ArticlePDF Available

The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Publishing in scholarly peer reviewed journals usually entails long delays from submission to publication. In part this is due to the length of the peer review process and in part because of the dominating tradition of publication in issues, earlier a necessity of paper-based publishing, which creates backlogs of manuscripts waiting in line. The delays slow the dissemination of scholarship and can provide a significant burden on the academic careers of authors. Using a stratified random sample we studied average publishing delays in 2700 papers published in 135 journals sampled from the Scopus citation index. The shortest overall delays occur in science technology and medical (STM) fields and the longest in social science, arts/humanities and business/economics. Business/economics with a delay of 18 months took twice as long as chemistry with a 9 month average delay. Analysis of the variance indicated that by far the largest amount of variance in the time between submission and acceptance was among articles within a journal as compared with journals, disciplines or the size of the journal. For the time between acceptance and publication most of the variation in delay can be accounted for by differences between specific journals.
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Thepublishingdelayinscholarlypeer‐reviewedjournals
Bo‐ChristerBjörk
Professor,InformationSystemsScience
HankenSchoolofEconomics
P.B.479
00101Helsinki,Finland
bo‐christer.bjork@hanken.fi
DavidSolomon(CorrespondingAuthor)
Professor,DepartmentofMedicineandOMERAD
A‐202EFeeHall
MichiganStateUniversity
ELansing,MIUSA48824
dsolomon@msu.edu
+1517339‐0720
Abstract:
Publishinginscholarlypeerreviewedjournalsusuallyentailslongdelaysfrom
submissiontopublication.Inpartthisisduetothelengthofthepeerreview
processandinpartbecauseofthedominatingtraditionofpublicationinissues,
earlieranecessityofpaper‐basedpublishing,whichcreatesbacklogsof
manuscriptswaitinginline.Thedelaysslowthedisseminationofscholarship
andcanprovideasignificantburdenontheacademiccareersofauthors.
Usingastratifiedrandomsamplewestudiedaveragepublishingdelaysin2700
paperspublishedin135journalssampledfromtheScopuscitationindex.The
shortestoveralldelaysoccurinsciencetechnologyandmedical(STM)fieldsand
thelongestinsocialscience,arts/humanitiesandbusiness/economics.
Business/economicswithadelayof18monthstooktwiceaslongaschemistry
witha9monthaveragedelay.Analysisofthevarianceindicatedthatbyfarthe
largestamountofvarianceinthetimebetweensubmissionandacceptancewas
amongarticleswithinajournalascomparedwithjournals,disciplinesorthesize
ofthejournal.Forthetimebetweenacceptanceandpublicationmostofthe
variationindelaycanbeaccountedforbydifferencesbetweenspecificjournals.
Keywords:ScholarlyPublishing;ReviewTime;ProcessingTime
2
1Introduction
ScholarlyjournalpublishinghasalonghistorygoingbacktoHenryOldenburg’s
PhilosophicalTransactionoftheRoyalSocietyfoundedin1665.Forthepasttwo
centuriesthevolumeofpeerreviewedarticlespublishedperyearhasincreased
byarelativesteady3,5%peryear,withacurrentnumberofarticlesofaround
1,8–1,9million,publishedinanestimated28’000journals(WareandMabe
2012).Overtheyearsthescientificjournalasaninstitutionhasevolvedinmany
waysandafterthesecondworldwarandtheensuingrapidgrowthinscience
commercialpublishershaveincreasinglyenteredthismarket,whichearlierwas
dominatedbyscientificsocieties.
Thedisseminationmediumhasveryrapidlychangedfromprintedissuesto
predominantlydigitallydistributedpublishing(VanOrsdelandBorn,2002).At
thesametimethishastriggeredtheemergenceofnewbusinessmodelsfor
digitalpublishing,includingbundlede‐licenses,pay‐per‐viewandopenaccess
publishing.Scholarlyjournalpublishinginitscurrentformhasbeentheobjectof
increasedcritiquesincetheadventoftheWorldWideWebandtheopportunities
itoffersforprocessinnovation,Thedebatehasinparticularconcernedthree
aspects.Firstlythatthereachofthedisseminationthatthetraditional
subscriptionmodelachievesissuboptimal.Secondlythatthepeerreview
processisflawedandfrequentlyleadstoarbitrarydecisions.Thirdlythatthere
aresignificantdelaysinpublishingarticles.Traditionalpaperpublishingin
particularcreatessignificantdelaysbothduetotheneedtobundlearticlesinto
issuesandbacklogscreatedbypagelimitsresultingfromthehighperpagecost
ofthistypeofpublishing.
ThesolutionproposedtothelimiteddisseminationisOpenAccess(OA),which
canbeachievedeitherthroughpublishinginopenaccessjournals(“goldOA”)or
throughauthor’suploadingmanuscriptversionsoftheirarticles(“greenOA”)to
subjectorinstitutionalrepositories(Suber2012).OAjournalshaveincreased
theiroutputby20‐30%peryearforoveradecadeandnowpublisharound12%
ofallpeerreviewedarticles(LaaksoandBjörk2012).Theopenaccessibilitycan
beachievedviaanumberofbusinessmodelsofwhichthepublishingfeevariant
israpidlyincreasingitsmarketshare.
Thecritiqueofthepeerreviewprocesshasledtoanumberofexperimentswith
alternativemodels.Thewebmediumlendsitselftodifferentformsofopen
review,wheremanuscriptscanbe“published”priortorevieworwithminimal
reviewandsubsequentlyevaluatedbyreadercommentsandelevatedtofull
articlestatusviapostpublicationfeedback.(Björk2011).Openreviewwastried
anddeemedafailureinawell‐knownexperimentbyNature(2006).More
successfulthanopenreviewexperimentsisanalternativepeerreviewmodel
practicedbyanincreasingnumberofOA“megajournals”inthewakeofPLoS
ONE,whichcurrentlypublishesaround20,000articlesperyear.Inthisformof
peerreviewonlythescientificvalidityoftheresultsischecked,thedecision
concerningthepotentialcontributionisleftforthereaderstodecide.
3
AnimportantreasonforthesuccessofPLoSONEisalsothatisoffersavery
attractivealternativetoauthorswhoaretiredofthelongdelaysinvolvedin
publishingintraditionaljournalsandrejectiononwhatarefelttobearbitrary
andorbiasedopinionsofreviewersand/oreditor.Thedelaywasanecessary
facetofthepublishingprocesspriortotheturnofthemillennium,whenjournals
werealmostexclusivelypublishedinpaperform,andwherejournalpagelimits
wereaneconomicnecessity.Sincethenelectroniconlyjournalshaveshownthat
thedelaycanbeconsiderablyshortened.Alsothetraditionaljournalshave
acknowledgedtheexistenceoftheproblembystartingtopost“inpress”or
completelycopyeditedandformatted“aheadofprint”versionsofaccepted
manuscriptsevenbeforetheybecomepartofanissueandreceivepagenumbers.
Arecentsurveywithauthorsshowedthatthespeedofpublicationwasthethird
mostimportantfactoraffectingauthors’choiceofjournal,aftertopicalfitandthe
qualityofthejournal(SolomonandBjörk2012).
Insomefieldsofscienceauthorshavetriedtopartlybypassthesystemby
publishingtheirmanuscriptsinopenwebrepositoriespriortosubmissionas
workingpapers(economics)orpreprints(physics),inordertospeedupthe
disseminationoftheresults.Inothercasesexperimentshavebeenmadewith
newtypesofpeerreviewjournals,inwhichonlylightlyscreenedmanuscripts
havebeenopenlypublishedonthejournalwebsites,andthebetteroneshave
laterbeenelevatedtofulljournalarticlestatus(Björk2011),provingthesealof
quality.
Itisourbeliefthatthelengthofthedelayisnotconstantacrossdifferentfieldsof
science,butdependsonthereviewandpublishingculturesthathaveevolvedin
differentsciences.Forexampleadelayoftwoyears,commonineconomicsand
management,wouldbedifficulttoacceptforacademicsinthebiomedical
sciences.
1.1TheLifecyclestagesofapeerreviewedarticle
Duringitslife‐cycleascholarlyarticleundergoesanumberofstages,someof
whichareinfocusinthisstudy.Duringthewritingandfinalizingofamanuscript
mostauthorstendtoshowittoafewtrustedcolleagues,fromwhomthey
receivefeedbackandsuggestionsforimprovement.Inmanydisciplinesit’salso
commontopublishversionsasconferencepapersandinafewdisciplines,in
particularphysicsandeconomics,atraditionofpublishingworkingpapershas
evolved.Atsomestagetheauthor(orauthors)formallysubmitsthemanuscript
toaparticularjournal.Mostjournalsrequirethatamanuscripthasn’tbeen
publishedelsewhereandthatisnotunderconsiderationforpublishingby
anotherjournal.Inmedicinethisrulecanbeevenstricterinthatauthorsarealso
restrictedfromdiscussingtheresultswiththepopularmedia,theso‐called
Inglefingerrule.Fromtheviewpointofthewholescholarlycommunitytherule
excludingparallelsubmissionisunderstandableintermsofavoiding
unnecessaryreplicationoftheunpaidrefereeworkdonebytheeditorandother
4
scholars.Ontheotherhandthiscausespublishingdelaysforauthorswhose
workisrejectedinthefirstandevensecondjournaltowhichtheysubmit.
Thequalityandextentofthepeerreviewthatamanuscriptundergoesvaries
considerablyacrossjournalsanddisciplines.Theeditorsofmanyjournalsscreen
submissionsandquicklyrejectmanuscriptsthatareclearlyunsuitablewithout
sendingthemoutforexternalpeerreview.Thereviewprocesscanalsoinvolve
severalcyclesofreviewandrevision,apracticecommoninmoreselective
journalsparticularlyinspecificdisciplinessuchasbusinessandmanagement.
Manuscriptsatsomepointareaccepted,rejectedorinsomecaseswithdrawnby
theauthorwhomayfindtherequestedrevisionsortherevisionprocess
unacceptable.Ifacceptedmanuscriptsaregenerallycopyeditedandtypesetby
thepublisherorcontractor,afterwhichtheauthorisusuallyaskedtocheckthe
finalversion.Intraditionalprintpublishingthefinalizedmanuscriptisthenput
inthequeueforpublishing,awaitingitsturn,usuallythoughnotalways
accordingtoitspositioninthequeue.Articlessubmittedtoaspecialissueare
treatedabitdifferently.Thequeuingcantakeaslongasayearormoreifthe
journalhasasignificantback‐log.Ifthejournalalsopublishesanelectronic
versionmanuscriptsareoftenpublishedearlieronthejournalwebsiteunder
headingslike“in‐press”usuallywithoutexactpagenumbersandassignmentof
issue.Mostelectronicopenaccessjournalspublisharticlesdirectlywhenthey
arereadyratherthaninissues,thusspeedinguptheprocess.
Ifwewouldtakeamanuscriptandnotjournal‐centricviewthetotaldelaywould
oftenbeevenlongersincemanymanuscriptsarerejected,andinsomecases
severaltimesbeforepublication.Thistimefromsubmissiontorejection,insome
casesfrommultiplejournals,needstobeaddedtothedelayofthejournalthat
finallypublishesthearticle.Azar(2004)discussesthisforthecaseofeconomics
journalsandpointsouttheimportanceoffirst‐responsedelays,sinceitisoften
atthisstagethatauthorsneedtofindalternativejournalsforsubmittingtheir
manuscripts.
Inthisstudywetakethejournal‐centricviewlookinginparticularatthedelay
fromsubmissiontoacceptanceandthedelayfromacceptancetofinal
publication,aswellasthetotaldelaytime.Althoughitmightbepossibletoget
dataforotherstagesintheoverallprocessforsomejournalsthesethreepoints
intimearecommonforallpeerreviewedjournals.
1.2PreviousResearch
Thereareanumberofpossiblesourcesofinformationaboutpublicationdelays.
Ideallypublisherswouldtrackandmakethisdataavailable.Thisishowever
rare,perhapsbecausepublishersandeditorsmaybehesitanttodiscloselong
delays.Sometimestheinformationcanbefoundineditorialsinjournals,which
oftenalsoprovideinformationabouttheacceptanceratesofjournals.Another
optionistogatherarticledataaboutsubmissionandacceptancedateswhichis
oftenpublishedindividuallyineacharticleoronthearticlesfacepageonthe
5
publisher’swebsite.Thisisaverylabor‐intensiveprocessbutprovidesprecise
statisticsforthearticlessampled.Afinaloptionistogatherthedatafrom
authorswhichwouldbedifficultandlikelytobefairlyinaccurate.
Earlierstudieshavemostlycollectedthedataincludedinpublishedarticles.One
ofthefewstudiesusingstatisticssolicitedfrompublisherswastheearlystudyof
economicsjournalbyYohe(1980),whoobtainedstatisticsfromtheeditorsof
20journalsandextractedarticleleveldatafor5more.
Trivedi(1993)foundthattheaveragetotalpublicationdelayforeconometrics
articlesinsevenstudiedjournalswas22.8months,consistingof13.4months
fromsubmissiontoacceptanceand9.4monthsfromacceptancetopublication.
Ellison(2002)concentratedhisstudyonthereviewtimesonly(submissionto
acceptance)andfoundanaverageof16.5monthsin1999foraselectionof25
journalsineconomicsandrelatedfields.Hewasalsoabletodoalongitudinal
analysisforasubsetofthejournalsusingdatabothfromYohe(1980)andCoe
andWeinstock(1967)andfoundthatthereviewtimeshadmorethandoubled
inthreedecades(1970‐1999),forfiveleadingeconomicsjournalsfrom8.7to
20.7months.Themainreasonforthisseemstobetheincreasingnumberof
iterativeroundsinthereviewprocess.Healsofoundthattheaveragereview
timesvarybetweendifferentsub‐specialtiesofeconomics,evenforarticles
publishedinthesamejournalswithbroaderscopes,andsuggestthatthe
expectationsforthetypeandlengthofthereviewshavebeensociallyshaped
withinnarrowscholarlycommunities.
AlsoHartmann(1997)reportsonadramaticincreaseinsubmissionto
publicationdelays.ForarticlesintheJournalofAtmosphericSciencesthetotal
timeincreasedfrom5.9to15.2monthsbetween1970and1997andwhilethe
acceptancetopublicationlagincreasedsomewhat(4.4to6.6months)the
increasewasmainlyattributabletotheincreaseinthetimerequiredbythe
reviewprocess(1.5to8.5months).
KlingandSwygart‐Hobaugh(2002)comparedtheevolutionofpublication
delaysforthreenaturalscienceandthreesocialsciencejournalsbetween
1970/1980and2000,inanattempttoseeiftheemailcommunicationwidelyin
usein2000hadreducedaveragedelays.Theyfoundthatthedelaysinchemistry
andphysicsjournalshaddecreasedfrom6.5monthsto5.8(andevenmoreso
foraminorityofarticlespublishedelectronicallybeforepaperpublication)but
thatthedelaysintheeconomics,managementandpsychologyjournalshad
increasedfrom9.0to23.8months.
Diospatonyietal(2001)studiedtheevolutionofpublicationdelaysinten
chemistryjournalsintheperiod1985‐1999,andcouldnotfindanyclear
developmenttoshorterorlongerperiods,withtheyearlyaveragesranging
between6.7and7.5months.Thepapercontainsdetailedbreakdownsofthe
spreadofdelaywithinjournalsaswellasananalysisofthebreakdownbetween
submissiontoacceptancevsacceptancetopublication.
6
Carroll(2001)comparedpublicationdelaysforsixstatisticsjournalsandfounda
slightdecreasefrom25.2monthsin1994to22.3in1999.Hesuggestthatthe
declinemightbeduetoelectronicpublishingbecomingmorecommoninthefive
yearinterval.Amat(2008)studied14journalsinfoodscienceandfoundan
averagepublicationdelayof11.8months(forarangeof6.2‐17.2months).The
delaysofthreecivilengineeringjournalsreportedbyBjörkandTurk(2006)
variedbetween6.7months(foranOAjournal)comparedto18.0and18.9for
twoconventionaljournals.
ThestudybyLuwelandMoed(1998)differedfromtheabovebecauseit
includedjournalsfromdifferentsubjectareas.Thestudywastriggeredbyclaims
ofDutchresearchersthatarticlesintechnicalsciencesandmathematicshave
muchlongerdelaysthanarticlesinphysicsandchemistry,andthatresearchers
intheformerfieldsaredisadvantagedinshorttermbibliometriccomparisons,
oftenusedwhencomparingcandidatesforpromotionetc.Inaselectionof15
leadinginternationaljournalsintheabovefields,therangeofdelayswas
between2.5and17.5monthswithmathematicsandengineeringjournals
tendingtobetowardsthehigherend.
Anotherstudywithjournalsfromdifferentdisciplineswasthestudyof26
IranianjournalspublishinginthePersianlanguage(Khosrowjerdietal2011).
Thedelayrangeforthesepredominantlysocialscienceandhumanitiesjournals
wasverywide(5.8to34.6months)withanaverageof17.3months.
ThestudybyDongetal(2006)istheonlystudythattriedtoanalyseifthedelay
timesforOAjournalsdifferfromsubscriptionjournalsinbiomedicine.They
comparedsixOAjournalsfromtheleadingOApublisherBioMedCentral(BMC)
withsixjournalsoncorrespondingtopicsfromNaturePublishingGroup(NPG)
aswellassixotherBMCjournalswithelevensocietyjournals.Theresults
demonstratedthattheNPGjournalswereequaltotheBMCjournalsinoverall
publicationdelay(4.5months)butmarginallyfasteriftheelectronicpublication
dateswerecompared.TheBMCjournalsclearlyoutperformedthesociety
journals(4.8vs8.9months).Itisnoteworthythattheinthesubscription
journalstheprintversionstrailedtheelectronicversionsbyonlyshortperiods
ofbetween0.5to1.5months.
Yuetal(2004),aspartofthebuildingofamathematicalmodelofthedelay
process,collecteddelaydataforsevenjournals.Scientometrics,aninformation
sciencejournalhadadelayof5.5monthsandtheJournalofMathematical
physicsadelayof9.0butthefiveotherjournals,fourofwhichwereindifferent
engineeringfieldsandoneinthesocialsciences,haddelaysintherange16.4–
20.0months.
Tortetal(2011)studiedthedelaysbetweenelectronicandprintpublishingin
neurosciencejournal,andfoundasignificantincreasebetween2003and2011.
Theywerealsoabletodemonstratethatincreasingthedelayincreasesa
particularjournal’simpactfactor,duetothetimewindowsusedbytheISIin
calculatingtheimpactfactor!
7
Table1aboutHere
Previousstudiespointtotwothings.Firstlythattherearesubstantialdifferences
inpublicationdelayswithleadingbiomedicalandchemistryjournalsachieving
delaysofroughlyhalfayearandattheotherendofthespectrumeconomicsand
statisticsjournalstypicallyhavingaveragedelaysofclosetotwoyears.Secondly
thatthedelayshaveincreasedsubstantiallyinsomedisciplinesoverthepast
decades,partlyduetoanincreaseinthelengthofthereviewprocess.
Twofactorswhichhavenotbeenexplicitlystudiedaretheeffectsofjournalsize
andscientificqualitylevelonthedelays.Mostofthepreviousstudieshavebeen
benchmarkingstudieswithinnarrowdisciplinesofrelativelyhomogeneous,
highlycitedjournals.Sizecouldinparticulareffectthedelayafteracceptance
sincesmallerjournalsmayappearonlyfourtimesayearoreventwiceayear,
whichmeansthatarticlesmighthavetowaitinaqueueforquitesometime
beforepublication.Qualitymightlengthenthesubmissiontoacceptancetimes
sincearticlesmightgothroughseveraliterationsinthereviewprocess.Onthe
otherhandthemosthighlycitedjournalsintheirfieldsmightfinditeasierto
recruitreviewersandaremorelikelytohavealargereditorialstaffandprocess
submissionsmorequickly.
1.3Aims
Basedonthepreviouslypublisheddata,alotofanecdotalevidenceandpersonal
experiencesasauthorstheaimsofthisstudyweredefinedasfollows.
Tostudypublicationdelaysinscholarlypeerreviewedjournalsacrossdisciplines,
journalsizeandjournalquality.
Weexplicitlyruledoutdoingalongitudinalanalysis,duetotheverytime‐
consumingworkofdatacollection.
2.Method
2.1Pilotstudy
Beforestartingdatacollectionwedida“feasibilitystudy”thataddressedtwo
issues.Firstlywecheckedourabilitytoobtaincopiesofarticlesfromjournals
indexedinScopusoratleasttheabstractsiftheyhappentocontainthe
necessaryinformation.Secondlywecheckedwhetherthejournalsortheirfreely
availableabstractsincludedsufficientinformationonthepublicationtimeframe.
Itwasnecessarytocheckaccesstoelectroniccopiesofthejournalsthroughour
libraries’electronicholdingsaswefeltitwouldnotbefeasibletogatherthedata
frompapercopiesofagivenjournalorgetthenecessarycopiesviainterlibrary
loan.AccesstothejournalswascheckedviathelibrariesofHankenSchoolof
8
EconomicsandMichiganStateUniversity.Forthispilotstudywerandomly
selected100journalsindexedinScopus.
Atotalof66%ofthesejournalswereavailablethrougheithertheelectronic
holdingsofourlibrariesortheywerefreelyavailableonlineandweredeemed
tobeappropriateforanalysis.Themajorityofjournalswecouldnotfindorgain
accessweresmallerjournalspublishedinothercountriesthantheUS,UK,
NetherlandsandGermany.
Sixty‐fourpercentoftheavailablejournalscontainedatleastthesubmissionand
acceptancedatesanditwaspossibletodeterminethedateofpublicationeither
aslistedorbythedateoftheissueinwhichanarticlewaspublished.Wealso
foundthatjournalstypicallypublishedthedatesofuptofivedifferentkeypoints
inthepublicationprocess.Theseincluded,submission,revisionbasedon
feedback,acceptance,publicationaheadofprintinanelectronicformat,andfinal
publicationaspartofanissue.Thefirstfourwereusuallyincludedasdates,
whereasthelastitemcouldoftenonlybedeterminedbythemonthoftheissue
whichcontainedthearticle.Theresultsofthepilotstudyconfirmedthatthereis
enoughdataavailabletomakethestudyfeasible.
2.2Mainstudy
ThemainsourcedatabaseforthestudywastheScopuscitationindex,which
containsinformationaboutsome19,500scholarlyjournals,includingtheyearly
articleandcitationcounts.TheSCImagoJournal&CountryRankwebsite
(SCImago,2013)providesfreelyaccessibleScopusdataatthejournallevel
whichwasthedatasourceforthisstudy.
Elsevier,thepublisherofScopusprovidesafreelydownloadablespreadsheeton
theirwebsite(Scopus,2013)thatamongotherinformationprovidesa
hierarchicalclassificationofeachjournal’sdiscipline.Thehighestclassification
includedonly4categoriesandwasfelttobetoobroad.Thesecondlevelincludes
27categoriesandwasfelttobetoospecific.Wedecidedtomergesomeofthese
lattergroupsbasedonoursubjectiveassumptionofsimilarityinreviewing
cultureandpublicationspeedresultinginninegroups.Theseinclude
arts/humanities,biomedicine,business/economics,chemistry,earthscience,
engineering,mathematics,physics,andsocialsciences.
Wehypothesizedthatthereweredifferencesinthepublicationtimeassociated
withjournalsize.Westratifiedbysizeinsuchawaytoensureeacharticlewithin
adisciplinecategoryhadanequalchanceofinclusioninthestudy.Thejournals
wereorderedbysizebasedonScopusarticlecountsin2010.Thejournals
containingthefirstthirdofthearticlesinadisciplinemadeupthesmallest
journalstrata,thejournalscontainingthemiddlethirdmadeupthemiddle
journalstrataandthelastthirdofthearticlesthelargejournalstrata.This
resultedinamuchsmallernumberofjournalsinthelargestjournalstrata
thoughanequalnumberofarticlesperstrata.
9
Werandomlyorderedthejournalsineachdiscipline/sizestrataandwent
throughthejournalsinordercheckingtoseeiftheywereavailablefromeither
ofourtwolibraries,HankenSchoolofEconomicsandMichiganStateUniversity
oratleasttheabstractorjournalwasfreelyavailableandcontainedthe
necessarydates.Forthosejournalswewereabletoaccess,wecheckedfirst
whethertheyappearedtobepeer‐reviewedscholarlyjournalsandcontainedat
leastthedatesofsubmissionandacceptance.Whenanappropriatejournalwas
foundweselected20articlesworkingbackwardfromthelastarticlepublished
in2012.Specialissues,invitedarticlesandeditorialswhereskipped.Foreach
articlewerecordedtheISSN,DOI,orifnoteasilyobtained,title,submissionand
acceptancedates.Ifavailablewealsorecordedthedatearevisionrequestwas
madeandthedatethearticlewaspublishedelectronicallyaheadofprint.
Publicationdateunlessstatedspecificallywasbasedonthemidpointofthe
publicationperiod.Soifajournalwaspublishedmonthly,itwasthe15thofthe
monththeissuewaspublished.Ifitwasquarterly,thedatewasthemiddleofthe
quarter,forexampleFebruary15thforthefirstquarter.AhandfulOAjournals
containedexactdateoffinalpublication,whichwasusedinplaceofanestimated
date.Whenourmethodofdeterminingthepublicationdateresultedina
negativenumberofdaybetweenacceptanceandpublication,wesetthenumber
ofdaysfromacceptancetopublicationtozero.Whileweoriginallycalculated
thetimebetweensubmissionandacceptanceandthetimebetweenacceptance
andpublicationindays,forthepurposesofanalyzingandpresentingthedata,
weconverteddaysintomonthsbydividingby30.44.
Fivejournalswereincludedforeachsizegroupforeachofthe9discipline
categoriesresultingindatafor135journalsand2,700articles.Forthepurposes
ofthisstudy,thetimefromsubmissiontoacceptanceandacceptanceto
publicationmeasuredinmonthswasusedasthemainoutcomevariables.
SourceNormalizedImpactperPaper(SNIP)version2citationmeasureswere
obtainedfromtheJournalM3tricswebsite(2013).Wealsoobtainedinformation
onwhetherajournalwasintheDirectoryofOpenAccessJournals(DOAJ).
DatamanagementandmostoftheanalyseswereconductedusingtheStatistical
PackagefortheSocialSciences(SPSS).Mostanalyseswereconductedatthelevel
ofindividualarticles.SinceSNIPvaluesareassignedtojournals,weaveragedthe
timefromsubmissiontoacceptanceandfromacceptancetopublicationfor
assessingtherelationshipbetweenthesetimesandeachjournal’sSNIP.
Thedatacollectedformedabalanceddesignandhenceitwaspossibleusing
analysisofvariance(ANOVA)topartitionthevarianceassociatedwitheach
factorinthedesign.Disciplinewascrossedwithsizegroup.Journalswerenested
inbothdisciplineandsizegroupandarticleswerenestedinajournal.Discipline
andsizegroupwereconsideredtobefixedeffectswhilejournalsandarticles
withinajournalwereconsideredtoberandomeffectsthatweresampled.Based
onthisdesignweestimatedthevariancecomponentsforthetimebetween
submissionandacceptanceaswellasacceptanceandpublicationusingGENOVA
(Brennan,2001).Thisanalysiswasusedtoassessthepercentageofthevariance
inthetimesfromsubmissiontoacceptanceandfromacceptancetopublication
10
thatcouldbeattributedtoeachsource,discipline,size,theirinteraction,journals
andarticleswithinjournals.
3.Results
Althoughmoredetaileddatawereavailableforsomejournals,wefocusedthe
reportingonthetimefromoriginalsubmissiontoacceptanceandfrom
acceptancetofinalpublicationaswefeltthesewerethekeytimepointsandwe
wereabletoobtaincompletedataacrossalldisciplinesandsizegroups.Thefirst
timeperiodreflectsthedelayduetothepeerreviewandrevisionprocessused
byajournalandthesecondthelengthofthepublishingprocess,backlogdueto
publicationpagelimitsandpotentiallyotherfactors.
Table2presentssummarystatisticsforsubmissiontoacceptance,acceptanceto
publicationandtotaltimesubmissiontopublication.Figures1and2present
thisinformationingraphicformforthe9disciplines(Figure1)and3journal
sizegroupings(Figure2).Detailedsummarystatisticsforthebreakdownby
disciplinesandsizegroupsarecontainedintheAppendix.Ascanbeseenin
Figure1,totaltimefromsubmissiontopublicationvariessignificantlyby
disciplinewithbusinessatjustunder18monthshavingpublicationtimesnearly
twicethatofchemistryatabout9months.Largerjournalsappeartohavethe
shortestpublicationtimeswithmid‐sizedjournalsthelongest.
