Abstract
Editorial delay, the time between submission and acceptance of scientific manuscripts, was investigated for a set of 4,540 papers published in 13 leading food research journals. Groups of accelerated papers were defined as those that fell in the lower quartile of the distribution of the editorial delay for the journals investigated. Delayed papers are those in the upper quartile of the distribution. Editorial stage is related to the peer review process and two variables were investigated in search of any bias in editorial review that could influence publication delay: countries of origin of the manuscript and authors’ previous publishing experience in the same journal. A ranking of countries was established based on contributions to the leading food research journals in the period 1999–2004 and four categories comprising heavy, medium, light and occasional country producers was established. Chi square tests show significant differences in country provenance of manuscripts only for one journal. The results for influence on editorial delay of cross-national research and international collaboration, conducted by means of the Fisher statistic test, were similar. A two-tailed Student’s t test shows significant differences (p<0.05) in the distribution of experienced and novel authors across the delayed and accelerated groups of papers. Although these results are time and discipline limited, it can be concluded that authors’ publishing experience causes a faster review and acceptance of their papers and that neither country of provenance nor cross-national research influence the time involved in editorial acceptance of the papers.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anonymous (2008), Working double-blind: Should there be author anonymity in peer review? Nature, 451: 605–606.
Amat, C. B. (2008), Editorial and publication delay of papers submitted to 14 selected Food Research journals. Influence of online posting. Scientometrics, 74: 379–389.
Bhattacharjee, Y. (2004), Suit seeks to ease trade embargo rules. Science, 306: 30.
Bhattacharjee, Y. (2003), U.S. license needed to edit iranian papers. Science, 302: 210.
Blackburn, J. L., Hakel, M. D. (2006), An Examination of Sources of Peer-Review Bias. Psychological Science, 17: 378–382.
Bornmann, L., Daniel, H. D. (2006), Potential sources of bias in research fellowship assessments: Effects of university prestige and field of study. Reseach Evaluation, 15: 209–219.
Campanario, J. M. (1998A), Peer review for journals as it stands today — Part 2. Science Communication, 19: 277–306.
Campanario, J. M. (1998B), Peer review for journals as it stands today — Part 1. Science Communication, 19: 181–211.
Dickersin, K., Olson, C. M., Rennie, D., Cook, D., Flannagin, A., Zhu, Q. et al. (2002), Association between time interval to publication and statistical significance. JAMA, 287: 2829–2831.
Diospatonyi, I., Horvai, G., Braun, T. (2001), Publication speed in analytical chemistry journals. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 41: 1452–1456.
Gannon, F. (2007), Address bias. EMBO Reports, 8: 421.
Hartley, J. (2005), Refereeing and the single author. Journal of Information Science, 31: 251–256.
Hopewell, S., Clarke, M. J., Stewart, L., Tierney, J. (2007), Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews, MR000011.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (1998), Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA, 279: 281–286.
Konradsen, J., Munk-jorgensen, A. (2007), The destinies of the low- and middle-income country submissions. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 115: 331–334.
Langfeldt, L. (2006), The policy challenges of peer review: Managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assesments. Reseach Evaluation, 15: 31–41.
Lee, K. P., Boyd, E. A., Holroyd-leduc, J. M., Bacchetti, P., Bero, L. A. (2006), Predictors of publication: Characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals. Medical Journal of Australia, 184: 621–626.
Link, A. M. (1998), US and Non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA, 280: 246–247.
Marsh, H., Jayasinghe, U. W., Bond, N. W. (2008), Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist, 63: 160–168.
National Institutes of Health (2004), Scientific peer review of research grant applications and research and development contract projects. Federal Register, 69: 272–278.
Opthof, T., Coronel, R., Janse, M. J. (2002), The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias. Cardiovascular Research, 56: 339–346.
Rama, R. (1996), Empirical study on sources of innovation in international food and beverage industry. Agribussines, 12: 123–134.
Rovner, S. (2004), ACS ends limited publishing moratorium. Chemical and Engineering News, 82: 6.
Seiber, J. N., Kleinschmidt, L. A. (2008), Healthy foods research: A publication strategy to maximize impact. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56: 4283–4285.
Sood, A., Knudsen, K., Sood, R., Wahner-roedler, D. L., Barnes, S. A., Bardia, A. et al. (2007), Publication bias for CAM trials in the highest impact factor medicine journals is partly due to geographical bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60: 1123–1126.
Stamm, T., Meyer, U., Wiesmann, H. P., Kleinheinz, J., Cehreli, M., Cehreli, Z. C. (2007), A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head and Face Medicine. Head and Face Medicine, 3, article.
Stern, J., Shimes, R. (1997), Publication bias: Evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. British Medical Journal, 315: 640–645.
van Lange, P. A. M. (1999), Why authors believe that reviewers stress limiting aspects of manuscripts: The SLAM effect in peer review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29: 2550–2566.
Weber, E. J., Katz, P. P., Waeckerle, J. F., Callaham, M. L. (2002), Author perception of peer review: Impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287: 2790–2793.
Weller, A. C., Reviewers and Their Biases. In: Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses (pp. 207–246), Melford: Information Today, 2001.
Yousefi-Nooraie, R., Shakiba, B., Mortaz-Hejri, S. (2006), Country development and manuscript selection bias: A review of published studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6: 37.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yegros, A.Y., Amat, C.B. Editorial delay of food research papers is influenced by authors’ experience but not by country of origin of the manuscripts. Scientometrics 81, 367–380 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2164-y
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2164-y