Main Article Content
Peer Review, Research, Open Access Publishing, Periodicals as Topic
Peer review provides the foundation for the scholarly publishing system. The conventional peer review system consists of using authors of articles as reviewers for other colleagues’ manuscripts in a collaborative-basis system. However, authors complain about a theoretical overwhelming number of invitations to peer review. It seems that authors feel that they are invited to review many more manuscripts than they should when taking into account their participation in the scholarly publishing system. The high number of scientific journals and the existence of predatory journals were reported as potential causes of this excessive number of reviews required. In this editorial, we demonstrate that the number of reviewers required to publish a given number of articles depends exclusively on the journals’ rejection rate and the number of reviewers intended per manuscript. Several initiatives to overcome the peer review crises are suggested.
2. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121(1):11-21. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003
3. Pierie JP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJ. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet. 1996;348(9040):1480-1483. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(96)05016-7
4. Kovanis M, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Porcher R. Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication. Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):651-671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2375-1
5. Fact-checking on Facebook: What publishers should know. Available at: https://en-gb.facebook.com/help/publisher/182222309230722 (accessed Jan 5, 2020).
6. Knoepfler P. Reviewing post-publication peer review. Trends Genet. 2015;31(5):221-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2015.03.006
7. Kirkham J, Moher D. Who and why do researchers opt to publish in post-publication peer review platforms? - findings from a review and survey of F1000 Research. F1000Res. 2018;7:920. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15436.1
8. Chen H, Chen CH, Jhanji V. Publication times, impact factors, and advance online publication in ophthalmology journals. Ophthalmology. 2013 Aug;120(8):1697-1701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.044
9. Shah A, Sherighar SG, Bhat A. Publication speed and advanced online publication: Are biomedical Indian journals slow? Perspect Clin Res. 2016;7(1):40-44. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.173775
10. Lee Y, Kim K, Lee Y. Publication delay of Korean medical journals. J Korean Med Sci. 2017;32(8):1235-1242. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.8.1235
11. Asaad M, Rajesh A, Banuelos J, Vyas KS, Tran NV. Time from submission to publication in plastic surgery journals: The story of accepted manuscripts. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019 [Epub ahead of print] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2019.09.029
12. Björk BC, Solomon D. The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. J Informetr. 2013;7(4):914-923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001
13. Powell K. Does it take too long to publish research? Nature. 2016;530(7589):148-151. https://doi.org/10.1038/530148a
14. Himmelstein D. Publication delays at PLOS and 3,475 other journals. Available at: https://blog.dhimmel.com/plos-and-publishing-delays/ (accessed Jan 5, 2020).
15. Fernandez-Llimos F; Pharmacy Practice 2018 peer reviewers. Peer review and publication delay. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2019;17(1):1502. https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2019.1.1502
16. Donato H, Marinho RT. Acta Médica Portuguesa and peer-review: quick and brutal! Acta Med Port. 2012;25(5):261-262.
17. Rohn J. Why I said no to peer review this summer. Nature. 2019;572(7770):417. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02470-2
18. Sugimoto CR, Larivière V, Ni C, Cronin B. Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures. J Informetr. 2013;7(4):879-906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.007
19. Desselle SP, Chen AM, Amin M, Aslani P, Dawoud D, Miller MJ, Norgaard LS. Generosity, collegiality, and scientific accuracy when writing and reviewing original research. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019 [Epub ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.04.054
20. Fernandez-Llimos F; Pharmacy Practice 2017 peer reviewers. Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2018;16(1):1236. https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2018.01.1236
21. Wicherts JM. Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. PLoS One. 2016 29;11(1):e0147913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147913
22. Transparency in peer review. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Dec;3(12):1237. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0799-8