Peer review and publication delay
Selecting peer reviewers is a crucial stage of the editorial process that ensures the quality of scholarly publications. An alternative to selecting peer reviewers from data bases created with expressions of interest of volunteers consists in systematically searching PubMed for similar articles and inviting their authors to act as peer reviewers. Although this process might identify more appropriate peers, it also can increase the time of the editorial process. In 2018, Pharmacy Practice had to invite 4.70 (SE=0.33) potential reviewers per one accepting. The time from the first reviewer invitation to the last reviewer report received was 61 days (SE=2.1). These figures confirm the existence of a peer review crisis which is significantly increasing the publication delay.
Vines T, Rieseberg L, Smith H. No crisis in supply of peer reviewers. Nature. 2010 Dec 23;468(7327):1041. https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/4681041a
Didham RK, Leather SR, Basset Y. Don’t be a zero-sum reviewer. Insect Conserv Divers. 2017;10:1-4. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/icad.12208
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://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2375-1
Fernandez-Llimos F; Pharmacy Practice 2017 peer reviewers. Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2018;16(1):1236. https://dx.doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2018.01.1236
Fernandez-Llimos F. Assessment of the peer-reviewers’ selection process in the journal Pharmacy Practice. Res Soc Admin Pharm. 2014;10(5):E9-E10.