Excessively Long Editorial Decisions and Excessively Long Publication Times by Journals: Causes, Risks, Consequences, and Proposed Solutions

Publishing Research Quarterly

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 101-108

  Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A ^a   Dobránszki, Judit ^b  

^a University of Debrecen ^*  (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DEBRECEN   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Competitive situation; Lack of incentives; Procrastination; Status quo; Timely

Indexed keywords

EID: 85013104239     PISSN: 10538801     EISSN: 19364792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12109-016-9489-9     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Al-Khatib A, Teixeira da Silva JA. What rights do authors have? Sci Eng Ethics. 2016. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8.
2. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology; 2016. http://www.scielo.br/revistas/babt/iinstruc.htm. Last accessed 12 Nov 2016.
3. Bunner CBA, Larson ELRN, Faan CIC. Assessing the quality of the peer review process: author and editorial board member perspectives. Am J Infect Control. 2012;40:701–4. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2012.05.012.
4. Cell; 2016. http://www.cell.com/cell/authors. Last accessed 12 Nov 2016.
5. Chen H, Chen CH, Jhanji V. Publication times, impact factors, and advance online publication in ophthalmology journals. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(8):1697–701. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.044.
6. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors; 2011. http://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20Conduct_2.pdf. Last accessed 12 Nov 2016.
7. CSE (Council of Science Editors). White paper on publication ethics; 2012. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/. Last accessed 12 Nov 2016.
8. Del Mar C, Hoffman TC. A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials. BMC Med. 2015;13:248. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0471-8.
9. Dong P, Loh M, Mondry A. Publication lag in biomedical journals varies due to the periodical’s publishing model. Scientometrics. 2006;69(2):271–86. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0148-3.
10. Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I. Publishing: the peer-review scam. Nature. 2014;515:480–2. doi:10.1038/515480a.
11. Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Caelleigh AS. Impartial judgment by the “gatekeepers” of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2003;8:75–96.
12. Javaid SA. Publication audit, editor’s triage and responsibilities of the editors. Pak J Med Sci. 2013;29(1):1–3. doi:10.12669/pjms.291.3373.
13. Journal of Medical Ethics; 2016. http://jme.bmj.com/site/about/. Last accessed 12 Nov 2016.
14. Kalcioglu MT, Ileri Y, Karaca S, Egilmez OK, Kokten N. Research on the submission, acceptance and publication times of articles submitted to international otorhinolaryngology journals. Acta Inf Med. 2015;23(6):379–84.
15. Lin Z, Hou S, Wu J. The correlation between editorial delay and the ratio of highly cited papers in Nature, Science and Physical Review Letters. Scientometrics. 2016;107:1457–64. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1936-z.
16. Mark Ware Consulting Ltd. Peer review in scholarly journals: perspective of the scholarly community—an international study. Commissioned and funded by the Publishing Research Consortium; 2008. p 16. http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final.pdf. Last accessed 12 Nov 2016.
17. Mungra P, Webber P. Peer review process in medical research publications: language and content comments. Engl Specif Purp. 2010;29:43–53. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002.
18. Oransky I. Publishing gadfly demands journal editor’s resignation, then has “fairly incomprehensible” paper rejected; 2014. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/21/publishing-gadfly-demands-journal-editors-resignation-then-has-fairly-incomprehensible-paper-rejected/. Last accessed 12 Nov 2016.
19. Ragone A, Mirylenka K, Casati F, Marchese M. On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement. Scientometrics. 2013;97:317–56. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1002-z.
20. Social Science and Medicine; 2016. http://www.journals.elsevier.com/social-science-and-medicine/policies/peer-review-policy-and-publication-times. Last accessed 12 Nov 2016.
21. Stem Cells; 2016. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1549-4918/homepage/ForAuthors.html. Last accessed 12 Nov 2016.
22. Teixeira da Silva JA. Responsibilities and rights of authors, peer reviewers, editors and publishers: a status quo inquiry and assessment. Asian Australas J Plant Sci Biotechnol. 2013;7(special issue 1):6–15.
23. Teixeira da Silva JA. COPE code of conduct clause 3.1 under the microscope: a prelude to unfair rejections. Curr Sci. 2015;109(1):16–7.
24. Teixeira da Silva JA. On the abuse of online submission systems, fake peer reviews and editor-created accounts. Persona y Bioética. 2016;20(2):151–8.
25. Teixeira da Silva JA. Do zombie scientists and editors exhibit hubris, or blind courage? Focus Sci. 2016;2(4):2. doi:10.21859/focsci-020446.
26. Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A. How are editors selected, recruited and approved? Sci Eng Ethics. 2016. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9821-y.
27. Teixeira da Silva JA, Katavić V. Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry. Ethics Bioeth. 2016;6(3–4) (in press).
28. Thomson Reuters. Increasing the quality and timeliness of peer review: a report for scholarly publishers (white paper); 2011. http://scholarone.com/media/pdf/peerreviewwhitepaper.pdf. Last accessed 12 Nov 2016.
29. Waltham M. The future of scholarly journal publishing among social science and humanities associations report on a study funded by a planning grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. J Sch Publ. 2010;41(3):257–324.