BasedoninclusionintheDOAJtherewere19OpenAccess(OA)journalsor
approximately14%ofthesample.Ofthese,7weredeterminedtobeOAfrom
theirinceptionand12weredeterminedtohavebeenconvertedtoOAatsome
point.Thelatterusuallymeansthatthejournalmaystillpublishaparallelpaper
versionandalsoittypicallybundlesthearticlesinissues.Themethodologyfor
determiningbornversusconvertedaredescribedelsewhere(Solomon,Laakso&
Björk,2013).Table3presentstheaveragetimeinmonthssubmissionto
acceptanceandacceptancetopublicationforjournalscreatedasOAandthose
thatconvertedtoOA.Submissiontopublicationtimesappeartobeconsiderably
shorterforOAjournals,particularlythosethatwerecreatedasOAjournals.The
differenceswerereflectedinbothreceivedtoacceptedandacceptedto
publishedbutthegreatestdifferences,particularlyforthejournalscreatedOA
wereinacceptedtopublishedtimes.Thesedifferencesshouldbeconsidered
withcautionasthesamplesizesarefairlysmallandthepercentagesofjournals
withineachdisciplinearenotbalanced.
Wefelttheremaybeacorrelationbetweenpublicationtimesandthecitation
rateofthejournal.Sincecitationrateisatthelevelofthejournalratherthanthe
article,weaggregatedtothelevelofajournalusingaveragesforthetimesfrom
submissiontoacceptanceandfromacceptancetopublication.WeusedSNIPas
thecitationmeasurebecausethesestatisticsarenormalizedtoaccountfor
differencesincitationratesacrossdisciplines.ThePearsonproductmoment
correlationbetweenSNIPandsubmissiontoacceptanceandacceptanceto
publicationwere0.20and‐0.09respectively.Thecorrelationforthetimefrom
11
submissiontoacceptancewithSNIPwassignificantlydifferentfromzerop<
0.02.
Table4containstheestimatedvariancecomponents1fordiscipline,sizegroup,
journalswithindiscipline/sizegroupandarticleswithinjournals.For
submissiontoacceptance,thevariationamongjournalsandarticlesaccounted
forthebulkofthevariation,mostlyintermsofarticleswithinjournals.For
acceptancetopublication,againthevariationwasalmostentirelyamong
journalsandarticlesnestedinjournals.Forthiscomponenthoweverthe
variationamongjournalsaccountedforthebulkofthevariation.
4.Discussion
Theresultsofthisstudyhavetobeinterpretedwithsomecaution.Themain
caveatisthatwewereonlyabletoincludedatafromjournalsthatpublishedthe
submissionandacceptancedateswhileinmostcasesthepublicationdatewas
inferredfromtheissueandestimatedasthemid‐pointofthepublicationperiod
fortheissue.Sincethedecisiontopublishthisinformationwasgenerally
consistentacrossallthejournalsofaparticularpublisher,onlythosepublishers
thatchoosetopublishsubmissionandacceptancedateareincludedinthestudy.
Thisresultedin54%ofthesamplebeingpublishedbythetwobiggest
publishersElsevierandSpringer/Kluwer.Thiswasnotourintentionbutwas
theresultofthelimitationnotedabove.Alistofthepublishersincludedinthe
studythenumberofjournalsfromeachpublisherincludediscontainedinthe
Appendix.
Therewerestrikingdifferencesbetweendisciplineswithbusiness/economics
havingaroundtwicethetotaldelaysubmissiontopublicationcomparedto
chemistry.Differenceswerealsofoundintermsofthesizeofthejournalthough
theywerefairlymodestwiththelargerjournalsappearingtobethemost
efficientbothintermsofthetimefromsubmissiontoacceptanceandin
publishingarticlesonceaccepted.
Openaccessjournals,particularlythosewhichwerecreatedasOAjournals
ratherthanwereconvertedfromsubscriptionappeartobeabletopublish
articlesconsiderablymorequicklythansubscriptionjournals.Thisinpartmay
reflectthefacttheyareelectroniconlyandtendtopublisharticlesastheyare
readyratherthanbundlingthemintoissues.Giventhesmallnumbersandthe
facttheOAjournalsarenotevenlydistributedacrossdisciplinesthesefinding
shouldbeinterpretedwithagreatdealofcaution.
Theanalysisofvarianceindicatesmostofthevariationinpublicationtimesisat
thelevelofindividualjournalsandarticles.Forthetimefromsubmissionto

1Thecomponentsforthefixedfactors,discipline,journalsizelevelandtheirinteractionarenot
truevariancecomponents.Sincetheyarefixedeffectstheyarenotstatisticalexpectationsbut
quadraticformsthatareaveragessimilarinnaturetoavariancecomponent.(Brennan,2001)
Sincethedistinctionisirrelevantforthepurposesofthisstudy,wewillrefertothesequadratic
formsasvariancecomponentsinthediscussionoftheresults.
12
acceptance,thebulkisamongarticles.Thisisnotsurprising.Therearemany
idiosyncraticfactorsthatinfluencethelengthofindividualarticlereviews.
Editorsmoreoftenthannotacceptmanuscriptspendingrevisionsandauthors
varygreatlyinhowquicklytheycompletetherevisions.Hencethelengthofthe
reviewprocessforaparticulararticlemayreflecttheactionsoftheauthorrather
thantheeditororreviewers.Alltheseandotherfactorsresultinsignificant
differencesinreviewtimesamongsubmissionsforaspecificjournal.
Therewasalsoconsiderablymorevariationamongjournalswithinadiscipline
andsizegroupthanamongdisciplinesandsizegroups.Thisindicatesthereare
realdifferencesinthisimportantaspectofpublishingthatarenotexplainedby
eithertheanomaliesofindividualreviewsorthecultureofreviewofdifferent
fields.Somejournalsjustappeartobefasterinconductingthereviewprocess.
Thislikelyinpartreflectsthelevelandnumberofcyclesofrevisionstypically
requiredbytheeditor.Italsomayreflecthowquicklymanuscriptsgooutfor
reviewandwhatexpectationtheeditororeditorialteamhasforhowlonga
reviewershouldtakeinreviewingamanuscript.
Forthetimefromacceptancetopublicationthevastmajorityofthevariationis
amongjournals.Again,thisdoesnotseemsurprising.Thebacklogsin
processingmanuscriptsthroughtypesettingandcopyediting,frequencyof
publicationandthebacklogduetopagelimitsiftheyexistwouldalllargely
impactonpublicationtimesatthejournallevel.
5.Conclusions
Webelievethistobethefirstbroadstudyofpublishingdelays,coveringallfields
ofscience.Ourstudyalsodiffersfromallearlierstudiesbyouruseofarandom
samplecoveringjournalsofallqualitylevels.Previousstudies,haveusuallyused
smallconveniencesamplesoftypicallytopjournalsintheirfields,which
introducesastrongbiastowardsjournalsthatmayincludelongreview
processes.Ourresultsare,nevertheless,notinconflictwiththeearlierstudies,
butinstead,addtothem.Themethodologywasverylaborintensiveanditwould
beveryusefulforfuturestudiesifpublishersincludedthedateofsubmission
andacceptanceasastandardpartoftheirarticleinformation.Thiswould
providealeveloftransparencyforpotentialauthorsastothedelaystheycould
expectinreviewandpublicationprocesseswhenconsideringwheretosubmit
theirmanuscripts.Itwouldalsoprovideastrongincentiveforjournalstospeed
uptheseprocesses.
Theaimofourstudywastoprovideoveralldataonreviewandpublishingtimes
acrossvariousfieldsofscience.Wedidnotattempttodeterminehowdelays
haveevolvedovertime.Someoftheearlierstudieshavedonethis,butwemade
aconsciouschoicetoconcentrateonthedifferencesbetweendisciplines,dueto
theresourceintensivenessofourmethod.Alongitudinalstudywouldbeagood
topicforafollow‐upstudy,andshouldideallygobackaround25years,tothe
timebeforeemail,websubmissionsystemsandelectronicpublishing.That
13
wouldontheotherhandalsoimplychallengesinfindingthedatawiththe
articles.
Itwouldbeveryusefultomakeamoredetailedstudyofwhydelaysdifferso
muchbetweendisciplines,Ourimpressionisthatthecleardifferencesamong
fieldshaveevolvedoverdecadesthroughthedevelopmentofintra‐disciplinary
socialnormsforwhatisexpectedfromascholarlyjournalinthefield.This
includeswhatisanacceptabledelayforinformingauthorsofreviewresultsand
acceptanceorrejectiondecisionsaswellastheprocessingandqueuingtime
onceamanuscriptisaccepted.Thisisinlinewiththeconclusionsofforinstance
Ellison(2000).Thesedifferencesinreviewandpublicationtimesmayalso
reflectthenatureofthedisciplines.Forexampleinrapidlydevelopingfields
whereseparategroupsofresearchersmayberacingtoachieveaparticular
breakthrough,thespeedofthepublicationprocesscandeterminewhichgroup
gainscreditforthebreakthroughaspublicationhasbecomethedefacto
determinerofwhogetsthecreditforamajorfinding.
Otherinterestingtopicsforfurtherstudieswouldbethedifferencesbetween
journalswithinadisciplineandarticleswithinjournals.Forsomeindividual
articlesthedelaytimescanbeexcessivelylong.Thedelayscanbeduetothe
authorstakingexcessivelylongtimesmakingrevisionsaftertheoriginalreview
cycle.Theycanalsobeduetoexcessivelylongreviewperiodsordelaysinthe
publicationprocess.Asfoundinthisstudy,mostofthevariationinsubmissionto
acceptancetimesisamongindividualmanuscriptswithinajournalwhilemostof
thevariationinacceptancetopublicationtimeisamongjournalswithina
discipline/sizegroup.Sincepublicationdelaysarebothdetrimentaltothe
careersofindividualscholarsandretardtherateatwhichscientificfields
advance,understandingandattemptingtominimizeunnecessarydelaysinthe
peer‐reviewandpublicationprocessisineveryone’sbestinterest.
OneofthereasonsforthepopularityofOAjournals,inadditiontothewider
dissemination,isthebeliefthattheyhavemuchfastersubmissiontopublication
times.Thisperceptionisoftenhighlightedinthepromotionalmaterialforfully
electronicOAjournals.ItappearsfromourverylimitedsampleofOAjournals
thatjournalswhichareonlydisseminatedindigitalformandpublisharticles
individuallyastheyarereadytendtohaveconsiderablyshortersubmissionto
publicationperiodswithmostofthedifferenceduetoshorteracceptanceto
publicationtimes.Afollow‐upstudycomparingsubscriptionjournalswithOA‐
journalswouldneedtofurthersplitupOA‐journalsintoanumberofsubgroups,
suchasmegajournals(PloSONEandcloses),journalsfromso‐calledpredatory
journalswithspamacademicswithemailspromisingveryrapidpublicationand
highqualityOAjournals.
Somecriticsofthecurrentsystemhavediscussedthealmostdefactostandard
journalpolicyofnotallowingauthorsthepossibilityofsubmittingtheir
manuscriptstootherjournalsinparallel(Torgersonetal2005),aslongasthe
articlehasnotbeendefinitelyrejected(Piron2001).Thispolicycanresultin
longdelaysinthepublicationprocessofarticlesrejectedinthefirst‐choice
journalpotentiallyrenderingtheresultsoftheresearchoutdatedandoflittleuse
14
bythetimeitisfinallypublished.Thepolicyisoftenjustifiedbysayingthatit
wouldbeveryinefficientandunfairtoeditorsandrefereesifthesamearticles
wouldberefereedinseveraljournalsatthesametime.Ontheotherhandexactly
thesamethinghappenswhenarticlesafterrejectionorauthorwithdrawalare
resubmittedtootherjournalsandnewreviewersgetinvolved.Interestingly
thereisonejournalcategorywherethisruleisnotenforced,lawjournals
publishedbyleadingUSuniversities,whichallowauthorstosubmitto
competingjournalssimultaneously.Althoughnoempiricalstudiescouldbe
foundofthepublishingdelayintheselawjournals,severalauthorsforexample
(Posner,2008)havepointedoutthatthedelaysaremuchshorterthaninother
fields.Ifpublishersaregoingtosticktothedemandthatauthorsrefrainfrom
multiplesimultaneoussubmissionsofamanuscriptthenitseemstous,thatthey
haveanobligationtomakethepublicationprocessasfastandefficientas
possible.
Electronicpublicationoffersarealpotentialforspeedingupthescholarly
journalpublishingprocess,butinordertoachievethisjournalshavetostop
publishingaparallelpaperversionandneedtoconverttopublishingarticlesin
anissue‐lessmodeastheybecomeavailable.Thisisexactlywhatmostborn
electronicjournalsdo,andastheirshareofpublishingincreases,average
publishingdelayswilltendtodecrease.
Acknowledgements:
WeareverygratefultoCharlottaBjörk,AleksiAaltonenandPatrikWellingfor
helpingoutwiththetediousworkofgatheringthedata.
References:
Amat,C.B.(2008)Editorialandpublicationdelayofpaperssubmittedto14
selectedFoodResearchjournals.Influenceofonlineposting,Scientometrics74,
3,379
Azar,OferH.,Rejectionsandtheimportanceoffirstresponsetimes,
InternationalJournalofSocialEconomicsVol.31No.3,2004pp.259‐274
Björk,B‐C.andTurk,Z.(2006).TheElectronicJournalofInformationTechnology
inConstruction(ITcon):anopenaccessjournalusinganun‐paid,volunteer‐
basedorganization.InformationResearch,11(3)paper255,Availableat
http://InformationR.net/ir/11‐3/paper255.html]
15
Björk,B‐C.(2011)InnovationsinScholarlyPublishing–AmultipleCaseStudyof
OpenAccessJournals,JournalofMedicalInternetResearch,13(4):e115
Retrievedfromhttp://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e115/,doi:10.2196/jmir.1802
Brennan,R.L.(2001)GeneralizabilityTheoryStatisticsforSocialScienceand
PublicPolicy(series)2001SpringerNewYork.
CarrollR.(2001)ReviewTimesinStatisticalJournals:TiltingattheWindmills?
Biometrics,Vol57,1‐6.
CoeR.K.,WeinstockI.(1967):“EditorialPoliciesoftheMajorEconomics
Journals,”QuarterlyReviewofEconomicsandBusiness7,37‐43.
I.Diospatonyi,†G.Horvai,†andT.Braun*,‡
PublicationSpeedinAnalyticalChemistryJournals,J.Chem.Inf.Comput.Sci.
2001,41,1452‐1456
Dong,Peng,Loh,Marie,Mondry,Adrian
Publicationlaginbiomedicaljournalsvariesduetotheperiodical'spublishing
model,Scientometrics,2006,69(2),271‐286
Ellison,G.(2002)TheslowdownoftheEconomicsPublishingProcess,Journalof
PoliticalEconomy,110,947‐993
Hartmann,D.L.“AreAMSJournalsTooSlowtoBeUseful?AnOpenLettertoAMS
Members,”
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/AMS_Publ_Paper.970610.ps
JournalM3tricsResearchAnalyticsRedefined.(2013).
http://www.journalmetrics.com/
Khosrowjerdi,M.,Zeraatkarb,N.,Varac,N.(2011)PublicationDelayinIranian
ScholarlyJournals,SerialsReview37(4)262–266.
Kling,R.,Swygart‐Hobaugh,A.J.(2002).TheInternetandthevelocityof
scholarlyjournalpublishing.WorkingPaperNo.WP‐02‐12,RobKlingCenterfor
SocialInformatics,SchoolofLibraryandInformationScience,IndianaUniversity,
Bloomington,IN.https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/148
Laakso,M.,Björk,B‐C.(2012).Anatomyofopenaccesspublishing:astudyof
longitudinaldevelopmentandinternalstructure.BMCMedicine,10:124.
doi:10.1186/1741‐7015‐10‐124
LuwelM.,MoedH.F.(1998)PublicationDelaysintheScienceFieldsandTheir
RelationshiptotheAgeingofScientificLiterature,”Scientometrics41(1–2)29–
40.
Nature.Overview:Nature'speerreviewtrial(2006)|doi:10.1038/nature05535.
16
Piron,Robert(2001)TheyHavetheWorldonaQueue,Challenge,200144(5)
95‐101.
Posner,Richard(2006)LawReviews,WashburnLawReview,46(1)
http://washburnlaw.edu/wlj/46‐1/articles/posner‐richard.pdf
Raney,K.(1998).Intoaglassdarkly.JournalofElectronicPublishing,4(2).
Retrieved3March,2006fromhttp://www.press.umich.edu/jep/04‐
02/raney.html
SCIMago.(2013).SJR–SCImagoJournal&CountryRank.Retrievedfrom
http://www.scimagojr.com
Solomon,D.J.,Björk,B‐C.(2012)PublicationFeesinOpenAccessPublishing:
SourcesofFundingandFactorsInfluencingChoiceofJournal,Journalofthe
AmericanSocietyforInformationScienceandTechnology,63(1):98–107,2012,
DOI:10.1002/asi.21660
Solomon,David,Laakso,Mikael,Björk,Bo‐Christer,2013,Alongitudinal
comparisonofcitationratesandgrowthamongopenaccessandsubscription
journals,JournalofInformetrics,Vol7,No3,642‐650.
Suber,P.(2012).OpenAccess.MITPress.230p.
TorgersonD.J.,AdamsonJ.,CockayneS,DumvilleJ.,PetherickBritishE.(2005)
Submissiontomultiplejournals:amethodofreducingtimetopublication?BMJ,
330,305–307.
TrivediP.K.,(1993)AnAnalysisofPublicationLagsinEconometrics,”Journalof
AppliedEconometrics893–100.
VanOrsdel,L.andBorn,K.(2002)PeriodicalsPriceSurvey2002:DoingtheDigital
Flip.LibraryJournal,http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA206383.html.)
Ware,M.,Mabe,M.(2012)TheSTMReport:AnoverviewofScientificand
ScholarlyJournalPublishing,InternationalAssociationofScientific,Technical
andMedicalPublishers,TheHague,Netherlands,
http://www.stm‐assoc.org/2012_12_11_STM_Report_2012.pdf
Yohe,G.W.,(1980)CurrentPublicationLagsinEconomicsJournals,"
JournalofEconomicLiterature18,1050‐55
YuG.,YuD.R.,,LiY.J.(2004)Theuniversalexpressionofperiodicalaverage
publicationdelayatsteadystateScientometrics60(2)121–129.
17
Figure1:AveragePublicationTimesinMonthsbyDiscipline
Figureisbasedon15journalsperdiscipline,5foreachsizegroup,20articlesperjournal
resultinginatotalof300articlesperdiscipline.
18
Figure2:AveragePublicationTimesinMonthsbyJournalSizeGroup
Figureisbasedon45journalspersizegroup,15foreachdiscipline,20articlesperjournal
resultinginatotalof900articlespersizegroup.
19
Table1.Previousstudiesconcerningpublicationdelaysinscholarlyjournals.
