Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012;5(1):26-9.
doi: 10.4066/AMJ.2012.1165. Epub 2012 Jan 31.

Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay

J Lotriet Cornelius  1
Affiliations

Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay

J Lotriet Cornelius. Australas Med J. 2012.

Abstract

Background: The process of manuscript review is a central part of scientific publishing, but has increasingly become the subject of criticism, particularly for being difficult to manage, slow, and time consuming - all of which contribute to delaying publication.

Aims: To identify potential sources of delays during manuscript review by examining the review process, and to identify and propose constructive strategies to reduce time spent on the review process without sacrificing journal quality.

Method: Sixty-seven manuscripts published in the Australasian Medical Journal (AMJ) were evaluated in terms of duration of peer review, number of times manuscripts were returned to authors, time authors spent on revision per review round, manuscripts containing grammatical errors reviewers deemed as major, papers where instructions to authors were not adhered to, and the number of reviews not submitted on time.

Results: The median duration of the review process was found to be 74 days, and papers were on average returned to authors 1.73 times for revision. In 35.8% of papers, instructions to authors were not adhered to, whilst 29.8% of papers contained major grammatical errors. In 70.1% of papers reviewers did not submit their reviews on time, whilst the median time spent on revision by authors per review round was found to be 22 days.

Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of communication before and during review. Reviewers should be thoroughly briefed on their role and what is expected of them, whilst the review process as well as the author's role in preventing delays should be explained to contributors upon submission.

Keywords: Peer review; article submission process; research evaluation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The author is the Associate Editor of the AMJ. This article was independently reviewed prior to acceptance and publication.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparative duration of review. The outlying values are respectively the result of 131 days spent on three rounds of revision (A, 215 days), the manuscript having to be returned to author seven times for revision (B, 216 days), and 110 days spent on three rounds of revision (C, 257 days). The dotted line indicates the median duration of review.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Williams MJ. The peer review process from an editor's point of view. Small Gtpases. 2010;1(2):77. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wager E, Godlee F, Jefferson T. In: Wager E, Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. London: BMJ Books; 2002. What is peer review. How to Survive Peer Review. pp. 3–12.
    1. Lipworth W. Beyond the consulting room: intuition and intersubjectivity in journal peer review. Australas Psychiatry [Review]. 2009;17(4):331–4. - PubMed
    1. Vrana R. STM scientific journals in Croatia. Varazdin, Croatia: 2011. Sep 21, Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems. Journal Publishing in digital era.
    1. Lovejoy TI, Revenson TA, France CR. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Ann Behav Med. 2011;42(1):1–13. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources