Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27073291›Full record

ArticleScientometrics

Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows.

Maciej J Mrowinski, Agata Fronczak, Piotr Fronczak, Olgica Nedic, Marcel Ausloos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientometrics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Peer review trends in six fisheries science journals.Research integrity and peer review · 2024
    Article
  2. Non-White scientists appear on fewer editorial boards, spend more time under review, and receive fewer citations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Maciej J MrowinskiFaculty of Physics, Warsaw University of Technology, Koszykowa 75, 00-662 Warsaw, Poland.
Agata FronczakFaculty of Physics, Warsaw University of Technology, Koszykowa 75, 00-662 Warsaw, Poland.
Piotr FronczakFaculty of Physics, Warsaw University of Technology, Koszykowa 75, 00-662 Warsaw, Poland.
Olgica NedicInstitute for the Application of Nuclear Energy (INEP), University of Belgrade, Banatska 31b, Belgrade-Zemun, Serbia.
Marcel AusloosSchool of Management, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH UK ; eHumanities Group, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (NKVA), Joan Muyskenweg 25, 1096 CJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands ; Group of Researchers for Applications of Physics in Economy and Sociology (GRAPES), Rue de la Belle Jardiniere 483, 4031 Angleur, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we undertake a data-driven theoretical investigation of editorial workflows. We analyse a dataset containing information about 58 papers submitted to the Biochemistry and Biotechnology section of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. We separate the peer review process into stages that each paper has to go through and introduce the notion of completion rate - the probability that an invitation sent to a potential reviewer will result in a finished review. Using empirical transition probabilities and probability distributions of the duration of each stage we create a directed weighted network, the analysis of which allows us to obtain the theoretical probability distributions of review time for different classes of reviewers. These theoretical distributions underlie our numerical simulations of different editorial strategies. Through these simulations, we test the impact of some modifications of the editorial policy on the efficiency of the whole review process. We discover that the distribution of review time is similar for all classes of reviewers, and that the completion rate of reviewers known personally by the editor is very high, which means that they are much more likely to answer the invitation and finish the review than other reviewers. Thus, the completion rate is the key factor that determines the efficiency of each editorial policy. Our results may be of great importance for editors and act as a guide in determining the optimal number of reviewers.

Indexed as

Editorial processPeer reviewWeighted directed graph

Identifiers

PMID27073291
PMCPMC4819515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.