Stud
y
Included
journals
Period
studied
Discipline Delay(months)
AverageRange
Yohe1980
25journals1980 Economics 18.9
4.9–28.7
Trivedi1993 7journals
1986‐1990 Econometrics 22.8 19.7–31.4
Carroll2001
6journals 1994,1999 Statistics 22.3 15.0‐26.0
KlingandSwygart‐
Hobaugh2002
3socialscience
journals
1970/1980,
2000
Econ.,
management
23.8 17.0–29.4
KlingandSwygart‐
Hobaugh2002
3naturalscience
journals
1970/1980,
2000
Physics,
Chemistry
5.8 4.0–7.4
Hartmann1997
Onejournal 1970,1997 Atmospheric
Sciences
15.4
LuwelandMoed
1998
15journals 1992 Physical
sciences,Eng.
9.4
2.5‐17.0
Diospatonyietal
2001
10journals 1985‐1999 Analytical
chemistry
7.1 3.5–12.5
Raney1998
Onejournal 1997 Geoscience 21.8 11.5‐36.5
Yuetal2004
7journals 2002 Mainly
engineering
15.1 5.5–20.0
Amat2008 14journals 2004 Agriculture 11.8 6.2–17.2
Dongetal2006 28commercial,
SocietyandOA
2004 Biomedicine 6.3 3.0‐11.0
BjörkandTurk
2006
OneOAandtwo
conventional
2005 Civil
Engineering
14.5
6.7–18.9
Khosrowjerdietal
2011
26Iranianjournals 2009 Cross‐
disciplinary
17.3
5.8–34.6

20
Table2TimeSubmissiontoPublicationTotals
Months
Submitted to
Accepted
Months
Accepted to
Published
Months
Submitted to
Published
Mean 6.41 5.78 12.18
Std. Deviation 5.35 4.21 7.17
Std. Error of Mean* 0.10 0.08 0.14
Statisticsbasedon135Journals/2,700Articles
*TheStandarderrorsofthemeansareapproximateduetothelackofindependence
betweenarticlesinthesamejournal.
21
Table3TimeSubmissiontoPublicationforOAJournals
Created Open Access
Months
Submitted to
Accepted
Months
Accepted to
Published
Months
Submitted to
Published
Yes
Mean 4.17 1.80 5.97
Std. Deviation 3.08 1.56 3.77
Std. Error of Mean 0.26 0.13 0.32
Number 7 Journals / 140 Articles
No Mean 5.12 4.76 9.88
Std. Deviation 4.37 5.17 7.90
Std. Error of Mean 0.28 0.33 0.51
Number 12Journals/240Articles

Thestandarderrorsofthemeanareapproximateduetolackofindependence
amongarticlesinthesamejournal.
22
Table4EstimatedVarianceComponents
SubmittoAcceptAccepttoPublish
VariancePercentVariancePercent
Discipline3.4412% Discipline0.835%
JournalSize0.522% JournalSize0.312%
Journal8.4929% Journal12.8871%
Article16.4656% Article4.2023%
SizexDiscipline0.492% SizexDiscipline0.000%
Total29.41Total18.23
23
PublicationTimeinMonthsbyDiscipline
Discipline Months
Submitted to
Accepted
Months
Accepted to
Published
Months
Received to
Published
Chemistry Mean 4.73 4.18 8.91
Std. Deviation 5.46 3.60 7.30
Std. Error of Mean 0.32 0.21 0.42
Engineering Mean 5.00 4.30 9.30
Std. Deviation 3.68 3.06 5.29
Std. Error of Mean 0.21 0.18 0.31
Biomedicine Mean 4.65 4.82 9.47
Std. Deviation 3.47 4.11 5.18
Std. Error of Mean 0.20 0.24 0.30
Physics Mean 5.21 5.72 10.93
Std. Deviation 3.26 2.66 4.41
Std. Error of Mean 0.19 0.15 0.25
Earth Science Mean 5.74 5.96 11.70
Std. Deviation 4.80 4.66 7.24
Std. Error of Mean 0.28 0.27 0.42
Mathematics Mean 8.20 5.11 13.30
Std. Deviation 6.21 2.45 6.87
Std. Error of Mean 0.36 0.14 0.40
Social Science Mean 6.17 7.93 14.10
Std. Deviation 4.36 5.73 7.32
Std. Error of Mean 0.25 0.33 0.42
Arts and Letters Mean 7.21 7.00 14.21
Std. Deviation 5.26 5.38 7.71
Std. Error of Mean 0.30 0.31 0.44
Business/Economics Mean 10.75 6.96 17.70
Std. Deviation 7.15 3.19 7.52
Std. Error of Mean 0.41 0.18 0.43
All Journals Mean 6.41 5.78 12.18
Std. Deviation 5.35 4.21 7.17
Std. Error of Mean 0.10 0.08 0.14
Thereare15journals,5pereachsizegroupand20articlesperjournal
Standarderrorofthemeanisapproximateduetolackofindependenceamongarticlesina
journal.
24
NumberofJournalsfromEachPublisherIncludedintheStudy
Publisher Number Percent
American Chemical Society 1 0.8%
American Dairy Science Association 1 0.8%
American Physiological Society 1 0.8%
American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. 1 0.8%
American Psychological Association 1 0.8%
American Society of Civil Engineers 1 0.8%
American Vacuum Society 1 0.8%
Arizona State University 1 0.8%
Australasian Association of Psychology and Philosophy 1 0.8%
Bentham Science Publishers 1 0.8%
BioMed Central 1 0.8%
Blackwell Publishing Inc. 3 2.3%
Butterworth Scientific Ltd. 1 0.8%
Cell Press 1 0.8%
Central Fisheries Research Institute 1 0.8%
Cognizant Communication Corp. 1 0.8%
Consejo Superior De Investigaciones Cientificas 2 1.5%
Copernicus Gesellschaften 1 0.8%
Electrochemical Society, Inc. 1 0.8%
Elsevier 61 46.6%
European Respiratory Society 1 0.8%
Geophysical Society of Finland 1 0.8%
Hindawi Publishing Corporation 1 0.8%
Institute for Ionics 1 0.8%
Institute of Physics Publishing 1 0.8%
Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali 1 0.8%
JAI Press 1 0.8%
Maik Nauka/Interperiodica Publishing 1 0.8%
Marcel Dekker Inc. 3 2.3%
Molecular Diversity Preservation International 1 0.8%
Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH 1 0.8%
Opragen Publications 1 0.8%
Oxford University Press 1 0.8%
Pan American Health Organization/Organizacion
Panamericana de la Salud 1 0.8%
Prolegomena: Journal of Philosophy 1 0.8%
Public Library of Science 1 0.8%
Raptor Research Foundation, Inc. 1 0.8%
Royal Society of Chemistry 2 1.5%
Royal Society of London 1 0.8%
SAGE Publications 1 0.8%
Springer Pub. Co., 14 10.7%
Taylor & Francis 1 0.8%
25
Universidad de los Andes 1 0.8%
Universidad de Murcia 1 0.8%
Universidad Nacional de Colombia 1 0.8%
Universidade Estadual Paulista 1 0.8%
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro 1 0.8%
University of the Aegean 1 0.8%
Versita (Central European Science Publishers) 1 0.8%
Wayne State University Press 1 0.8%
Wiley-Blackwell 2 1.5%
PublishernamesretrievedfromSCImagoJournal&CountryRankwebsite.
http://www.scimagojr.com/
... In general, times may or may not contribute to the reasonable and pertinent communication of knowledge. Indeed, two opposing understandings of peer review times coexist in the current literature, namely, time as an obstacle to knowledge sharing (Powell, 2016;Royle, 2014) and time as an indicator of review rigorousness (Björk & Solomon, 2013). ...
... The longest review times (of 100 days on average) and the highest rejection rates are found in the social sciences when compared with the natural sciences, as revealed by Björk and Solomon (2013) in their study on Scopus. This was also confirmed by the study by Aguado-L opez and Becerril-García (2021) Faced with this situation, some journals are promoting positive practices regarding expediting deadlines, such as prior online publication of preprints and/or in-press texts, or continuous publication in contrast to the traditional volume/number system. ...
... While previous work had stated an average of 100 days for the duration of the publication process in the field of the social sciences (Björk & Solomon, 2013), the current work reveals that, in the area of Communication in Spain, this average is much higher, specifically 214 days for general issues and 170 days for special issues. This confirms the statements of Aguado-L opez and Becerril-García (2021) regarding the progressive slowdown of the publication process over the years. ...
Article
Full-text available
The main objective of this study is to identify the editorial practices related to time management in Spanish Communication journals and determine whether their time management is homogeneous, as well as to evaluate which journals are more agile, discover the differences between general and special issues, and identify practices that can streamline the publication process. To this end, we worked with an exploratory-type methodology focused on content analysis. The sample analyzed included 1581 articles published in 2021 by the 62 Communication journals included in the Índice Dialnet de Revistas (IDR) 2020, differentiating between those published in general and special issues, with the aim of focusing attention on the time elapsed from when the journals receive articles until their final publication. The results reveal little homogeneity in the policy regarding information on dates and confirms average times of more than 6 months for the duration of the process, with the publication process for special issues being more agile. The strength of this work lies in the demonstration of the need to work on common policies that enable the publication process to be streamlined while accelerating the availability of research results for the benefit of academia as well as society.
... En general, los tiempos contribuyen, o no, a la comunicación razonable y pertinente del conocimiento. En la literatura existente conviven dos lecturas antagónicas sobre los tiempos de revisión: el tiempo como obstáculo para la compartición del conocimiento (Powell, 2016;Royle, 2014) y el tiempo como indicador de rigurosidad de la revisión (Björk & Solomon, 2013). ...
