Dataset Information

Scientific sinkhole: The pernicious price of formatting.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To conduct a time-cost analysis of formatting in scientific publishing. DESIGN:International, cross-sectional study (one-time survey). SETTING:Internet-based self-report survey, live between September 2018 and January 2019. PARTICIPANTS:Anyone working in research, science, or academia and who submitted at least one peer-reviewed manuscript for consideration for publication in 2017. Completed surveys were available for 372 participants from 41 countries (60% of respondents were from Canada). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:Time (hours) and cost (wage per hour x time) associated with formatting a research paper for publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal. RESULTS:The median annual income category was US$61,000-80,999, and the median number of publications formatted per year was four. Manuscripts required a median of two attempts before they were accepted for publication. The median formatting time was 14 hours per manuscript, or 52 hours per person, per year. This resulted in a median calculated cost of US$477 per manuscript or US$1,908 per person, per year. CONCLUSIONS:To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the cost of manuscript formatting in scientific publishing. Our results suggest that scientific formatting represents a loss of 52 hours, costing the equivalent of US$1,908 per researcher per year. These results identify the hidden and pernicious price associated with scientific publishing and provide evidence to advocate for the elimination of strict formatting guidelines, at least prior to acceptance.

SUBMITTER: LeBlanc AG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6763211 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Scientific sinkhole: The pernicious price of formatting.

LeBlanc Allana G AG Barnes Joel D JD Saunders Travis J TJ Tremblay Mark S MS Chaput Jean-Philippe JP

PloS one 20190926 9

<h4>Objective</h4>To conduct a time-cost analysis of formatting in scientific publishing.<h4>Design</h4>International, cross-sectional study (one-time survey).<h4>Setting</h4>Internet-based self-report survey, live between September 2018 and January 2019.<h4>Participants</h4>Anyone working in research, science, or academia and who submitted at least one peer-reviewed manuscript for consideration for publication in 2017. Completed surveys were available for 372 participants from 41 countries (60% ...[more]

PMID: 31557272

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere are a variety of costs associated with publication of scientific findings. The purpose of this work was to estimate the cost of peer review in scientific publishing per reviewer, per year and for the entire scientific community.MethodsInternet-based self-report, cross-sectional survey, live between June 28, 2021 and August 2, 2021 was used. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. No restrictions were placed on geographic location or field of study. Respondents who were asked to act as a peer-reviewer for at least one manuscript submitted to a scientific journal in 2020 were eligible. The primary outcome measure was the cost of peer review per person, per year (calculated as wage-cost x number of initial reviews and number of re-reviews per year). The secondary outcome was the cost of peer review globally (calculated as the number of peer-reviewed papers in Scopus x median wage-cost of initial review and re-review).ResultsA total of 354 participants completed at least one question of the survey, and information necessary to calculate the cost of peer-review was available for 308 participants from 33 countries (44% from Canada). The cost of peer review was estimated at $US1,272 per person, per year ($US1,015 for initial review and $US256 for re-review), or US$1.1-1.7 billion for the scientific community per year. The global cost of peer-review was estimated at US$6 billion in 2020 when relying on the Dimensions database and taking into account reviewed-but-rejected manuscripts.ConclusionsPeer review represents an important financial piece of scientific publishing. Our results may not represent all countries or fields of study, but are consistent with previous estimates and provide additional context from peer reviewers themselves. Researchers and scientists have long provided peer review as a contribution to the scientific community. Recognizing the importance of peer-review, institutions should acknowledge these costs in job descriptions, performance measurement, promotion packages, and funding applications. Journals should develop methods to compensate reviewers for their time and improve transparency while maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process.

Dataset Information

Scientific sinkhole: The pernicious price of formatting.

Publications

Scientific sinkhole: The pernicious price of formatting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets