The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals

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.

Full text

 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
1Introduction

ScholarlyjournalpublishinghasalonghistorygoingbacktoHenryOldenburg’s
PhilosophicalTransactionoftheRoyalSociety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.
1.1TheLife‐cyclestagesofapeer‐reviewedarticle

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.
1.2PreviousResearch

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
Table1aboutHere

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.

1.3Aims

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.

Tostudypublicationdelaysinscholarlypeer‐reviewedjournalsacrossdisciplines,
journalsizeandjournalquality.

Weexplicitlyruledoutdoingalongitudinalanalysis,duetotheverytime‐
consumingworkofdatacollection.
2.Method

2.1Pilotstudy

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.

2.2Mainstudy

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



Figure1:AveragePublicationTimesinMonthsbyDiscipline

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


Figure2:AveragePublicationTimesinMonthsbyJournalSizeGroup

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journals1980 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
Table2TimeSubmissiontoPublicationTotals

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
Table3TimeSubmissiontoPublicationforOAJournals

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 12Journals/240Articles

Thestandarderrorsofthemeanareapproximateduetolackofindependence
amongarticlesinthesamejournal.

22
Table4EstimatedVarianceComponents

SubmittoAcceptAccepttoPublish
VariancePercentVariancePercent
Discipline3.4412% Discipline0.835%
JournalSize0.522% JournalSize0.312%
Journal8.4929% Journal12.8871%
Article16.4656% Article4.2023%
SizexDiscipline0.492% SizexDiscipline0.000%
Total29.41Total18.23




23
PublicationTimeinMonthsbyDiscipline
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

Thereare15journals,5pereachsizegroupand20articlesperjournal
Standarderrorofthemeanisapproximateduetolackofindependenceamongarticlesina
journal.

24
NumberofJournalsfromEachPublisherIncludedintheStudy

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%

PublishernamesretrievedfromSCImagoJournal&CountryRankwebsite.
http://www.scimagojr.com/