ArticleScientometrics
Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author's perspective.
Article in Scientometrics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer-Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Discovery Stack Pilot demonstrates the feasibility and outcomes of a scientist-designed peer-review model that separates quality and impact.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Behavior characteristics of peer reviewers in medical journals: a survey from China.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Integrating community Live Reviews into academic publishing: an exploratory study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Bridging functional bionanomaterials and the clinic: strategic communication as a translational enabler.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Screening, sorting, and the feedback cycles that imperil peer review.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- What are the limits to biomedical research acceleration through general-purpose AI?Scientific reports · 2026Review
- Opportunities for Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: From the Lens of Clinicians and Patients.JCO oncology practice · 2025Review
- A surge of AI-driven publications: the impact on health professionals and potential mitigating solutions.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Systematization of peer review in Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2024Article
- Publishing during a Pandemic: Analyzing Recent Publication Times in Hand Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: the Granada Statements.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2024Article
- Writing a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal: Guidance from the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Behavioral consequences of second-person pronouns in written communications between authors and reviewers of scientific papers.Nature communications · 2024Article
- The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future.British journal of biomedical science · 2024Review
- Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Do good things really come to those who wait? An analysis of the average time of acceptance in Brazilian surgery journals.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2024Observational
- Comparison of COVID-19 Preprint and Peer-Reviewed Versions of Studies on Therapies for Critically Ill Patients.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.