... Otra discusión deriva de poner en el punto de mira los plazos internos que necesita una revista científica para funcionar de forma adecuada. Aunque el tiempo se ha considerado un indicador de un proceso de revisión riguroso y exhaustivo (Björk & Solomon, 2013), los datos obtenidos en esta investigación no muestran una relación directa entre el cuartil de la revista y su agilidad. Al contrario, las revistas mejor indexadas podrían estar sometidas a un volumen superior de trabajo, por recibir más textos debido al interés académico por la obtención de un mérito mejor valorado en los sistemas de acreditación y consolidación del personal investigador. ...
Article
Full-text available
El objetivo principal de la presente investigación reside en identificar las prácticas editoriales relacionadas con la gestión del tiempo en las revistas científicas españolas de Comunicación y conocer si existe homogeneidad en la gestión del tiempo, detectar revistas más ágiles, conocer si existen diferencias entre publicaciones generales y monográficos específicos e identificar praxis que agilicen los procesos de publicación. Para ello, se ha trabajado en una metodología de corte exploratorio, centrada en el análisis de contenido. La muestra analiza los 1581 artículos publicados en 2021 por las 62 revistas científicas de Comunicación del Índice Dialnet de Revistas 2020, diferenciando entre aquellos que han sido publicados en la sección “Miscelánea” de aquellos que aparecen publicados en “Monográfico”, con la finalidad de centrar la atención en los plazos transcurridos desde que las revistas reciben los artículos hasta que finalmente son publicados. Los resultados evidencian escasa homogeneidad en la política relativa a la información sobre fechas y constata promedios de más de seis meses en la duración del proceso, siendo más ágiles los procesos de la publicación en “Monográfico”. El punto fuerte de este trabajo se encuentra en la manifestación de la necesidad de trabajar en políticas comunes que permitan, por una parte, agilizar los procesos de publicación y, en segundo lugar, acelerar la visibilización de los resultados de investigación, con el fin de beneficiar a la comunidad científica y la sociedad. http://hdl.handle.net/10045/136678
... They also observed that there was no correlation between publication pace, impact factor (IF), and article publication fee (APC). Using a stratified random sample of 135 journals indexed in Scopus, Björk & Solomon (2013) examined the average waiting period in journals. They discovered that science, technology, and medicine have the minimum delays, while social sciences, humanities, business, and economics have the longest. ...
Article
Full-text available
The fast and quality dissemination of research breakthroughs via journals is essential to the researchers. Hence, this study analyzed the average duration for Civil Engineering journals based on the points allocations in Poland’s Ministry of Science and Higher Education (MEiN) list. A total of 30 journals were randomly selected and grouped based on the regional points allocation. The date of submission to the date of acceptance (SA) and the date of acceptance to the date of publication (SP) were extracted from 3557 articles. Version 26 IBM Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze the average duration for the dataset. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used for the analysis of the relationship between the points allocation and the Scopus impact factors (IF), Web of Science impact factors (WoS IF), source normalized impact per paper (SNIP), SA, and SP. The results show that the average duration SA and SP for journals with 200, 140, and 100 points within the 5 years are 305.28, 285.25, 317.93 days, respectively, while for journals with 70, 40, and 20 points, the average duration is 180.50, 324.60, 206.41 days. Further analysis shows a statistically significant difference between the Scopus IF, WoS IF, SNIP, and allocated points. They indicate that these journal metrics affect journal categorization.
... The findings of this study reaffirm the high level of satisfaction among editors regarding the features of publishing platforms, as indicated in earlier research (Hunter et al., 2022). Furthermore, the respondents in this study expressed their gratitude towards the increasing range of supplementary solutions and e-services offered by commercial publishers, a trend identified in previous studies (Anderson, 2018;Björk & Solomon, 2013;McGuigan & Russel, 2008) and reaffirmed by our findings. Editors highlighted the importance of these services, particularly online submission systems that include features such as double submission and plagiarism checks, author background checks, software solutions for managing editors' and reviewers' services, and website design, management, and hosting. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study was guided by previous research highlighting the significance of journal publishers' commercial or non‐profit orientations in shaping academic editors' perspectives regarding the necessity of enhancing editorial and business practices. There is limited understanding of how the editor–publisher relationship varies based on publishers' commercial orientation. This study revealed five key factors influencing editors' attitudes towards how publishers strive to provide high‐quality publications: (i) availability of high‐quality publication services; (ii) sufficient technological support and access to visibility‐related data; (iii) accessible marketing and indexing services; (iv) access to continuous education for the editorial team; and (v) a balance between editorial autonomy and publisher support in managing the journal. The study indicated that editors partnering with commercial publishers tended to receive more extensive and advanced services, better technological support, and more training opportunities, contributing to the production of superior end products. However, working with commercial publishers resulted in the trade‐off of less editorial independence, which sometimes compromised editors' decision‐making ability and made them feel uncertain about their further involvement. The study's findings highlighted the importance of publishers adopting a more strategic approach to support their editorial staff, while considering the unique needs of each journal.
... Peer review processes are generally long, with disparities across disciplines (Björk & Solomon, 2013;Cornelius, 2012;Huisman & Smits, 2017;Kareiva et al., 2002). Especially for accepted publications (Bilalli et al., 2020). ...
Preprint
Scientometers and sociologists of science have spilled much ink on the topic of peer review over the past twenty years, given its primordial role in a context marked by the exponential growth of scientific production and the proliferation of predatory journals. Although the topic is addressed under different prisms, few studies have empirically analyzed to what extent it can affect the quality of publications. Here we study the link between the length of reviewers' reports and the citations received by publications. To do this, we used data from the Publons database (58,093 peer review reports). We have adjusted this sample to match the WoS database structure. Our regression results show that peer review positively affects the quality of publications. In other words, the more indepth (longer) the referees' reports are, the greater the publication improvements will be, resulting in an increase in citations received. This result is important from both the point of view of reviewers and that of journal's chiefseditors. Even if it is not a remunerated activity, it is important that it be more valued at least within the framework of research evaluation exercises, given its positive impact on science.
... year timeframe. In 2013, at the beginning of this time window, the average time needed to publish an academic paper was 12.2 months, ranging from 9 months (chemistry) to 18 months (Business) (Björk & Solomon, 2013). It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that a paper published in 2013 was most likely submitted in 2012. ...
Article
Full-text available
Academic misconduct is a threat to the validity and reliability of online examinations, and media reports suggest that misconduct spiked dramatically in higher education during the emergency shift to online exams caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reviewed survey research to determine how common it is for university students to admit cheating in online exams, and how and why they do it. We also assessed whether these self-reports of cheating increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, along with an evaluation of the quality of the research evidence which addressed these questions. 25 samples were identified from 19 Studies, including 4672 participants, going back to 2012. Online exam cheating was self-reported by a substantial minority (44.7%) of students in total. Pre-COVID this was 29.9%, but during COVID cheating jumped to 54.7%, although these samples were more heterogenous. Individual cheating was more common than group cheating, and the most common reason students reported for cheating was simply that there was an opportunity to do so. Remote proctoring appeared to reduce the occurrence of cheating, although data were limited. However there were a number of methodological features which reduce confidence in the accuracy of all these findings. Most samples were collected using designs which makes it likely that online exam cheating is under-reported, for example using convenience sampling, a modest sample size and insufficient information to calculate response rate. No studies considered whether samples were representative of their population. Future approaches to online exams should consider how the basic validity of examinations can be maintained, considering the substantial numbers of students who appear to be willing to admit engaging in misconduct. Future research on academic misconduct would benefit from using large representative samples, guaranteeing participants anonymity.
... The traditional pipeline for academic publication is highly time-consuming (Björk and Solomon, 2013). The whole publishing process, from doing research, writing a paper, submitting for peer review, revising or rewriting if rejected all the way to final publishing, can be a weary march that costs several or even a dozen months. ...
Preprint
Preprints play an increasingly critical role in academic communities. There are many reasons driving researchers to post their manuscripts to preprint servers before formal submission to journals or conferences, but the use of preprints has also sparked considerable controversy, especially surrounding the claim of priority. In this paper, a case study of computer science preprints submitted to arXiv from 2008 to 2017 is conducted to quantify how many preprints have eventually been printed in peer-reviewed venues. Among those published manuscripts, some are published under different titles and without an update to their preprints on arXiv. In the case of these manuscripts, the traditional fuzzy matching method is incapable of mapping the preprint to the final published version. In view of this issue, we introduce a semantics-based mapping method with the employment of Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT). With this new mapping method and a plurality of data sources, we find that 66% of all sampled preprints are published under unchanged titles and 11% are published under different titles and with other modifications. A further analysis was then performed to investigate why these preprints but not others were accepted for publication. Our comparison reveals that in the field of computer science, published preprints feature adequate revisions, multiple authorship, detailed abstract and introduction, extensive and authoritative references and available source code.
Article
Importance: Results from high-profile randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are routinely reported through press release months prior to peer-reviewed publication. There are potential benefits to press releases (e.g., knowledge dissemination, ensuring regulatory compliance), but also potential drawbacks (e.g., selective reporting, positive "spin"). Objective: To characterize the practice of press release predating the publication of a drug-related RCT in a peer-reviewed journal ("preemptive press release"), including factors associated with this practice. Design, setting, and participants: We systematically reviewed all RCTs of medications published between 2015 and 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and Lancet. Press releases were identified using a systematic search of the grey literature (e.g., press release databases, study sponsor websites). An RCT was considered to have a preemptive press release if the press release was published at least three months (90 days) prior to the date of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Main outcomes and measures: Presence of preemptive press release, defined as a press-release at least 90 days prior to the date of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. As secondary measures for dissemination, we also assessed citation count and Altmetric score. Results: We identified 988 RCTs, of which 172 (17%) had a press release published at least 90 days before the date of peer-reviewed publication. Press releases were published a median of 246 days (interquartile range [IQR] 169-366 days) before publication in a peer-reviewed journal. In the multivariable logistic regression model, the strongest predictor of having a preemptive press release was funding by a pharmaceutical company (odds ratio 13, 95% CI 7, 25). Approximately 85% of RCTs with preemptive press releases had a positive primary outcome and, concordantly, 81% of the corresponding press releases had a positive headline. Multivariable regression models identified studies with a preemptive press release had a similar Altmetric score (median - 15, 95% CI - 33, 12) and higher median citation count (median 22 [95% CI 10 to 33] compared to studies without a preemptive press release. Conclusions and relevance: Preemptive press releases were common, most often issued for trials funded by a pharmaceutical company, and typically preceded publication in a peer-reviewed journal by approximately eight months.
