Search results

The purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the Publication Timeline, i.e. Submission to First Decision and Submission to Acceptance on Journal Metrics, i.e. Impact Factor (IF) and 5-year IF.

Data related to the IF and 5-year IF were retrieved from Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Citation Report 2020. The Publication Timeline of each journal was ascertained through their respective websites. To attain the model fit summary, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was performed. Regression analysis was also performed on the models using SPSS 21 software to ascertain the nature and degree of impact the Publication Timeline (Submission to First Decision and Submission to Acceptance) has on Journal Metrics (IF and 5-year IF).

Submission to First Decision has a significant inverse relationship with both the IF and 5-year IF, whereas Submission to Acceptance has a significant direct relation with 5-year IF and an inverse but insignificant relationship with IF.

Journals published by Springer Nature and of multidisciplinary nature have been considered for the study. Only those journals were selected that provided the information regarding the Publication Timeline, whereas those which did not provide the same, were excluded. However, new insights can be revealed if the journals published by different publishers and belonging to one particular discipline are studied.

The study helps to ascertain the impact of the Publication Timeline on the Impact Metrics of the journals. It can help the authors select the journals as their publishing venues considering the Publication Timeline. Publishers can also be benefitted from the findings of this study since improvisations and modifications in their Publication Timelines can positively influence the impact metrics of their respective journals.

The study attempts to measure the impact of the Publication Timeline on Journal Metrics using cross-sectional secondary data, by performing regression analysis. Though various studies have examined the influence of the Publication Timeline on the IF using correlation analysis, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first of its kind to use regression analysis to check the relation, as well as the degree of impact the Publication Timeline, has on Journal Metrics.

Previous studies about the academic publishing process consider the publication delay as starting from the submission to the publishing journal. This ignores the potential delay caused by rejections received from previous journals. Knowing how many times papers are submitted prior to publication is essential for evaluating the importance of different publication delays and the refereeing process cost, and can improve our decisions about if and how the review process should be altered, decisions that affect the productivity of economists and other scholars. Using numerical analysis and evidence on acceptance rates of various journals, estimates that most manuscripts are submitted between three and six times prior to publication. This implies that the first response time (the time between submission and first editorial decision) is much more important than other parts of the publication delay, suggesting important policy implications for editors and referees.

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the relationship of Journal Publication Timeline (submission to first decision and submission to final decision) with various Journal Metrics (citing half-life, article influence score, the immediacy index, the acceptance rate, the impact factor (IF), five years IF, Eigenfactor and cited half-life) of top 600 journals retrieved from Journal Citation Report (JCR) 2020 under the tag, Elsevier Unified.

Top 600 journals in the decreasing order of the IFs under the tag, “Elsevier Unified” were retrieved from JCR 2020 of Clarivate Analytics. Information about “Journal Metrics” was ascertained using “Customized Service” of JCR, while information about the “Publication Timeline” of each journal was obtained using Elsevier's “Journal Insights Service.” It was found that only 177 journals provided the complete information regarding the “Publication Timeline” and hence considered for the study. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis was conducted to test the different hypotheses.

It was found that submission to first decision has a significant relationship with the immediacy index, citing half-life and the acceptance rate. Submission to final decision has a significant relationship with Journal Impact Factor (JIF), the immediacy index, Eigenfactor, citing half-life and the acceptance rate.

The study will provide the authors with sound and valuable information to support their selection of journals. Inferences in light of fluctuations in the scholarly communication process in terms of Publication Timelines and Journal Metrics can be deeply understood with the aid of the current study's findings. What considerations authors have to take before submitting their papers is the main implication of the study. Journal administrators can also benefit from the findings of the current study as it can help recruit and manage reviewers, which will ensure a successful publication timeline.

The study correlates Publication Timeline Indicators with Journal Metrics Indicators using secondary cross-sectional data. Though most previous studies only examine the relationship of the Publication Timeline with the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), there is very scarce literature that deciphers the influence of Publication Timeline indicators on different Journal Metrics indicators (including JIF).

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-02-2022-0108.

The aim of this study is to examine how reviewers for academic journals learn to carry out the task of peer review and the issues they face in doing this.

A total of 45 reviewers completed a questionnaire which asked about their experience in doing peer reviews, how they had learnt to do them, and the issues they faced in doing these reviews. Follow up emails were also sent to reviewers in order to seek further elaboration on the answers they had provided in the questionnaire.

Over half of the reviewers had learnt to do reviews by reading reviews of their own submissions to peer‐reviewed journals. Others had learnt to write reviews by just doing them; that is, by practice. The most challenging aspect for the reviewers was writing reviewers' reports that were critical but still constructive. There was no consensus on the most straightforward aspects of writing peer reviews.

