Does publication in top-tier journals affect reviewer behavior?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Aarssen LW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2709442 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Does publication in top-tier journals affect reviewer behavior?
Aarssen Lonnie W LW Lortie Christopher J CJ Budden Amber E AE Koricheva Julia J Leimu Roosa R Tregenza Tom T
PloS one 20090721 7
We show that when ecologists act as reviewers their reported rejection rates recommended for manuscripts increases with their publication frequency in high impact factor journals. Rejection rate however does not relate to reviewer age. These results indicate that the likelihood of getting a paper accepted for publication may depend upon factors in addition to scientific merit. Multiple reviewer selection for a given manuscript therefore should consider not only appropriate expertise, but also re ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionIn December 2017, Lancet called for gender inequality investigations. Holding other factors constant, trends over time for significant author (i.e., first, second, last or any of these authors) publications were examined for the three highest-impact medical research journals (i.e., New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM], Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], and Lancet).Materials and methodsUsing randomly sampled 2002-2019 MEDLINE original publications (n = 1,080; 20/year/journal), significant author-based and publication-based characteristics were extracted. Gender assignment used internet-based biographies, pronouns, first names, and photographs. Adjusting for author-specific characteristics and multiple publications per author, generalized estimating equations tested for first, second, and last significant author gender disparities.ResultsCompared to 37.23% of 2002 - 2019 U.S. medical school full-time faculty that were women, women's first author publication rates (26.82% overall, 15.83% NEJM, 29.38% Lancet, and 35.39% JAMA; all p < 0.0001) were lower. No improvements over time occurred in women first authorship rates. Women first authors had lower Web of Science citation counts and co-authors/collaborating author counts, less frequently held M.D. or multiple doctoral-level degrees, less commonly published clinical trials or cardiovascular-related projects, but more commonly were North American-based and studied North American-based patients (all p < 0.05). Women second and last authors were similarly underrepresented. Compared to men, women first authors had lower multiple publication rates in these top journals (p < 0.001). Same gender first/last authors resulted in higher multiple publication rates within these top three journals (p < 0.001).DiscussionSince 2002, this authorship "gender disparity chasm" has been tolerated across all these top medical research journals. Despite Lancet's 2017 call to arms, furthermore, the author-based gender disparities have not changed for these top medical research journals - even in recent times. Co-author gender alignment may reduce future gender inequities, but this promising strategy requires further investigation.
| S-EPMC9020717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Faithful and complete reporting of trial results is essential to the validity of the scientific literature. An earlier systematic study of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found that industry-funded RCTs appeared to be reported with greater quality than non-industry-funded RCTs. The aim of this study was to examine the association between systematic differences in reporting quality and funding status (that is, industry funding vs non-industry funding) among recent obesity and nutrition RCTs published in top-tier medical journals.Thirty-eight obesity or nutrition intervention RCT articles were selected from high-profile, general medical journals (The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA and the British Medical Journal) published between 2000 and 2007. Paired papers were selected from the same journal published in the same year, one with and the other without industry funding. The following identifying information was redacted: journal, title, authors, funding source and institution(s). Then three raters independently and blindly rated each paper according to the Chalmers method, and total reporting quality scores were calculated.The inter-rater reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was 0.82 (95% confidence interval = 0.80-0.84). The total mean (M) and s.d. of Chalmers Index quality score (out of a possible 100) for industry-funded studies were M = 84.5, s.d. = 7.04 and for non-industry-funded studies they were M = 79.4, s.d. = 13.00. A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test indicates no significant rank difference in the distributions of total quality scores between funding sources, Z = -0.966, P = 0.334 (two tailed).Recently published RCTs on nutrition and obesity that appear in top-tier journals seem to be equivalent in quality of reporting, regardless of funding source. This may be a result of recent reporting of quality statements and efforts of journal editors to raise all papers to a common standard.
| S-EPMC3288675 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction This study aimed to evaluate the publication delays and correlative factors of peer-reviewed ophthalmology journals. Methods The ophthalmology journals listed in the Journal Citation Report 2020 were retrieved from the Web of Science database. The first original research article of each journal issue from January to December 2020 was extracted, and its submission, final revision, acceptance, and publication dates were obtained. Information on impact factors, advance online publication (AOP) status, open access (OA) rate and acceptance rate in 2020 was also collected. The correlations between publication delays and potential associated factors were analyzed. Results A total of 58 ophthalmology journals were included and information on 685 articles was collected. The median times from submission to acceptance, from acceptance to publication, and from submission to publication were 118.0 (IQR, 74.0–185.0) days, 31.0 (IQR, 15.0–64.0) days, and 161.0 (IQR, 111.0–232.0) days, respectively. A higher impact factor was correlated with shorter delays of acceptance and publication (P < 0.05). There was a positive correlation between acceptance rates and publication delays (r = 0.726, P = 0.007). Forty-seven (81.03%) journals provided AOP. There was no statistically significant difference for impact factors and publication delays between journal with and without AOP (all P > 0.05). No correlation between OA rate and publication delays or impact factors was detected (all P > 0.05). Conclusions Journals with higher impact factors and lower acceptance rates tend to have quicker publication processes. No significant associations were detected between publication delays and AOP or OA rate.