Article
Objective: This study aims to assess the use, impact, and dissemination of preprints in dentistry. Methods: This is a meta-research study with a cross-sectional design. We included preprints published in dentistry, regardless of the year of publication. Searches were performed in the medRxiv.org and Preprints.org platforms and restricted to English. One researcher extracted the data, and another researcher verified data consistency. The following data were extracted: year of publication, country of the corresponding author, number of abstract and full-text views and downloads, Altmetric attention score, whether the preprint was mentioned in other servers such as Twitter and Publons, number of mentions in other servers, number of citations in the Dimensions database, and whether the preprint had already been published in a peer-reviewed journal. If already published, we extracted the journal's impact factor (JCR 2021) and the number of citations in the Dimensions database. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the extracted characteristics and explored relationships between metrics using the Spearman correlation. Results: We identified 276 preprints. Most of the studies were published between 2020 and 2022 (n = 229), especially those from ten countries. The most-cited preprint and published article are the same study. Only the correlation between the number of preprint citations and peer-reviewed article citations in the Dimensions database showed a large positive association (Spearman's rho = 0.5809). Conclusion: Preprints gained popularity over the last several years due to the COVID-19 pandemic and reached a larger audience, especially on platforms such as Twitter. Clinical significance: Preprint publishing allows faster dissemination of science for the benefit of society.
Preprint
Full-text available
Objective: This study aims to assess the use, impact, and dissemination of preprints in dentistry. Methods: This is a meta-research study with a cross-sectional design. We included preprints published in dentistry, regardless of the year of publication. Searches were performed in the medRxiv.org and Preprints.org platforms and restricted to English. One researcher extracted the data, and another researcher verified data consistency. The following data were extracted: year of publication, country of the corresponding author, number of abstract and full-text views and downloads, Altmetric attention score, whether the preprint was mentioned in other servers such as Twitter and Publons, number of mentions in other servers, number of citations in the Dimensions database, and whether the preprint had already been published in a peer-reviewed journal. If already published, we extracted the journal's impact factor (JCR 2021) and the number of citations in the Dimensions database. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the extracted characteristics and explored relationships between metrics using the Spearman correlation. Results: We identified 276 preprints. Most of the studies were published between 2020 and 2022 (n = 229), especially those from ten countries. The most-cited preprint and published article are the same study. Only the correlation between the number of preprint citations and peer-reviewed article citations in the Dimensions database showed a large positive association (Spearman's rho = 0.5809). Conclusion: Preprints gained popularity over the last several years due to the COVID-19 pandemic and reached a larger audience, especially on platforms such as Twitter. Clinical Significance: Preprint publishing allows faster dissemination of science for the benefit of society.
Article
Full-text available
The study documents the growth in the number of journals and articles along with the increase in normalized citation rates of open access (OA) journals listed in the Scopus bibliographic database between 1999 and 2010. Longitudinal statistics on growth in journals/articles and citation rates are broken down by funding model, discipline, and whether the journal was launched or had converted to OA. The data were retrieved from the websites of SCIMago Journal and Country Rank (journal/article counts), JournalM3trics (SNIP2 values), Scopus (journal discipline) and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) (OA and funding status). OA journals/articles have grown much faster than subscription journals but still make up less that 12% of the journals in Scopus. Two-year citation averages for journals funded by Article Processing Charges (APCs) have reached the same level as subscription journals. Citation averages of OA journals funded by other means continue to lag well behind OA journals funded by APCs and subscription journals. We hypothesize this is less an issue of quality than due to the fact that such journals are commonly published in languages other than English and tend to be located outside the four major publishing countries.
Article
Full-text available
Journal impact factors have become an important criterion to judge the quality of scientific publications over the years, influencing the evaluation of institutions and individual researchers worldwide. However, they are also subject to a number of criticisms. Here we point out that the calculation of a journal's impact factor is mainly based on the date of publication of its articles in print form, despite the fact that most journals now make their articles available online before that date. We analyze 61 neuroscience journals and show that delays between online and print publication of articles increased steadily over the last decade. Importantly, such a practice varies widely among journals, as some of them have no delays, while for others this period is longer than a year. Using a modified impact factor based on online rather than print publication dates, we demonstrate that online-to-print delays can artificially raise a journal's impact factor, and that this inflation is greater for longer publication lags. We also show that correcting the effect of publication delay on impact factors changes journal rankings based on this metric. We thus suggest that indexing of articles in citation databases and calculation of citation metrics should be based on the date of an article's online appearance, rather than on that of its publication in print.
Article
Full-text available
Open access (OA) is a revolutionary way of providing access to the scholarly journal literature made possible by the Internet. The primary aim of this study was to measure the volume of scientific articles published in full immediate OA journals from 2000 to 2011, while observing longitudinal internal shifts in the structure of OA publishing concerning revenue models, publisher types and relative distribution among scientific disciplines. The secondary aim was to measure the share of OA articles of all journal articles, including articles made OA by publishers with a delay and individual author-paid OA articles in subscription journals (hybrid OA), as these subsets of OA publishing have mostly been ignored in previous studies. Stratified random sampling of journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals (n = 787) was performed. The annual publication volumes spanning 2000 to 2011 were retrieved from major publication indexes and through manual data collection. An estimated 340,000 articles were published by 6,713 full immediate OA journals during 2011. OA journals requiring article-processing charges have become increasingly common, publishing 166,700 articles in 2011 (49% of all OA articles). This growth is related to the growth of commercial publishers, who, despite only a marginal presence a decade ago, have grown to become key actors on the OA scene, responsible for 120,000 of the articles published in 2011. Publication volume has grown within all major scientific disciplines, however, biomedicine has seen a particularly rapid 16-fold growth between 2000 (7,400 articles) and 2011 (120,900 articles). Over the past decade, OA journal publishing has steadily increased its relative share of all scholarly journal articles by about 1% annually. Approximately 17% of the 1.66 million articles published during 2011 and indexed in the most comprehensive article-level index of scholarly articles (Scopus) are available OA through journal publishers, most articles immediately (12%) but some within 12 months of publication (5%). OA journal publishing is disrupting the dominant subscription-based model of scientific publishing, having rapidly grown in relative annual share of published journal articles during the last decade.
Article
Contents Executive summary ● Scholarly communication ● The research cycle ● Types of scholarly communication ● Changes in scholarly communication system ● The journal ● What is a journal? ● The journals publishing cycle ● Sales channels and models ● Journal economics and market size ● Journal and articles numbers and trends ● Global trends in scientific output ● Authors and readers ● Publishers ● Peer review. ● Reading patterns ● Disciplinary differences ● Citations and the Impact Factor ● Costs of journal publishing ● Authors’ behaviour, perceptions and attitudes ● Publishing ethics ● Copyright and licensing ● Long term preservation ● TRANSFER code ● Researchers’ access to journals ● Open access ● Drivers of open access ● Open access business models ● Types of open access journal ● Delayed open access ● Open access via self-archiving ("Green" OA) ● Other open access variants ● SCOAP3 ● Open access to scholarly books ● Public access ● System-wide and economic perspectives ● Other developments in open access ● Transition and sustainability issues ● Effect of self-archiving on journals. ● Open access impacts on use ● New developments in scholarly communication ● “Science 2.0” or "Open Science" ● FORCE11 and “Science in Transition” ● Publishing platforms and APIs ● Social media ● Mobile access and apps ● Research data ● Semantic web and semantic enrichment ● New article formats and features. ● Text and data mining ● Reproducibility ● Big data & analytics ● Identity and disambiguation ● Research management and analytics ● FundRef ● Library publishing ● Open Annotation ● Learned societies ● Author services and tools ● Collaborative writing and sharing tools ● Open notebook science ● Conclusions ● Information sources ● Publisher organisations ● Global statistics and trends ● Open access ● Publishing industry research and analysis ● References 180pp
Article
Scholarly periodicals in Iran are considered main information resources in the development of knowledge in scholarly areas. About 566 periodicals have publication licenses from the Commission of Scholarly Periodicals Evaluation of Ministry of Science, Research & Technology (MSRT), with sixty-eight published in English. This paper studies the publication delay of twenty-six Iranian scholarly periodicals which are published in Persian in Iran, not those Iranian journals which are published in English in Iran or out of the country. The peer review and scholarly publication processes in Iranian journals are quite lengthy and need improvement. There was no significant relationship between publication delay in Persian scholarly periodicals and their impact factor as presented by the Islamic World Science Citation Center (titled ISC). Finally, the authors offer some solutions for improving the publication system of Iranian scholarly journals and decreasing the publication interval of these journals.
Article
This article presents an exploratory analysis of publication delays in the science field. Publication delay is defined as the time period between submission and publication of an article for a scientific journal. We obtained a first indication that these delays are longer with regard to journals in the fields of mathematics and technical sciences than they are in other fields of science. We suggest the use of data on publication delays in the analysis of the effects of electronic publishing on reference/citation patterns. A preliminary analysis on a small sample suggests that—under rather strict assumptions—the cited half-life of references may be reduced with a factor of about 2 if publication delays decrease radically.
Article
This note describes the lengthening in publication lags for econometric papers in seven journals since 1986 and briefly considers ways of shortening them.