quality is to reduce
pre-publication bias through transparent journal opera-
tions. New journals, which cannot rely on a tradition of
experience and reputation, therefore have the obligation
to demonstrate their process quality and objectivity
throughtout the publication process. The obtained data
can be useful, furthermore, to assess the profile of other
journals. The aim of this paper was therefore to evaluate
the characteristics of submissions, the effectiveness of the
Data on the first-year submission rates to a medical jour-
nal are not available. Just as with trans-discipline compar-
isons, it is uncertain whether this kind of comparison
makes sense at all. Despite the difficulties of interpreta-
tion, we consider that the slightly increasing submission
rate, at a mean 10.5 papers/month in the first year, vali-
dates the multidisciplinary approach of HFM. The accept-
ance rate was established at 48%. The HFM Editorial Team
does not consider the number of rejected manuscripts to
be a quality criterion for a journal. Thus no comparison
was made as to the rejection rates.
The APC introduction in March 2006 seems to have
adversely affected the submission rate, which would also
explain the high number of submissions in February 2006
(Figure 1). Nevertheless, it is interesting to note, though,
that the same trend cannot be observed for the application
for waivers. Although the APC can be waived for 35% of
all papers (for authors who genuinely have no access to
funding) the corresponding application was received in
the course of the first year for less than 10% of submitted
papers. This fact may be seen as an indicator for lack of
information or for a combined effect of funds available
and geographic origin of submissions or for the APC's
being of secondary importance.
Timely peer reviewing is an exceptionally essential factor
The logistic function produces a sigmoid curve, where y rep-res nts the probability f rejection (PR) and x the numbe of invited reviewersFigure 5
The logistic function produces a sigmoid curve, where y rep-
resents the probability of rejection (PR) and x the number of
invited reviewers. Inviting a minimum of 2 reviewer corre-
sponds to a probability of rejection PR = 0.44. Inviting 15
reviewers increases PR to 0.85.
E-mail rate over the last 12 monthsFigure 4
E-mail rate over the last 12 months. Out of 2521 e-mails,
1607 were exchanged between the editors and authors and
reviewers. On average, 73 e-mails for each published article
were exchanged. Several functionality improvements (FI)
facilitated the online peer reviewing process. FI1 = e-mail
archiving, FI2 = elimination of multiple notifications, FI3 =
accepting articles online, FI4 = requesting revisions online.Page 5 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
open-peer reviewing process, and factors biasing accept-
ance or rejection of manuscripts.
for new journals. There seems to be a minimum time
when requesting a review from an unpaid, well-renowned
End of preview.
