Abstract
It is very difficult to get a data-driven estimate of the time needed, on average, to publish a research paper in a biomedical area. This difficulty arises because the metrics reported by individual journals, such as (when available) submission-to-acceptance or submission-to-publication times, are not designed to capture the entire journey of a manuscript, that often faces one or more rejections before finding acceptance in a journal. Consequently, there is a lack of published data, statistics and scientific literature about the actual overall time required, on average, for publication. This study aims at filling this gap across all biomedical research areas by providing a reliable estimate of the time from the moment a new manuscript is drafted and ready for submission to the moment it is actually published. This is done by integrating data from multiple databases to reconstruct the complete journey of each manuscript. Specifically, data from pre-print repositories, namely bioRxiv and MedRxiv, were exploited to link the first version of 129,769 manuscripts, to their published version (involving 4459 peer-reviewed journals), accessed through Europe PubMed Central. As a results, it was estimated a median time for publication of 199 days overall, with a wide variability among different categories, ranging from 238 days in the case of radiology and imaging to 139 days for infectious diseases (which is actually shortened by COVID-19 papers) or 150 days in the case of biochemistry, which was found to be the second-fastest category. It was also found an increasing trend in publication time, with a 4-weeks increase from 2014 to 2019.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data used in this study are publicly available and can be freely downloaded as described in the “Materials and Methods” section.
Notes
Nature reports about 8% of submitted manuscripts being accepted for publication (https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/editorial-criteria-and-processes).
References
Albert, A. Y. K., Gow, J. L., Cobra, A., & Vines, T. H. (2016). Is it becoming harder to secure reviewers for peer review? A test with data from five ecology journals. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0022-7
Azar, O. H. (2004). Rejections and the importance of first response times. International Journal of Social Economics, 31(3), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290410518247
Azar, O. H. (2007). The slowdown in first-response times of economics journals: Can it be beneficial? Economic Inquiry, 45(1), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2006.00032.x
Barroga, E. (2020). Innovative strategies for peer review. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 35(20), e138. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e138
Berenbaum, M. R. (2019). Impact factor impacts on early-career scientist careers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 116(34), 16659–16662. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911911116
Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Infometrics, 7(4), 914–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001
Bourne, P. E., & Korngreen, A. (2006). Ten simple rules for reviewers. PLoS Computational Biology, 2(9), e110. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020110
Carroll, R. J. (2001). Review times in statistical journals: Tilting at windmills? Biometrics, 57(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2001.00001.x
Dióspatonyi, I., Horvai, G., & Braun, T. (2001). Publication speed in analytical chemistry journals. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 41(6), 1452–1456. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci010033d
Ellison, G. (2002). The slowdown of the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy, 110(5), 947–993. https://doi.org/10.1086/341868
Europe PMC Consortium. (2015). Europe PMC: A full-text literature database for the life sciences and platform for innovation. Nucleic Acids Research, 43, D1042–D1048. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku1061
Fox, C. W. (2017). Difficulty of recruiting reviewers predicts review scores and editorial decisions at six journals of ecology and evolution. Scientometrics, 113, 465–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2489-5
Fox, C. W., Albert, A. Y. K., & Vines, T. H. (2017). Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: A test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x
Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2020). Pandemic publishing: Medical journals strongly speed up their publication process for COVID-19. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3), 1056–1067. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00076
Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2018). The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 3, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5
Huisman, J., & Smits, J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: The author’s perspective. Scientometrics, 113, 633–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5
Kaiser, J. (2013). New preprint server aims to be biologists’ answer to physicists’. arXiv Science. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/11/newpreprint-server-aims-be-biologists-answer-physicists-arxiv
Khadilkar, S. S. (2018). Rejection blues: Why do research papers get rejected? The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India, 68, 239–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-018-1153-1
Khosrowjerdi, M., Zeraatkar, N., & Vara, N. (2011). Publication delay in Iranian scholarly journals. Serials Review, 37(4), 262–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2011.06.004
Krauss, A., Danús, L., & Sales-Pardo, M. (2023). Early-career factors largely determine the future impact of prominent researchers: Evidence across eight scientific fields. Scientific Reports, 13, 18794. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-46050-x
Kun, Á. (2020). Time to acceptance of 3 days for papers about COVID-19. Publications, 8(2), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8020030
Lewin, A. Y. (2014). The peer-review process: The good, the bad, the ugly, and the extraordinary. Management and Organization Review, 10(2), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/more.12064
Mishra, A. K., Ali, A., Dutta, S., Banday, S., & Malonia, S. K. (2022). Emerging trends in immunotherapy for cancer. Diseases, 10(3), 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases10030060
Myers, B. A., & Khan, K. L. (2021). Practical publication metrics for academics. Clinical and Translational Science, 14(5), 1705–1712. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.13067
Nguyen, V. M., Haddaway N. R., Gutowsky, L. F., Wilson, A. D., Gallagher, A. J., Donaldson, M. R., Hammerschlag, N., & Cooke, S. J. (2015). How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0132557. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557. Erratum in: (2015). PLoS ONE. 2015, 10(9), e0139783. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139783
Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H. R., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, K. R., Allard, S., & Levine, K. (2015). Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 28(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150104
Peterson, C. J., Orticio, C., & Nugent, K. (2022). The challenge of recruiting peer reviewers from one medical journal’s perspective. Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 35(3), 394–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2022.2035189
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Rawlinson, C., & Bloom, T. (2019). New preprint server for medical research. British Medical Journal, 365, l2301. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l2301
Schonhaut, L., Costa-Roldan, I., Oppenheimer, I., Pizarro, V., Han, D., & Díaz, F. (2022). Scientific publication speed and retractions of COVID-19 pandemic original articles. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, 46, e25. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2022.25
Sever, R., Roeder, T., Hindle, S., Sussman, L., Black, K. J., Argentine, J., Manos, W., & Inglis, J. R. (2019). bioRxiv: The preprint server for biology. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/833400
Shah, A., Sherighar, S. G., & Bhat, A. (2016). Publication speed and advanced online publication: Are biomedical Indian journals slow? Perspectives in Clinical Research, 7(1), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.173775
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Tsigaris, P., & Erfanmanesh, M. (2021). Publishing volumes in major databases related to Covid-19. Scientometrics, 126, 831–842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03675-3
van Dijk, D., Manor, O., & Carey, L. B. (2014). Publication metrics and success on the academic job market. Current Biology, 24(11), R516–R517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.04.039
Watling, C., Ginsburg, S., & Lingard, L. (2021). Don’t be reviewer 2! Reflections on writing effective peer review comments. Perspectives on Medical Education, 10, 299–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-021-00670-z
Zupanc, G. K. H. (2023). “It is becoming increasingly difficult to find reviewers”—Myths and facts about peer review. Journal of Comparative Physiology A. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-023-01642-w
Funding
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Manganaro, L. The true latency of biomedical research papers. Scientometrics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05008-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05008-0