Researchers’ time should be protected as much as possible – commentary on: Toroser D, Carlson J, Robinson M, et al. Factors impacting time to acceptance and publication for peer-reviewed publications. Curr Med Res Opinion 2016: published online 31 December 2016, doi: 10.1080/03007995.2016.1271778

With their article aimed at describing the passage of time from submission to acceptance for peer-reviewed manuscripts, reviews and letters to the editor, Toroser and colleagues¹ have highlighted an issue which has received modest attention to date. Although the authors have acknowledged the limitations affecting their study¹, their contribution is valuable for a series of reasons:

1. They have acquired up-to-date evidence available in the field by analyzing the publications of recent years: the number of articles published has increased constantly by around 3–3.5% each year² and this may have affected publication efficiency in those journals where resources have not had similar increases.

2. They have explored the publication database and the findings that have emerged have provided new light on peer review processes that have rarely been investigated systematically; previous studies in the field have summarized anecdotal experience^3,4, data reported in published articles (e.g. date of manuscript submission and acceptance⁵) or reviewers’ perceptions collected through questionnaires⁶.

3. They have also analyzed the time required in the case of subsequent submissions, when the first submission is rejected and the manuscript is sent to another journal. Few authors^3,4 to date have investigated the destiny of the rejected manuscripts which remain confined to the personal experience of researchers.

The contribution of Toroser et al.¹ increases the understanding of factors affecting the transfer of knowledge⁷, the process aimed at reaching practitioners who may apply the evidence produced with research. The transfer of knowledge process is also capable of affecting the research itself, given that it allows for movement along the research chain, from the first step to the following on the basis of findings. Moreover, the authors¹ have suggested some possible factors involved in the time elapsing from manuscript submission to acceptance. Four key messages may be evinced from the research exercise of Toroser et al.¹:

1. Few disciplines have evaluated publication efficiency to date. The nursing field started to debate publication efficiency fifteen years ago through the work of pioneers Van Teijlingen and Hundley³: their manuscript was submitted to six different academic journals before it was finally accepted for publication; going down the journal status hierarchy as a result of manuscript rejection increased by one year the time required to achieve publication; similar experiences were reported in those years by Mulhall and Kelly⁴. More recently, the time required from submission to manuscript acceptance in a list of 10 higher-impact nursing journals has been documented at around 21 weeks⁵. Pautasso and Shafer⁸ in the Ecology discipline documented the same time (23 weeks) among 22 journals in 2005–06. Moreover, interviewing authors who published in Conservation Biology, Nguyen et al.⁶ found that the optimal review period was on average 6.4 weeks in length. In the medical field, for the Australian Family Physician Journal from 2002 to 2004, the average time elapsed from submission to acceptance was 43 days (around 6 weeks) by peer reviewers and 67 days (9.5 weeks) to resubmit the revised manuscript⁹. Of course, the increased digitalization of the process has rendered each step easier, reducing the time required from submission to acceptance¹⁰; moreover, reliable open access¹¹ journals may report a shorter turnaround time than traditional print journals; in addition, some journals also have a fast-track option, thus different periods may be required from submission to acceptance. Similarities and heterogeneities regarding the speed with which knowledge is rendered available to scientific and professional communities, across disciplines and journals with different missions and options, should be evaluated continuously.

2. As submissions to journals increase, the time to acceptance increases at a similar rate¹. Interestingly, the American Journal of Roentgenology investigated in 1986 the destiny of 254 rejected manuscripts which had been published successively in different radiology and non-radiology journals¹². Similar investigations have been performed by the American Journal of Ophthalmology¹³ and by other journals¹⁴. A scientific paper represents a tremendous amount of investment both in conducting research and in writing the report: thus, authors are reluctant to abandon rejected manuscripts¹². This suggests preparing new generations of researchers to select the target journal, not only with regard to the higher impact factor which may result in increasing failures and subsequent submissions, but also with regard to the real merit of the manuscript. “Journal shopping”¹⁵ has already been described in the literature and it is possibly one of the first strategies that younger colleagues should learn to avoid in favor of an increased capability of selecting the appropriate target for manuscripts on the basis of their real value.

3. The time lag from submission to acceptance is around 23 weeks, less than 6 months; specifically, clinical trials have required lesser time¹. Ensuring high quality in the review process requires time for: allocating the manuscripts to the right reviewers; avoiding conflict of interest; giving the appropriate amount of time to reviewers; deciding the degree of revision required (or rejection) on the basis of their feedback; then awaiting the revisions from the authors and, if the case, starting a second round¹⁶. The process is also affected by the negotiation rounds between researchers and reviewers during the peer-review stage¹⁷. On one hand, 6 months seems to be immense; on the other hand, it appears to be the minimum time required to ensure high quality¹⁸. However, we should consider that this time lag reflects a single step and not the entire process of knowledge transfer⁷. Thus, the time elapsing from the end of data collection to the first manuscript submission should also be further evaluated, with the aim of discovering the influencing factors.

4. The time elapsed from the first submission to acceptance is out of the control of authors¹ and depends mainly on the journals, specifically on the work burden of peer reviewers^15,16. The phenomenon of "peer-review heroes" has been documented recently, indicating that a small proportion of the scientific community is carrying out a disproportionate load of the peer reviews¹⁵. However, according to Nguyen and colleagues⁶, reviewers are themselves experienced authors who are actively publishing. Thus, with the increased amount of manuscripts submitted requiring peer review and shorter time frames due to heavy workloads (e.g. administrative tasks), researchers may have reduced the time available both for peer review processes and to develop/revise their own manuscripts^19,20. Limited time available for researchers may reduce the quality of the peer review process and increase its duration; it may also prolong the time for manuscript revision required by editors, thus postponing final acceptance; it may also increase the time elapsing from data collection to manuscript drafting, threatening both manuscript quality (which may negatively affect acceptance) and timely communication of findings.

Time is of great value for researchers: however, investing their time in several (and sometimes non-valuable) tasks (administrative, service work), has the potential to reduce scientific productivity. Protecting researchers’ time has scientific and policy implications and may increase the speed of knowledge transfer, which may in turn affect patient care and future research positively. Different strategies could be designed and implemented: how time is used by scientists and clinicians involved in research processes, and how those time issues spill over into other parts of academic and clinical life, should be monitored and analyzed. Moreover, academic leaders and health-care system managers should reflect on competing hospital priorities²¹ while trying to align them: research should also be considered a priority, and scientific productivity evaluated among other clinical indicators as a measure of performance. Policies capable of protecting time for research should also be identified for academicians with clinical roles, for whom the amount and nature (e.g. unpredictable)²¹ of those clinical roles may reduce research activity. "Research champions" capable of providing advice and guidance in developing time management competences for novice or expert researchers should also be encouraged. Supervisors capable of developing in their pupils the capacity to identify appropriate priorities and to optimize time should be considered in PhD programs. Finally, teaching how to manage peer review feedback¹⁷, as well as increasing scientific writing skills may also prevent time wastage.

Transparency

Declaration of funding

This editorial was not funded.

Declaration of financial/other relationships

A.P. has disclosed that she has no significant relationships with or financial interests in any commercial companies related to this study or article.

CMRO peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the reviewers of this editorial for their valuable feedback.