Submission to multiple journals: a method of reducing time to publication?

Publication Times and Impact Factors (IFs) in Dentistry Journals

INTRODUCTION

 The speed of manuscript publication in reputable journals plays a crucial role in spreading scientific novelties and may influence the number of received citations. In the present study, the authors investigated the publication speed of dentistry journals. This is crucial for both authors, who desire rapid dissemination of their findings, and patients in need, who seek new therapies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 This was a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of published dentistry journals. A list of dentistry journals featured in the 2021 Journal Citation Report was downloaded. A total of five random original articles were extracted from each of these journals. These articles were published between January and December 2020. Median and interquartile range (IQR) times from submission to acceptance, publication in print, online publication, time from acceptance to in print and online publication were calculated. The correlation between publication times and journal impact factor (IF) was examined.

RESULTS

 A total of 89 journals were included. Individual time from submission to acceptance (peer review time) ranged from 6 to 279 days, the combined median peer review time was 115 (80-159) days. The overall median time from acceptance to online or print publication was 17 (12-38) and 153 (92-249) days, respectively. Journals with available data concerning publication times tended to have higher IF than others. Only journals that did not have available time from acceptance to online publication had higher IF. There were negative correlations between times from submission (r = -0.442, p = 0.007), acceptance (r = -0.616, p < 0.001) to in-print publication, and IF. There were no correlations between IF and time from submission to acceptance, acceptance to online publication, and submission to online publication.

CONCLUSIONS

 Publication times availability was revealed to be an indicator of higher impacted journals, which is a potential new exponent of journal quality. Higher IF values were associated with shorter times from submission to acceptance and in-print publication, which is consistent with current editorial policies.

Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science

Evidence-based decision-making is most effective with comprehensive access to scientific studies. If studies face significant publication delays or barriers, the useful information they contain may not reach decision-makers in a timely manner. This represents a potential problem for mission-oriented disciplines where access to the latest data is required to ensure effective actions are undertaken. We sought to analyse the severity of publication delay in conservation science—a field that requires urgent action to prevent the loss of biodiversity. We used the Conservation Evidence database to assess the length of publication delay (time from finishing data collection to publication) in the literature that tests the effectiveness of conservation interventions. From 7,447 peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed studies of conservation interventions published over eleven decades, we find that the raw mean publication delay was 3.2 years (±2SD = 0.1) and varied by conservation subject. A significantly shorter delay was observed for studies focused on Bee Conservation, Sustainable Aquaculture, Management of Captive Animals, Amphibian Conservation, and Control of Freshwater Invasive Species (Estimated Marginal Mean range from 1.4–1.9 years). Publication delay was significantly shorter for the non-peer-reviewed literature (Estimated Marginal Mean delay of 1.9 years ± 0.2) compared to the peer-reviewed literature (i.e., scientific journals; Estimated Marginal Mean delay of 3.0 years ± 0.1). We found publication delay has significantly increased over time (an increase of ~1.2 years from 1912 (1.4 years ± 0.2) to 2020 (2.6 years ± 0.1)), but this change was much weaker and non-significant post-2000s; we found no evidence for any decline. There was also no evidence that studies on more threatened species were subject to a shorter delay—indeed, the contrary was true for mammals, and to a lesser extent for birds. We suggest a range of possible ways in which scientists, funders, publishers, and practitioners can work together to reduce delays at each stage of the publication process.

Publication Times in Ophthalmology Journals: The Story of Accepted Manuscripts

Introduction: The process of scientific publishing changed greatly in the past decades. The authors aimed to get insight into the time required for articles to be accepted and released online in high-impacted ophthalmology journals.

Methods: Comprehensive review of all original articles published by eight ophthalmology journals during a one-year period was performed for 2020 and 2005. Time taken from submission to acceptance and the first online release of the article was abstracted and analyzed.

Results: A total of 3110 articles were reviewed. In 2020, the overall median time from submission to acceptance (AT) was 119 days (IQR 83-168) and 30 days (10-71) from acceptance to the first online release of the article (OP). AT increased by 7.3% from 2005 to 2020, whereas OP reduced by 73%. Publications, which the corresponding author was affiliated with US-located institution had shorter both AT and OP in 2005 and 2020. The author’s specialty in ophthalmology had an inconclusive impact on AT and OP. Papers with multiple affiliated institutions had shorter AT and OP in both 2005 and 2020; however, these differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that increasing pressure on authors, editors, and reviewers to publish articles and journals with high impact factor (IF) significantly influenced publication times in ophthalmology journals. Inflation of research papers was associated with rising AT time. A significant decrease in OP time was potentially explained by the editor’s demand to achieve decent journal IF. This article brings to light relative publication times in the ophthalmology scientific journals.

How to Review a Surgical Scientific Paper: A Guide for Critical Appraisal

It is important for surgeons to participate in the peer-review process of scientific literature. As the number of published manuscripts continues to increase, there is a great need for volunteerism in this arena. However, there is little formal or informal training, which can help surgeons provide unbiased and meaningful reviews. Therefore, it is critical to provide more resources and guidelines to aid surgeons during the review process. The purpose of this paper is to provide a structured guide for a quality review of a surgical paper. This review represents the work of the Association of Women Surgeons Publications Committee.

Cross-sectional study of Pfizer-sponsored clinical trials: assessment of time to publication and publication history

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the proportion of Pfizer-sponsored clinical trials that completed in 2010 and are published as manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature, and to assess the manuscript development history.

DESIGN

Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING

Clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov that completed in 2010 for approved, Pfizer prescription products in patients or vaccines in healthy participants.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The proportion of studies for which the primary outcome(s) was published and the median time from study completion to publication. The manuscript development history included the number of times a manuscript was submitted before it was accepted for publication.

RESULTS

Among registered clinical trials for which Pfizer was the sponsor that completed in 2010, 76 met all inclusion criteria. The primary outcome(s) for 65 (85%) studies was published in 71 manuscripts; the median time to publication was 31 months (range 3-63 months). Of the remaining 11 studies, 2 had been submitted to at least one journal, 2 had not yet been submitted and 7 had no plans to publish because the study had terminated early due to recruitment challenges. Manuscripts accepted at the first choice journal were published at median time of 28 months (range 8-63, n=31), those accepted at second choice journal were published at 32 months (3-45, n=19), and for those accepted at third choice journal, it was 40 months (range 24-53, n=13).

CONCLUSIONS

The publication rate and median time to publication from study completion for Pfizer-sponsored studies were comparable to those previously reported for combined analyses of industry and non-industry sectors. Opportunities exist for sponsors, authors and journals to explore ideas that would facilitate more timely publication for clinical trial results. However, to be effective, such changes may need to revisit the entire publication process.

A scientometric assessment of the information loss caused by the delays in publication of Chinese science journals

Based on the second order plus time delay transfer function model of the journal publication delay process, we establish a mathematical model of information loss caused by publication delays. Then we collect elementary data on publication delays from over 3000 articles in 18 Chinese journals in four subjects and respectively assess information loss caused by publication delays using the model; thus the validity of the model is demonstrated. The information loss caused by publication delays in Chinese science journals is serious, especially in mathematics. Final statistical and analytical results indicate that delays in publication of some Western journals are also noticeable.

Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005

Animal experimentation continues to generate public and political concern worldwide. Relatively few countries collate and publish animal use statistics, yet this is a first and essential step toward public accountability and an informed debate, as well as being important for effective policy-making and regulation. The implementation of the Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement of animal experiments) should be expected to result in a decline in animal use, but without regular, accurate statistics, this cannot be monitored. Recent estimates of worldwide annual laboratory animal use are imprecise and unsubstantiated, ranging from 28-100 million. We collated data for 37 countries that publish national statistics, and standardised these against the definitions of 'animals', 'purposes' and 'experiments' used in European Union Directive 86/609/EEC. We developed and applied a statistical model, based on publication rates, for a further 142 countries. This yielded our most conservative estimate of global animal use: 58.3 million animals in 179 countries. However, this figure excludes several uses and forms of animals that are included in the statistics of some countries. With the data available, albeit for only a few countries, we also produced, by extrapolation, a more comprehensive global estimate that includes animals killed for the provision of tissues, animals used to maintain genetically-modified strains, and animals bred for laboratory use but killed as surplus to requirements. For a number of reasons that are explained, this more-comprehensive figure of 115.3 million animals is still likely to be an underestimate.

Impact factors and publication times for plastic surgery journals

BACKGROUND

The purposes of the authors' analysis were to assess the values that plastic surgical journals demonstrate in terms of the standardized measures created by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Report, and to assess the relationship between these values and the turnaround time of these journals.

METHODS

The overall indexes of surgical journals were compared with those of journals in other fields of medicine using the following parameters: highest impact factor, average impact factor, cited half-life, immediacy index, and number of journals. Similarly, plastic surgery journals were compared with the highest ranking journals from various fields of surgery. In addition, an evaluation of all original articles published in 2005, assessing the time intervals from submission to publication, submission to acceptance, and acceptance to publication, was conducted for all plastic surgical journals and the highest ranking journals from various surgical fields listed in the Journal Citation Report.

RESULTS

Plastic surgical journals demonstrated low overall index values and a greater elongation of their turnaround time in comparison to journals in other fields of surgery and medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

The fact that the field of plastic surgery targets a rather specific and limited medical audience, and that plastic surgical articles usually get quoted by this audience, partly explains these values. Furthermore, the elongated turnaround time contributes to their endurance. Since plastic surgical journals cannot attract a broader medical audience, journals should speed up their publication times to help these values rise.

Head & Face Medicine - a new journal for 'intra-interdisciplinary' science. Why? When? Where?

The human head and face is the target structure of a large number of medical disciplines which are subject to a continuing trend in medical science - 'ongoing fragmentation' or, to use a better established term, 'opening up new fields'. An adverse side effect of this trend is the separation of scientists, which contributes to a breakdown in communication. Specialization is necessary, but who is able to recombine the pieces of knowledge gained in different branches of science? Who is able to trace back an effect to its cause through the whole system? What is the instrument that enables scientists to think 'laterally', or across disciplines?To be one of these instruments is the vision of Head & Face Medicine. To induce 'intra-interdisciplinary' thinking of scientists by bringing together the findings achieved by different researchers from various specialties, all exploring the same target structure - the human head and face. Head & Face Medicine's objective is to support scientists in gaining new insights from different views, to recognize patterns, to extract new thoughts, to recombine them and bring new visions to life. Evolving tools like the internet, e-publishing, Open Access and open peer review make Head & Face Medicine a cross between a traditional journal and a data stream which can be queried, analyzed and processed with the aim of increasing medical knowledge in the area of head and face medicine. These tools represent several advantages: fast publication, increase of a paper's scientific impact and ethical superiority. Head & Face Medicine looks forward to receiving your contributions.