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/
... While it is difficult to disentangle the mid-to long-term effects of the NEM or its on-going practices within this study, our research can unpack some of the immediate responses and experiences of NEM implementation from the perspectives of people who practice the policy. Although academic research tends to take a long time to complete and be published (Björk and Solomon, 2013)-hence possibly informative and beneficial to the next phase of policy formulation and implementation-the findings from this study can also inform the NEM policy being implemented presently, potentially contributing to its improvement (if necessary and relevant) during the current implementation phase. ...
Article
Full-text available
The Nueva Escuela Mexicana (NEM)-an education reform implemented in Mexico since 2023-represents a departure from previous neoliberal education reforms, emphasizing inclusion and diversity cultivated through active and project-based learning. As one of the first large-scale qualitative studies on the NEM, this study aimed to situate the reform within the experiences and challenges faced by educational stakeholders in Mexico, and to consider whether and how the reform may or will have contributed to addressing them. We carried out a total of 79 semi-structured individual and group interviews with various educational stakeholders in the three states of Nuevo León, Hidalgo, and Chiapas. The NEM was seemingly accepted by many participants because it helped "rescue" Mexican traditions and cultures, by contextualizing teaching and learning in their localities, and through the increased autonomy granted to teachers. However, several participants expressed their confusion about the potentially excessive flexibility in the NEM's curriculum and pedagogy. The NEM also seemed to accompany a risk of "reverse discrimination," as some people may not always have related so closely to the emphasis on Indigenous Languages and cultures. The article concludes with policy recommendations for the NEM, as well as for reforms implemented in similar contexts.
... One of the key factors behind this shift is the time involved in the peer-review process, which can take up to six months to two years due to multiple rounds of review and editorial stages (Björk & Solomon, 2013). In a fast-evolving field like AI, this delay can significantly reduce the relevance of the research findings by the time they are formally published. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
The adoption of open science has quickly changed how artificial intelligence (AI) policy research is distributed globally. This study examines the regional trends in the citation of preprints, specifically focusing on the impact of two major disruptive events: the COVID-19 pandemic and the release of ChatGPT, on research dissemination patterns in the United States, Europe, and South Korea from 2015 to 2024. Using bibliometrics data from the Web of Science, this study tracks how global disruptive events influenced the adoption of preprints in AI policy research and how such shifts vary by region. By marking the timing of these disruptive events, the analysis reveals that while all regions experienced growth in preprint citations, the magnitude and trajectory of change varied significantly. The United States exhibited sharp, event-driven increases; Europe demonstrated institutional growth; and South Korea maintained consistent, linear growth in preprint adoption. These findings suggest that global disruptions may have accelerated preprint adoption, but the extent and trajectory are shaped by local research cultures, policy environments, and levels of open science maturity. This paper emphasizes the need for future AI governance strategies to consider regional variability in research dissemination and highlights opportunities for further longitudinal and comparative research to deepen our understanding of open-access adoption in AI policy development.
... Even if the average time span increases, the results must be critically contextualised. In the usual scientific publication process, the review process can last several months to years (Björk and Solomon 2013). The acceleration thus means an increased risk of methodological weaknesses and scientific manipulation due to insufficient peer review in the short term, and the weakening of scientific databases in the long-term (Dimitrios 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, researchers worldwide have sought effective drugs to prevent and manage SARS-CoV-2 and its spectrum of symptoms. Ivermectin, originally developed as an anthelmintic for controlling parasitic infections in humans and animals, has drawn attention based on the hypothesis that it inhibits viral replication. In Austria, ivermectin usage peaked in November 2021, following promotion by the right-wing Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) as an alternative treatment to vaccination, resonating strongly within anti-vaccine and skeptical communities. The topic is also very present in the United States of America due to the re-election of D. Trump as US President and the designation of R. Kennedy as the United States’ Secretary of Health and Human Services. To critically examine the controversial use of ivermectin for COVID-19 and publication trends during the pandemic, this study analysed all publications listed in PubMed from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2022 using the keywords ‘ivermectin’ and ‘COVID-19’, resulting in a dataset of 353 publications. These publications were assessed for scientific quality, methodological rigour and bias, with particular focus on the influence of social and political dynamics on publication practices, as well as the prevalence of preprints, citation trends and the role of funding sources. Our study shows that many highly cited studies on ivermectin display methodological weaknesses and data gaps, contributing to the propagation of hypotheses lacking substantial empirical support. This analysis underscores the necessity of rigorous quality control during crises and highlights the long-term risks posed to scientific databases and public health by methodologically deficient research.
... The AI field is evolving rapidly, and research is expanding exponentially. The average time from submission to publication in leading journals ranges from 6 to 12 months [10]. By the time findings are published, newer studies may have introduced insights that either reinforce or contradict the original work. ...
... This diverse range of resources allows them to access relevant content and extract insights from various journals. When assessing the quality of an article, researchers frequently rely on factors concerning the abstract, the author's background information, the journal's prestige, and the methodology employed (Björk & Solomon, 2013). In addition, the findings of Gao (2015) observed that researchers tend to cite recently published papers. ...
