Time from submission to publication varied widely for biomedical journals: a systematic review

References

• Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011;104(12):510–520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Health Economics Research Group. Medical research: what’s it worth? Estimating the economic benefits from medical research in the UK. London (UK): Health Economics Research Group; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Solomon DJ, Björk BC. Publication fees in open access publishing: sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 2012;63(1):98–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vale RD. Accelerating scientific publication in biology. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112(44):13439–13446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder SH. Science interminable: blame Ben? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110(7):2428–2429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams MJ. The peer review process from an editor’s point of view. Small GTPases. 2010;1(2):77.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stamm T, Meyer U, Wiesmann HP, et al. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine. Head Face Med. 2007;3(1):27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bravo G, Grimaldo F, López-Iñesta E, et al. The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green R, Del Mar C. Research papers submitted to Australian Family Physician - types and timelines. Aust Fam Physician. 2006;35(5):362–364.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bagla J, Mishra D. Time-lag from submission to printing in Indian biomedical journals. Indian Pediatr. 2011;48(1):67–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg J. Ugeskrift for Laeger on the net. Ugeskr Laeger. 2009;171(51):3759.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• University of York. PROSPERO [Internet]. York (UK): University of York; 2020 [cited 2020 Dec 16]. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/
   Google Scholar
• Andersen MZ, Fonnes S, Andresen K, et al. Time from submission to publication of peer-reviewed articles in biomedical journals: a systematic review [Internet]. York (UK): NIHR; 2020 [cited 2020 Dec 13]. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=196238
   Google Scholar
• PubMed [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): PubMed; 2020 [cited 2020 Dec 13]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.
   Google Scholar
• Embase [Internet]. Amsterdam (The Netherlands): Embase; 2020 [cited 2020 Dec 13]. Available from: https://www.embase.com/login.
   Google Scholar
• Mendeley - Reference Management Software & Researcher Network [Internet]. London (UK): Mendley; 2020 [cited 2020 Dec 13]. Available from: https://www.mendeley.com/.
   Google Scholar
• Kwon Y, Lemieux M, McTavish J, et al. Identifying and removing duplicate records from systematic review searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015;103(4):184–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, et al. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. 2005;331(7524):1064–1065.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses [Internet]. Ottawa (Canada): OHRI; 2020 [cited 2020 Dec 16]. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
   Google Scholar
• Goldacre B, Drysdale H, Dale A, et al. COMPare: a prospective cohort study correcting and monitoring 58 misreported trials in real time. Trials. 2019;20(1):118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rombey T, Allers K, Mathes T, et al. A descriptive analysis of the characteristics and the peer review process of systematic review protocols published in an open peer review journal from 2012 to 2017. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebo P, Fournier JP, Ragot C, et al. Factors associated with publication speed in general medical journals: a retrospective study of bibliometric data. Scientometrics. 2019;119(2):1037–1058.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganga V, Edupuganti M, Khan N. Publication timeliness of the randomized controlled trials of drug therapy for inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69(10).
   Google Scholar
• Toroser D, Carlson J, Robinson M, et al. Factors impacting time to acceptance and publication for peer-reviewed publications. Curr Med Res Opin. 2017;33(7):1183–1189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee Y, Kim K, Lee Y. Publication delay of Korean medical journals. J Korean Med Sci. 2017;32(8):1235–1242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tam WWS, Lo KKH, Khalechelvam P, et al. Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? A cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah A, Sherighar SG, Bhat A. Publication speed and advanced online publication: are biomedical Indian journals slow? Perspect Clin Res. 2016;7(1):40–44.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Truss N, Fuchsberger M, Streng-Ouwehand I, et al. Choose your target journal carefully: quantification of delay to acceptance caused by each manuscript resubmission. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32(1):S6–S7.
   Google Scholar
• Virrey J, O’Kelly J, Girard V, et al. A comparison of publically available journal metrics and single-company experience. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32(1):S7.
   Google Scholar
• Sligh S, Sturm D. Timeline implications of executive committee vs non-executive committee-led publications. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32(1):S13.
