Dataset Information

Working 9 to 5, not the way to make an academic living: observational analysis of manuscript and peer review submissions over time.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To determine whether researchers are submitting manuscripts and peer reviews to BMJ journals out of hours and whether this has changed over time. DESIGN:Observational study of research manuscripts and peer reviews submitted between 2012 and 2019 for which an author's address could be geocoded. SETTING:Online BMJ submission systems for two large general medical journals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Manuscript and peer review submissions on weekends, on national holidays, and by hour of day (to determine early mornings and late nights). Logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of manuscript and peer review submissions on weekends or holidays. RESULTS:The analyses included more than 49?000 manuscript submissions and 76?000 peer reviews. Little change over time was seen in the average probability of manuscript or peer review submissions occurring on weekends or holidays. The levels of out of hours work were high, with average probabilities of 0.14 to 0.18 for work on the weekends and 0.08 to 0.13 for work on holidays compared with days in the same week. Clear and consistent differences were seen between countries. Chinese researchers most often worked at weekends and at midnight, whereas researchers in Scandinavian countries were among the most likely to submit during the week and the middle of the day. CONCLUSION:The differences between countries that are persistent over time show that a "culture of overwork" is a literal thing, not just a figure of speech.

SUBMITTER: Barnett A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7222960 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Working 9 to 5, not the way to make an academic living: observational analysis of manuscript and peer review submissions over time.

Barnett Adrian A Mewburn Inger I Schroter Sara S

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20191219

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether researchers are submitting manuscripts and peer reviews to BMJ journals out of hours and whether this has changed over time.<h4>Design</h4>Observational study of research manuscripts and peer reviews submitted between 2012 and 2019 for which an author's address could be geocoded.<h4>Setting</h4>Online BMJ submission systems for two large general medical journals.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Manuscript and peer review submissions on weekends, on national ho ...[more]

PMID: 31857333

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although peer reviewers play a key role in the manuscript review process, their roles and tasks are poorly defined. Clarity around this issue is important as it may influence the quality of peer reviewer reports. This scoping review explored the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of biomedical journals. METHODS:Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Educational Resources Information Center, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science from inception up to May 2017. There were no date and language restrictions. We also searched for grey literature. Studies with statements mentioning roles, tasks and competencies pertaining to the role of peer reviewers in biomedical journals were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently performed study screening and selection. Relevant statements were extracted, collated and classified into themes. RESULTS:After screening 2763 citations and 600 full-text papers, 209 articles and 13 grey literature sources were included. A total of 1426 statements related to roles were extracted, resulting in 76 unique statements. These were grouped into 13 emergent themes: proficient experts in their field (3 items), dutiful/altruistic towards scientific community (7 items), familiar with journal (2 items), unbiased and ethical professionals (18 items), self-critical professionals (4 items), reliable professionals (7 items), skilled critics (15 items), respectful communicators (6 items), gatekeepers (2 items), educators (2 items), advocates for author/editor/reader (3 items) and advisors to editors (2 items). Roles that do not fall within the remit of peer reviewers were also identified (5 items). We also extracted 2026 statements related to peer reviewers' tasks, resulting in 73 unique statements. These were grouped under six themes: organisation and approach to reviewing (10 items), make general comments (10 items), assess and address content for each section of the manuscript (36 items), address ethical aspects (5 items), assess manuscript presentation (8 items) and provide recommendations (4 items). CONCLUSIONS:Peer reviewers are expected to perform a large number of roles and tasks for biomedical journals. These warrant further discussion and clarification in order not to overburden these key actors.

Project description:BackgroundEnglish editing services are effective for improving manuscript quality as well as providing learning opportunities for non-native English-speaking authors. Herein, we describe the effects of a combined system of in-house and external editing services for handling large volumes of editing requests and providing personalized editing service in academic hospitals.MethodsWe established the Scientific Publications Team (SPT), an in-house editing team in Asan Medical Center in Seoul, Korea. The SPT is composed of two professional editors who manage editing requests sent to external companies while also providing one-on-one in-house editing services. We gathered author satisfaction data from 936 surveys between July 2017 and December 2018 and analyzed the number of editing requests and research publications by segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series data.ResultsThe SPT processed 3931 editing requests in 2017-2018, which was a marked increase compared with prior to its establishment (P = 0.0097). The authors were generally satisfied with the quality of editing services from both in-house and external editors. Upon conducting regular quality control, overall author satisfaction with one external company gradually increased over the course of one year (P for trend = 0.086). Author satisfaction survey results revealed that overall satisfaction of editing service was most strongly correlated with how well the edits conformed to the authors' intentions (R = 0.796), and was only weakly correlated with quick turnaround time (R = 0.355). We also observed a significant increase in the trend of the number of research publications (P = 0.0007) at one year after the establishment of the SPT.ConclusionProviding a combination of in-house and external editing services resulted in high author satisfaction and subsequent hospital-wide increases in manuscript writing and publication. Our model system may be adapted in academic hospitals to better address the editing needs of non-native English-speaking researchers.

Dataset Information

Working 9 to 5, not the way to make an academic living: observational analysis of manuscript and peer review submissions over time.

Publications

Working 9 to 5, not the way to make an academic living: observational analysis of manuscript and peer review submissions over time.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets