Display options
Cite
Huisman J, Smits J. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author's perspective. Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):633-650doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5.
Huisman, J., & Smits, J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author's perspective. Scientometrics, 113(1), 633-650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5
Huisman, Janine, and Smits, Jeroen. "Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author's perspective." Scientometrics vol. 113,1 (2017): 633-650. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5
Huisman J, Smits J. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author's perspective. Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):633-650. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5. Epub 2017 Mar 09. PMID: 29056794; PMCID: PMC5629227.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):633-650. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5. Epub 2017 Mar 09.

Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author's perspective.

Scientometrics

Janine Huisman, Jeroen Smits

Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  2. SciRev Foundation, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  3. Department of Economics, Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

PMID: 29056794 PMCID: PMC5629227 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5

Abstract

To gain insight into the duration and quality of the scientific peer review process, we analyzed data from 3500 review experiences submitted by authors to the SciRev.sc website. Aspects studied are duration of the first review round, total review duration, immediate rejection time, the number, quality, and difficulty of referee reports, the time it takes authors to revise and resubmit their manuscript, and overall quality of the experience. We find clear differences in these aspects between scientific fields, with Medicine, Public health, and Natural sciences showing the shortest durations and Mathematics and Computer sciences, Social sciences, Economics and Business, and Humanities the longest. One-third of journals take more than 2 weeks for an immediate (desk) rejection and one sixth even more than 4 weeks. This suggests that besides the time reviewers take, inefficient editorial processes also play an important role. As might be expected, shorter peer review processes and those of accepted papers are rated more positively by authors. More surprising is that peer review processes in the fields linked to long processes are rated highest and those in the fields linked to short processes lowest. Hence authors' satisfaction is apparently influenced by their expectations regarding what is common in their field. Qualitative information provided by the authors indicates that editors can enhance author satisfaction by taking an independent position vis-à-vis reviewers and by communicating well with authors.

Keywords: Author’s experience; Duration; Peer review process; Quality

References

  1. Nature. 2014 Feb 6;506(7486):93-6 - PubMed
  2. Account Res. 2014;21(2):109-21 - PubMed
  3. Australas Med J. 2012;5(1):26-9 - PubMed
  4. Science. 2008 Jul 4;321(5885):15 - PubMed
  5. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007 Jan;61(1):9-12 - PubMed
  6. Sci Eng Ethics. 2008 Sep;14(3):305-10 - PubMed
  7. Nature. 2002 Nov 7;420(6911):15 - PubMed

Publication Types