   Google Scholar
• Gattrell WT, Hopewell S, Young K, et al. Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(2):e010329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee Y. Time for something different: the Korean journal of anesthesiology commences EPUB ahead of print. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2016;69(4):315–316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mabvuure NT, Klimach S, Eisner M, et al. An audit of best evidence topic reviews in the International Journal of Surgery. Int J Surg. 2015;17:54–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puig JG, Alonso-Vega GG, Blanco JJR. Report of the Editors, 2014. Rev Clin Esp. 2015;215(1):50–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Livas C, Pandis N, Ren Y. Time relevance, citation of reporting guidelines, and breadth of literature search in systematic reviews in orthodontics. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37(2):183–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenkrantz AB, Harisinghani M. Metrics for original research articles in the AJR: from first submission to final publication. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(6):1152–1156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farjo N, Turpin DL, Coley RY, et al. Characteristics and fate of orthodontic articles submitted for publication: an exploratory study of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;147(6):680–690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yalçınkaya M, Bagatur AE. Articles published in Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica between 2003-2012: content, characteristics and publication trends. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2014;48(5):576–583.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uddin R. Do submissions entitled to an auto-waiver take more time to be accepted by open access journals? BMC Res Notes. 2014;7:238.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Valderrama P, Valderrama Á, Baca P. Bibliometric analysis and evaluation of the journal medicina oral Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal (2008-2018). Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2020;25(2):e180–e187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickford A, Marino K, Evoniuk G. A review of manuscript cycle times from 2009 to 2012: results from a major pharmaceutical sponsor. Curr Med Res Opin. 2013;29(1):S9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matías-Guiu JA, García-Ramos R, Castellanos M, et al. What happens to medical articles submitted in Spanish that are not accepted for publication? Neurologia. 2013;28(4):205–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reyes B H, Bustos-González A, Andresen H M, et al. [Revista Médica de Chile in the year 2012]. Rev Med Chil. 2013;141(8):1049–1056. Spanish.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black N, Mays N, Rivett-Carnac C. Audit of submissions: July 2011-June 2012. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(1):5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whann EA, Ring SA, Leo C, et al. Success at journal of choice and effect of resubmissions on publication timing for Pfizersponsored publications in 2012. Curr Med Res Opin. 2013;29(1):S15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palese A, Coletti S, Dante A. Publication efficiency among the higher impact factor nursing journals in 2009: a retrospective analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(4):543–551.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen H, Chen CH, Jhanji V. Publication times, impact factors, and advance online publication in ophthalmology journals. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(8):1697–1701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar KH, Aravinda K. Comparison of research productivity between metro and non-metro cities in a biomedical journal from India. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2013;3(2):182–186.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Björk BC, Solomon D. The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. J Informetr. 2013;7(4):914–923.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornelius JL. Reviewing the review process: identifying sources of delay. Australas Med J. 2012;5(1):26–29.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Asaad M, Rajesh A, Banuelos J, et al. Time from submission to publication in plastic surgery journals: the story of accepted manuscripts. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020;73(2):383–390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khosrowjerdi M, Zeraatkar N, Vara N. Publication delay in Iranian scholarly journals. Ser Rev. 2011;37(4):262–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appell H-J, Atkinson G, Duarte JA, et al. Positive development of the processing time-time span between acceptance and publication of papers in the IJSM from 2008 to 2010. Int J Sports Med. 2010;31(3):145–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wing DA, Benner RS, Petersen R, et al. Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender. J Women’s Heal. 2010;19(10):1919–1923.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black N, Mays N, Rivett-Carnac C. Audit of submissions: July 2007 to June 2008. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14(1):4–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humberto RB, Max AH, Joaquín P. H. Revista Medica de Chile in the year 2009. Rev Med Chil. 2009;137(8):1089–1094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jawaid SA, Jawaid M, Jafary MH. Deficiencies in original articles accepted for publication in Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences: a retrospective analysis. Pakistan J Med Sci. 2009;25(1):1–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al DS, Editorial KS. Editorial. Neurosciences (Riyadh). 2009;14(1):1–2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sampson M, Shojania KG, Garritty C, et al. Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(6):531–536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Govender P, Buckley O, McAuley G, et al. Does online submission of manuscripts improve efficiency? J Belge Radiol. 2008;91(6):231–234.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz-Pérez R, Delgado López-Cózar E, Jiménez-Contreras E. The Institute for Scientific Information journal selection criteria. Its application to Archivos de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmología. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2006;81(5):245–268.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gupta V, Bhatia R, Pathak M, et al. Analysis of submissions, editorial and peer-review process, and outcome of manuscripts submitted to the Indian Journal of Dermatology Venereology and Leprology over a 6-month period. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2020;86(5):519–525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta P, Kaur G, Sharma B, et al. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection. Indian Pediatr. 2006;43(6):479–489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong P, Loh M, Mondry A. Publication lag in biomedical journals varies due to the periodical’s publishing model. Scientometrics. 2006;69(2):271–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black N, Mays N, Rivett-Carnac C. Audit of submissions: July 2003 to June 2004. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1):4.
   Google Scholar
• Shi S, Yang H. Analysis of the articles published in Chinese journal of ophthalmology during years 2001 to 2004. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 2005;41(7):652–655.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Woolley KL, Ely JA, Woolley MJ, et al. Declaration of medical writing assistance in international, peer-reviewed publications and effect of pharmaceutical sponsorship. Paper presented at the 5th International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication; 2005 November 16–20; Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Kljaković-Gaspić M, Hren D, Marusić A, et al. Peer review time: how late is late in a small medical journal? Arch Med Res. 2003;34(5):439–443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson E, McDonald DD, Mikky I, et al. Health care implications and space allocation of research published in nursing journals. Nurs Outlook. 2003;51(2):70–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlqvist R, Hopkins N. Annual report 2000. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;57(11):749–750.
   Google Scholar
• Burt BA. Acceptance rates and publication times. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2002;30(1):1–2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickersin K, Olson CM, Rennie D, et al. Association between time interval to publication and statistical significance. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2829–2831.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maggio LA, Bynum WE, Schreiber-Gregory DN, et al. When will I get my paper back? A replication study of publication timelines for health professions education research. Perspect Med Educ. 2020;9(3):139–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houry D, Ernst AA, Weiss SJ, et al. Acceptance and publication times in the four major emergency medicine journals. Am J Emerg Med. 1999;17(1):110–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiménez Villa J. Duration of the editorial process of the Atencion Primaria journal. Aten Primaria. 1999;23(1):29–32.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marusić A, Mestrović T, Petrovecki M, et al. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996. Croat Med J. 1998;39(1):3–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McNamee D. Fast-track publication at The Lancet. Lancet. 1998;351(9102):542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams ES, Lundberg GD. Information for readers: the JAMA 1996 editorial peer review audit. JAMA. 1997;277(10):840.
   Google Scholar
• García Río F, Serrano S, Alvarez-Sala R, et al. Bibliometric indicators of production and usage of Archivos de Bronchoneumologia. Arch Bronconeumol. 1996;32(7):327–331. Spanish.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Handysides S, Goalen V, Soltanpoor N. CDR review’s editorial process in 1997 and the introduction of blinded peer review prepare the way for Communicable Disease and Public Health. Commun Dis Public Health. 1998;1(1):51–53.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lloret MAM. Analysis of the consumption of information in the original articles published in the journal “Farmacia Clinica” (1991-1994). Farm Clin. 1995;12(7):458–466.
   Google Scholar
• Pulido M, Gonzalez JC, Sanz F. Original articles published in Medicina Clinica during 30 years (1962-1992): number of authors, interval between acceptance and publication and bibliographic references. Med Clin. 1994;103(20):770–775.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manjunath S, Bhattacharjee R, Razmi TM, et al. A comparative study on the turnaround time of article processing in dermatology journals: a need for improvement of this aspect in Indian journals. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2020;86(5):526–530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joubert G, Mulder T, Steinberg WJ, et al. Manuscripts submitted to South African Family Practice by the School of Medicine, University of the Free State: journal response types and times. South African Fam Pract. 2019;61(4):170–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Safari S, Faghfouri A, Vahdati A. Demography of medical journals in Iran; a cross-sectional study. Adv J Emerg Med. 2019;3(2):e14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Giordan M, Csikasz-Nagy A, Collings AM, et al. The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process. F1000Res. 2016;5:683.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar