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

Abstract

Objective

Fast dissemination of research is important for improving treatments and thus benefitting patients, caregivers, and researchers. However, getting scientific papers published may take a long time. The editorial handling time can be delayed by several processes both before and after acceptance of the paper. The aim of this study was to systematically review the editorial handling time of biomedical peer-reviewed literature (i.e. time from submission to publication).

Methods

The protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020196238). PubMed and EMBASE were searched systematically on 29 May 2020. We included publications on the timespan between submission and publication for accepted articles published in biomedical journals.

Results

Of the 4197 unique studies identified in the search, 69 were included in the systematic review. The mean timespan from submission to publication varied from 91 to 639 days, while the median timespan varied from 70 to 558 days. Submission to acceptance and acceptance to publication timespans showed similar disparity with means ranging from 50 to 276 and 11 to 362 days, respectively. Data were too statistically heterogeneous to perform meta-analyses.

Conclusion

Editorial handling times of journals varied widely from a few months to almost two years, which delays the availability of new evidence. The editorial handling time did not differ between submission-to-acceptance-time and acceptance-to-publication-time. Examining differences in editorial processes between journals with long and short editorial handling times may help uncover, which processes are frequent causes of delay and thereby where to improve.

Keywords:

• Publication time
• publication delay
• submission
• acceptance
• systematic review
• journalology

Transparency

Declaration of funding

This study received no external funding.

Declaration of financial/other relationships

All authors declare no conflicts of interest. Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Author contributions

All authors were involved in the conception and design of the study. Data were interpreted and analyzed by MZA and SF. The paper was drafted by MZA and revised critically by SF and JR. All authors have given their final approval for the published version and all authors are accountable for the paper’s contents.

Acknowledgements

No assistance in the preparation of this article is to be declared.