| S-EPMC9637357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundScholarly publishing system relies on external peer review. However, the duration of publication process is a major concern for authors and funding bodies.ObjectiveTo evaluate the duration of the publication process in pharmacy practice journals compared with other biomedical journals indexed in PubMed.MethodsAll the articles published from 2009 to 2018 by the 33 pharmacy practice journals identified in Mendes et al. study and indexed in PubMed were gathered as study group. A comparison group was created through a random selection of 3000 PubMed PMIDs for each year of study period. Articles with publication dates outside the study period were excluded. Metadata of both groups of articles were imported from PubMed. The duration of editorial process was calculated with three periods: acceptance lag (days between 'submission date' and 'acceptance date'), lead lag (days between 'acceptance date' and 'online publication date'), and indexing lag (days between 'online publication date' and 'Entry date'). Null hypothesis significance tests and effect size measures were used to compare these periods between both groups.ResultsThe 33 pharmacy practice journals published 26,256 articles between 2009 and 2018. Comparison group random selection process resulted in a pool of 23,803 articles published in 5,622 different journals. Acceptance lag was 105 days (IQR 57-173) for pharmacy practice journals and 97 days (IQR 56-155) for the comparison group with a null effect difference (Cohen's d 0.081). Lead lag was 13 (IQR 6-35) and 23 days (IQR 9-45) for pharmacy practice and comparison journals, respectively, which resulted in a small effect. Indexing lag was 5 days (IQR 2-46) and 4 days (IQR 2-12) for pharmacy practice and control journals, which also resulted in a small effect. Slight positive time trend was found in pharmacy practice acceptance lag, while slight negative trends were found for lead and indexing lags for both groups.ConclusionsPublication process duration of pharmacy practice journals is similar to a general random sample of articles from all disciplines.
| S-EPMC8241115 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Covid-19 pandemic impacted scientific publishing, though it's effect on publication times in urology literature is unknown. The objective of our study were to determine and compare acceptance and publication times in general and specific urology journals, and to quantify these times before and during the Covid-19 pandemic.MethodsWe identified all original articles published in seven urology journals in 2019 and 2021, and extracted data on submission, acceptance, online, and in-print publication times. Differences between groups were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests.ResultsA total of 2880 articles were included, comprising 1601 articles published in 2021 and 1279 in 2019. Less experimental/animal studies were published in 2021 compared to 2019 (197 vs. 289). Time between submission and online publication was longer in 2021 (median 4.4 vs 3.3 months, p < 0.001), though acceptance times were not different (median 3.3 vs 3.3 months, p = 0.25). Prostate (median: 2.8 months, Neurourology and Urodynamics (median: 2.8 months) and Word Journal of Urology (median 2.9 months) had the shortest acceptance time in 2021. Time between submission and in-print publication ranged from 4.6 months (IQR: 3.6-6.8) for Prostate to 11.9 months (IQR: 9.8-13.2) for World Journal of Urology. Acceptance times were significantly longer in 2021 compared to 2019 for Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, Journal of Sexual Medicine, and Prostate. Moreover, time between submission and in print publication was longer in 2021 compared to 2019 for Journal of Sexual Medicine and Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, and shorter for Neurourology and Urodynamics. The median time to in print publication was lower for publications from US institutions (median 7.0 vs. 7.7 months in 2019 and 8.7 months vs 9.1 months in 2021).ConclusionsWe identified journal specific acceptance and publication times and observed substantial differences between urology journals for the years 2019 and 2021.
| S-EPMC10009718 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1828092 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is commonly reported by editors that it has become harder to recruit reviewers for peer review and that this is because individuals are being asked to review too often and are experiencing reviewer fatigue. However, evidence supporting these arguments is largely anecdotal.Main bodyWe examine responses of individuals to review invitations for six journals in ecology and evolution. The proportion of invitations that lead to a submitted review has been decreasing steadily over 13 years (2003-2015) for four of the six journals examined, with a cumulative effect that has been quite substantial (average decline from 56% of review invitations generating a review in 2003 to just 37% in 2015). The likelihood that an invitee agrees to review declines significantly with the number of invitations they receive in a year. However, the average number of invitations being sent to prospective reviewers and the proportion of individuals being invited more than once per year has not changed much over these 13 years, despite substantial increases in the total number of review invitations being sent by these journals-the reviewer base has expanded concomitant with this growth in review requests.ConclusionsThe proportion of review invitations that lead to a review being submitted has been declining steadily for four of the six journals examined here, but reviewer fatigue is not likely the primary explanation for this decline.