Article
Full-text available
Research ethics is considered an important element in academia, concerning the behavior of researchers in promoting scientific integrity. This study aims to survey scientific integrity of researchers in scholarly publishing across 16 global and frontier research universities in Thailand. The quantitative method was used to collect data from researchers through a questionnaire. We received 316 valid responses from researchers. The findings indicate the importance of honesty, transparency, and integrity in reporting findings, as well as the disclosure of conflicts of interest, the ethical responsibilities inherent in research conduct. The results highlight the importance of avoiding duplication and ensuring proper attribution in scholarly publishing to uphold integrity. Ethical citation practices underscore researchers' commitment to maintaining credibility and adhering to ethical standards in academia. The results of the Pearson correlation analysis indicates that there is a linear relationship between six variables (paper submission, ethical process, authorship, plagiarism and self-plagiarism, falsification and fabrication, and conflict of interest) and the researchers’ scientific integrity variable. However, there are no notable variations in scientific integrity among different academic roles.
... Using Reception Date rather than Publication Date. There can be important delays between the submission of an article and its publication date (Björk and Solomon, 2013). The difference between these dates is particularly relevant here, as we aim to examine the effect of policies affecting article submission guidelines and rules rather than only of time. ...
Article
Full-text available
Sharing data has many benefits. However, data sharing rates remain low, for the most part well below 50%. A variety of interventions encouraging data sharing have been proposed. We focus here on editorial policies. Kidwell et al. (2016) assessed the impact of the introduction of badges in Psychological Science; Hardwicke, Mathur, et al. (2018) assessed the impact of Cognition’s mandatory data sharing policy. Both studies found policies to improve data sharing practices, but only assessed the impact of the policy for up to 25 months after its implementation. We examined the effect of these policies over a longer term by reusing their data and collecting a follow-up sample including articles published up until December 31st, 2019. We fit generalized additive models as these allow for a flexible assessment of the effect of time, in particular to identify nonlinear changes in the trend. These models were compared to generalized linear models to examine whether the non-linearity is needed. Descriptive results and the outputs from generalized additive and linear models were coherent with previous findings: following the policies in Cognition and Psychological Science, data sharing statement rates increased immediately and continued to increase beyond the timeframes examined previously, until reaching close to 100%. In Clinical Psychological Science, data sharing statement rates started to increase only two years following the implementation of badges. Reusability rates jumped from close to 0% to around 50% but did not show changes within the pre-policy nor the post-policy timeframes. Journals that did not implement a policy showed no change in data sharing rates or reusability over time. There was variability across journals in the levels of increase, so we suggest future research should examine a larger number of policies to draw conclusions about their efficacy. We also encourage future research to investigate the barriers to data sharing specific to psychology subfields to identify the best interventions to tackle them.
... A literature review revealed that many studies were published after the WHO declared an end to the public health threat [United Nations, 2023]. This is understandable given the relatively long publication process in academic journals [Björk, Solomon, 2013]. Considering that scientific publications on consumer behaviour are regularly emerging and continually evolving, there is a need to update knowledge on the latest advancements in this area. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose | This article aims to examine the current state of research on consumer behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic through bibliometric analysis and a critical review of the literature. By identifying key thematic clusters, emerging trends, and research gaps, the study aims to evaluate the scope of knowledge in this area. Research method | In this paper, bibliometric analysis was used as a research method , supplemented by content analysis of literature selected from the Scopus database. The authors also carried out a keyword co-occurrence analysis using VOSviewer software. Results | The bibliometric analysis revealed that most publications on consumer behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic concerned the hospitality sector. Five clusters were identified: (1) Digital consumption and trade, (2) Consumer attitudes and risk perceptions, (3) Buying behaviour, risk perceptions, and technology, (4) Protective motivation, and (5) Short-term rental. Research topics evolved from social distancing and health concerns to e-commerce and digital technologies. Originality / value / implications / recommendations | Publications on consumer behaviour during the coronavirus pandemic continually emerge, necessitating knowledge updates. Understanding the latest trends aids future research and business practices in crises.
Article
This Feature presents a critical evaluation of the existing literature regarding pro-competitive regulation of digital platforms and contributes to the literature by bringing out the implications for India and South Korea. These countries provide a unique example of the presence of large domestic digital platforms alongside large multinational ones. The implications of regulation of digital platforms for jurisdictions like India and South Korea require a nuanced understanding of the trade-offs involved in such regulations. This Feature works out two important trade-offs for regulators in India and South Korea which can guide the decision-making process around digital market regulations and offers a unique core market approach for regulators to avoid the pitfalls of a threshold-based identification of dominant large digital platforms.
Article
Researchers are key contributors to innovation. Their migration results in talent circulation and recombination of ideas. Due to data shortage, little is known about subnational mobility of scientists and the interrelationships between their internal and international migration patterns. We used data on 30+ million Scopus publications of 19+ million authors to infer migration from changes in affiliations. Our publicly shared database of global subnational estimates of migration reveals relevant disparities in the attractiveness of subnational regions. While, at the country level, some countries have acted as a global hub that attracts scholars from throughout the world, at the subnational level, some of their regions have negative net migration rates, with implications for scientific output and regional development, as well as the perpetuation of migration corridors. On average, subnational inequalities in attracting and sending scholars have increased for international but decreased for internal migration. In most countries, there is no single trend such that all subnational regions have been sending or receiving more scholars. Instead, a mix of patterns has been simultaneously at work, on the backdrop of globalization of migration, which is an asymmetric process where specific regions and subpopulations have higher access to international migration. For most subnational regions, when they are attractive for international migrants, they are also attractive for internal migrants, which is not always the case for emigration. Our results have implications for the global circulation of academic talent by adding the dimension of internal migration to “brain drain” and “brain circulation” in international migration.
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.