The study has implications for reviewer development, proposing an experiential, “learning by doing” approach to the training of reviewers rather than a didactic, information transmission style one.

The study has implications for reviewer development, proposing an experiential, “learning by doing” approach to the training of reviewers rather than a didactic, information transmission style one.

The study provides insights into how reviewers learn to write peer reviews and the challenges they face in doing this. The paper also suggests strategies for improving reviewer development which can have benefits, especially for early career researchers.

The study aims to provide an analytical overview of current innovations in peer review and their potential impacts on scholarly communication.

The authors created a survey that was disseminated among publishers, academic journal editors and other organizations in the scholarly communication ecosystem, resulting in a data set of 95 self-defined innovations. The authors ordered the material using a taxonomy that compares innovation projects according to five dimensions. For example, what is the object of review? How are reviewers recruited, and does the innovation entail specific review foci?

Peer review innovations partly pull in mutually opposed directions. Several initiatives aim to make peer review more efficient and less costly, while other initiatives aim to promote its rigor, which is likely to increase costs; innovations based on a singular notion of “good scientific practice” are at odds with more pluralistic understandings of scientific quality; and the idea of transparency in peer review is the antithesis to the notion that objectivity requires anonymization. These fault lines suggest a need for better coordination.

This paper presents original data that were analyzed using a novel, inductively developed, taxonomy. Contrary to earlier research, the authors do not attempt to gauge the extent to which peer review innovations increase the “reliability” or “quality” of reviews (as defined according to often implicit normative criteria), nor are they trying to measure the uptake of innovations in the routines of academic journals. Instead, they focus on peer review innovation activities as a distinct object of analysis.

Journals are the essential tools of researchers, especially academicians, to present their scientific findings. So, choosing the right journal helps not only science development but also their academic promotion. The purpose of this study is to examine the factors that Iranian medical researchers consider when selecting scholarly journals in which to submit their work.

A self-administered online questionnaire was emailed in May 2021, with 101 responses received. The sample included all the faculty members with the role of “lecturer” in Iranian medical universities and who have 1–5 articles in the Scopus database as early-career Iranian medical researchers. The questionnaire consisted of 36 items, divided into five sections: basic information, attitudes and beliefs, ways to choose a journal, problems and familiarity with the components of scientometrics/validity metrics related to journals.

The findings indicate that these researchers value the expertise of experienced researchers and professionals, like librarians, when selecting publication venues. They often use journal indexes to guide journal selection. They also consider factors like the length of typical peer review and the complexity of submission guidelines when making decisions.

The study of one country, though detecting requirements of journal selection behavior, cannot be generalized to the entire region.

The current study has academic implications as far as decisions on journal selection are concerned. University policymakers in Iran may consider re-examining their emphasis on academicians’ promotion policies at Iranian universities of medical sciences.

These findings may support the work of early-career researchers and those individuals (e.g., librarians) that serve them, as well as publishers and editors of scholarly journals.

The aim of this paper is to lay out some of the more complex issues arising in the area of publication ethics. The impact of electronic publishing and electronic information is a main focus of the paper.

The paper draws in particular upon the work of the Committee on Publication Ethics including illustrative cases discussed at the forum, guidelines and discussion documents.

Three areas are highlighted to stimulate discussion around challenges of publication ethics in the digital era. These are the role of the internet in facilitating misconduct, the issue of confidentiality in publishing and how incentives in research assessments drive author behavior.

The paper brings together a variety of issues discussed under the broader umbrella of electronic information and new technologies in publishing.

Competition for space in peer-reviewed academic journals, together with a plethora of changes in the academic publishing processes, including, for example, open access publishing, the internationalisation of the publishing community, predatory publishing and the increasing role of journal ranking systems presents challenges for early career researchers (ECRs). The purpose of this paper is to offer practical advice on getting published in business and management.

The stages in the publishing journey are identified. The journey commences with the articulation of a contribution and building relationships with supervisors and other researchers. It then moves on to the evaluation and selection of appropriate journals (including consideration of open access publishing options), publishing policies and ethics, writing and revising the article and submitting and subsequently revising your article in response to reviewers’ comments.

This paper concludes with an acknowledgement of the shifting nature of journal publication processes and contexts and the need for doctoral and ECRs to continue to monitor changes in journal publication practices.

Whilst other articles and publisher web pages offer advice on getting published in specific journals and disciplines, few provide a rounded perspective of the experience of publishing and how this can be navigated successfully.