| S-EPMC5803623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Triassic predatory guild evolution reflects a period of ecological flux spurred by the catastrophic end-Permian mass extinction and terminating with the global ecological dominance of dinosaurs in the early Jurassic. In responding to this dynamic ecospace, terrestrial predator diversity attained new levels, prompting unique trophic webs with a seeming overabundance of carnivorous taxa and the evolution of entirely new predatory clades. Key among these was Crocodylomorpha, the largest living reptiles and only one of two archosaurian lineages that survive to the present day. In contrast to their existing role as top, semi-aquatic predators, the earliest crocodylomorphs were generally small-bodied, terrestrial faunivores, occupying subsidiary (meso) predator roles. Here we describe Carnufex carolinensis a new, unexpectedly large-bodied taxon with a slender and ornamented skull from the Carnian Pekin Formation (~231 Ma), representing one of the oldest and earliest diverging crocodylomorphs described to date. Carnufex bridges a problematic gap in the early evolution of pseudosuchians by spanning key transitions in bauplan evolution and body mass near the origin of Crocodylomorpha. With a skull length of >50 cm, the new taxon documents a rare instance of crocodylomorphs ascending to top-tier predator guilds in the equatorial regions of Pangea prior to the dominance of dinosaurs.
| S-EPMC4365386 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe conducted this analysis to determine i) which journals publish high-quality, clinically relevant studies in internal medicine, general/family practice, general practice nursing, and mental health; and ii) the proportion of clinically relevant articles in each journal.MethodsWe performed an analytic survey of a hand search of 170 general medicine, general healthcare, and specialty journals for 2000. Research staff assessed individual articles by using explicit criteria for scientific merit for healthcare application. Practitioners assessed the clinical importance of these articles. Outcome measures were the number of high-quality, clinically relevant studies published in the 170 journal titles and how many of these were published in each of four discipline-specific, secondary "evidence-based" journals (ACP Journal Club for internal medicine and its subspecialties; Evidence-Based Medicine for general/family practice; Evidence-Based Nursing for general practice nursing; and Evidence-Based Mental Health for all aspects of mental health). Original studies and review articles were classified for purpose: therapy and prevention, screening and diagnosis, prognosis, etiology and harm, economics and cost, clinical prediction guides, and qualitative studies.ResultsWe evaluated 60,352 articles from 170 journal titles. The pass criteria of high-quality methods and clinically relevant material were met by 3059 original articles and 1073 review articles. For ACP Journal Club (internal medicine), four titles supplied 56.5% of the articles and 27 titles supplied the other 43.5%. For Evidence-Based Medicine (general/family practice), five titles supplied 50.7% of the articles and 40 titles supplied the remaining 49.3%. For Evidence-Based Nursing (general practice nursing), seven titles supplied 51.0% of the articles and 34 additional titles supplied 49.0%. For Evidence-Based Mental Health (mental health), nine titles supplied 53.2% of the articles and 34 additional titles supplied 46.8%. For the disciplines of internal medicine, general/family practice, and mental health (but not general practice nursing), the number of clinically important articles was correlated withScience Citation Index (SCI) Impact Factors.ConclusionsAlthough many clinical journals publish high-quality, clinically relevant and important original studies and systematic reviews, the articles for each discipline studied were concentrated in a small subset of journals. This subset varied according to healthcare discipline; however, many of the important articles for all disciplines in this study were published in broad-based healthcare journals rather than subspecialty or discipline-specific journals.
| S-EPMC518974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Publication lag between manuscript submission and its final publication is considered as an important factor affecting the decision to submit, the timeliness of presented data, and the scientometric measures of the particular journal. Dual-format peer-reviewed journals (publishing both print and online editions of their content) adopted a broadly accepted strategy to shorten the publication lag: to publish the accepted manuscripts online ahead of their print editions, which may follow days, but also years later. Effects of this widespread habit on the immediacy index (average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published) calculation were never analyzed. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Scopus database (which contains nearly up-to-date documents in press, but does not reveal citations by these documents until they are finalized) was searched for the journals with the highest total counts of articles in press, or highest counts of articles in press appearing online in 2010-2011. Number of citations received by the articles in press available online was found to be nearly equal to citations received within the year when the document was assigned to a journal issue. Thus, online publication of in press articles affects severely the calculation of immediacy index of their source titles, and disadvantages online-only and print-only journals when evaluating them according to the immediacy index and probably also according to the impact factor and similar measures. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Caution should be taken when evaluating dual-format journals supporting long publication lag. Further research should answer the question, on whether the immediacy index should be replaced by an indicator based on the date of first publication (online or in print, whichever comes first) to eliminate the problems analyzed in this report. Information value of immediacy index is further questioned by very high ratio of authors' self-citations among the citation window used for its calculation.
| S-EPMC3616011 | biostudies-literature