IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0132557.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals

Author

Listed:
  • Vivian M Nguyen
  • Neal R Haddaway
  • Lee F G Gutowsky
  • Alexander D M Wilson
  • Austin J Gallagher
  • Michael R Donaldson
  • Neil Hammerschlag
  • Steven J Cooke

Abstract

Delays in peer reviewed publication may have consequences for both assessment of scientific prowess in academia as well as communication of important information to the knowledge receptor community. We present an analysis on the perspectives of authors publishing in conservation biology journals regarding their opinions on the importance of speed in peer-review as well as how to improve review times. Authors were invited to take part in an online questionnaire, of which the data was subjected to both qualitative (open coding, categorizing) and quantitative analyses (generalized linear models). We received 637 responses to 6,547 e-mail invitations sent. Peer-review speed was generally perceived as slow, with authors experiencing a typical turnaround time of 14 weeks while their perceived optimal review time was six weeks. Male and younger respondents seem to have higher expectations of review speed than females and older respondents. The majority of participants attributed lengthy review times to reviewer and editor fatigue, while editor persistence and journal prestige were believed to speed up the review process. Negative consequences of lengthy review times were perceived to be greater for early career researchers and to have impact on author morale (e.g. motivation or frustration). Competition among colleagues was also of concern to respondents. Incentivizing peer-review was among the top suggested alterations to the system along with training graduate students in peer-review, increased editorial persistence, and changes to the norms of peer-review such as opening the peer-review process to the public. It is clear that authors surveyed in this study viewed the peer-review system as under stress and we encourage scientists and publishers to push the envelope for new peer-review models.

Suggested Citation

  • Vivian M Nguyen & Neal R Haddaway & Lee F G Gutowsky & Alexander D M Wilson & Austin J Gallagher & Michael R Donaldson & Neil Hammerschlag & Steven J Cooke, 2015. "How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0132557
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132557
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132557
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132557&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Squazzoni, Flaminio & Bravo, Giangiacomo & Takács, Károly, 2013. "Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 287-294.
    2. Adrian Mulligan & Louise Hall & Ellen Raphael, 2013. "Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 132-161, January.
    3. Adrian Mulligan & Louise Hall & Ellen Raphael, 2013. "Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 132-161, January.
    4. Raj Chetty & Emmanuel Saez & Laszlo Sandor, 2014. "What Policies Increase Prosocial Behavior? An Experiment with Referees at the Journal of Public Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(3), pages 169-188, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lokman Tutuncu, 2023. "All-pervading insider bias alters review time in Turkish university journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3743-3791, June.
    2. Maciej J Mrowinski & Piotr Fronczak & Agata Fronczak & Marcel Ausloos & Olgica Nedic, 2017. "Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, September.
    3. Lucas Rodriguez Forti & Luiz A. Solino & Judit K. Szabo, 2021. "Trade-off between urgency and reduced editorial capacity affect publication speed in ecological and medical journals during 2020," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Dan Tian & Xin Liu & Jiang Li, 2024. "Accelerated acceptance time for preprint submissions: a comparative analysis based on PubMed," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 3787-3807, July.
    5. José Luis Ortega, 2017. "Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? A scientometric analysis of Publons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 947-962, August.
    6. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:2:p:228-243. is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Vincent Raoult, 2020. "How Many Papers Should Scientists Be Reviewing? An Analysis Using Verified Peer Review Reports," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, January.
    8. Monica Aniela Zaharie & Marco Seeber, 2018. "Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1587-1609, December.
    9. Zehra Taşkın & Abdülkadir Taşkın & Güleda Doğan & Emanuel Kulczycki, 2022. "Factors affecting time to publication in information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7499-7515, December.
    10. Maciej J. Mrowinski & Agata Fronczak & Piotr Fronczak & Olgica Nedic & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2020. "The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 115-133, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bianchi, Federico & Grimaldo, Francisco & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2019. "The F3-index. Valuing reviewers for scholarly journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 78-86.
    2. Michail Kovanis & Raphaël Porcher & Philippe Ravaud & Ludovic Trinquart, 2016. "The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, November.
    3. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2021. "The interplay between the reviewer’s incentives and the journal’s quality standard," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3041-3061, April.
    4. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    5. Alessandro Checco & Lorenzo Bracciale & Pierpaolo Loreti & Stephen Pinfield & Giuseppe Bianchi, 2021. "AI-assisted peer review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Kuklin, Alexander A. (Куклин, Александр) & Balyakina, Evgeniya A. (Балякина, Евгения), 2017. "Active policy as a key to success for an International Economic Periodical [Активная Политика — Залог Успеха Международного Экономического Журнала]," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 6, pages 160-177, December.
    7. Dietmar Wolfram & Peiling Wang & Adam Hembree & Hyoungjoo Park, 2020. "Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1033-1051, November.
    8. Yuetong Chen & Hao Wang & Baolong Zhang & Wei Zhang, 2022. "A method of measuring the article discriminative capacity and its distribution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3317-3341, June.
    9. Paul Sebo & Jean Pascal Fournier & Claire Ragot & Pierre-Henri Gorioux & François R. Herrmann & Hubert Maisonneuve, 2019. "Factors associated with publication speed in general medical journals: a retrospective study of bibliometric data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1037-1058, May.
    10. Michail Kovanis & Ludovic Trinquart & Philippe Ravaud & Raphaël Porcher, 2017. "Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 651-671, October.
    11. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Jiechun Liang, 2020. "Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 607-623, October.
    12. Maciej J Mrowinski & Piotr Fronczak & Agata Fronczak & Marcel Ausloos & Olgica Nedic, 2017. "Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, September.
    13. Eirini Delikoura & Dimitrios Kouis, 2021. "Open Research Data and Open Peer Review: Perceptions of a Medical and Health Sciences Community in Greece," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, March.
    14. Narjes Vara & Mahdieh Mirzabeigi & Hajar Sotudeh & Seyed Mostafa Fakhrahmad, 2022. "Application of k-means clustering algorithm to improve effectiveness of the results recommended by journal recommender system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3237-3252, June.
    15. Simone Righi & Károly Takács, 2017. "The miracle of peer review and development in science: an agent-based model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 587-607, October.
    16. Katarina Krapež, 2022. "Advancing Self-Evaluative and Self-Regulatory Mechanisms of Scholarly Journals: Editors’ Perspectives on What Needs to Be Improved in the Editorial Process," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, March.
    17. Pengfei Jia & Weixi Xie & Guangyao Zhang & Xianwen Wang, 2023. "Do reviewers get their deserved acknowledgments from the authors of manuscripts?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5687-5703, October.
    18. Sergio Copiello, 2018. "On the money value of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 613-620, April.
    19. García, J.A. & Montero-Parodi, J.J. & Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa & Fdez-Valdivia, J., 2023. "How to motivate a reviewer with a present bias to work harder," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    20. J. Israel Martínez-López & Samantha Barrón-González & Alejandro Martínez López, 2019. "Which Are the Tools Available for Scholars? A Review of Assisting Software for Authors during Peer Reviewing Process," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-28, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0132557. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.