https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3728-6925
Abstract
Background: For authors, manuscript submission can seem fraught with obstacles. The present authors describe their experience with South African Family Practice (SAFP) regarding response types and times, compared with other SA-based journals.
Methods: This cohort study included information regarding communication with/from journals of manuscripts finalised for submission by the Free State University, School of Medicine medical editor, 2014–2017.
Results: Twenty-six submissions were made to SAFP; 78 to other SA-based journals. The most frequent first response from SAFP was “revisions required” (62%) and “rejected” (49%) from other SA-based journals. Median final response of rejected submissions was approximately a month at SAFP and approximately two weeks at other SA-based journals. Median final response of accepted submissions was approximately three months at SAFP and approximately four months at other SA-based journals.
Conclusion: This study provides data regarding expected outcomes and response times, which may prevent authors falling prey to email solicitations from predatory journals.
Introduction
Thorough editorial assessment and peer review of manuscripts remain the cornerstone of medical research publishing.Citation1 From an author’s perspective, manuscript submission and review seem fraught with obstacles. Inexperienced authors may have unrealistic expectations regarding timelines for journal response. We performed a study to describe journal response types and times for manuscripts finalised for submission by the University of the Free State (UFS) School of Medicine (SoM) medical editor, 2014–2017.Citation2 The largest number of submissions were made to South African Family Practice (SAFP). The aim of this letter is to describe our experience with SAFP regarding response types and times and, to provide some context, compare these with other South African (SA)-based journals.
Methods
This cohort study included all manuscripts finalised for submission to SA-based accredited journals by the SoM medical editor, 2014–2017. The medical editor’s Excel spreadsheets (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, WA, USA) capturing all manuscript process activities were used to confidentially note information related to the submission to and subsequent communication with/from the journal. The study was approved by the Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee, UFS (HSREC143/2017) and UFS authorities.
Results
Ninety-five manuscripts were submitted. Since only 48% of manuscripts were accepted by the first journal submitted to, the total number of submissions was 163: 26 to SAFP and 78 to other SA-based journals (26 journals). Submissions were mainly undergraduate (SAFP 62%, other SA-based journals 45%) or postgraduate student projects (SAFP 23%, other SA-based journals 32%). Submissions were mainly full-length research articles (SAFP 85%, other SA-based journals 90%). All SAFP submissions were done on an online platform, compared with 94% to other SA-based journals.
The most frequent first response from SAFP was “revisions required” (62%) compared with “rejected” (49%) from other SA-based journals (). Median time from submission to journal first response was short for rejected (in particular other SA-based journals) or non-compliant submissions, and less than three months for the other main response categories. Extreme values of approximately a year occurred at other SA-based journals. The median time given by SAFP and other SA-based journals to complete revisions was one month. In only 6% of SAFP submissions to be revised did the authors ask for an extension, compared with 18% of other SA-based journal submissions.
Table 1: Journal response types and times of South African Family Practice and other SA-based journals
Regarding final decisions by journals, rejected submissions had a median response time of just over two weeks at other SA-based journals, and just under a month at SAFP. Accepted submissions had a median final response of just over three months at SAFP and just over four months at other SA-based journals. No manuscripts requiring revisions were subsequently rejected. Of the seven manuscripts rejected by SAFP, four had been sent for review, compared with 35% rejected by other SA-based journals.
Accepted submissions had a median of one review round (range 0–1 SAFP, 0–4 other SA-based journals). Of manuscripts sent for review by SAFP, 50.0% had one reviewer and 50.0% two reviewers. For other SA-based journals, 62.0% had two reviewers, 13.0% three reviewers and only 25.0% one reviewer.
One manuscript was submitted to SAFP twice: in 2014, the manuscript was submitted and accepted as is, after 97 days. Due to misunderstanding of new copyright forms, the authors retracted the manuscript. In 2015, the manuscript was submitted again, and the response was “reject, out of scope of journal”, after 14 days.
Conclusion
The number of submissions in certain categories was small, but interesting patterns emerged. Being aware of expected outcomes and response times may prevent authors falling prey to email solicitations from predatory journals, for example:
‘… we are appreciating your manuscript submission on before 6th July (sic) or the earliest, so that we can process for our July issue release.’ (dated 25 June 2018)
Declarations
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this letter. No funding was sourced.
Please note that W.J.S. is on the SAFP editorial board, and W.J.S. and G.J. are reviewers for SAFP.
ORCID
G Joubert http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3728-6925
T Mulder http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9232-9641
WJ Steinberg http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9944-1807
Related Research Data
References
- Bauchner H. The rush to publication. An editorial and scientific mistake. JAMA. 2017;318(12):1109–1110. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.11816
- Joubert G, Mulder T, Steinberg WJ, Botes J. Manuscripts finalised for journal submission by the UFS School of Medicine medical editor: Journal response types and times. Presentation at 50th Faculty of Health Sciences Research Forum, Bloemfontein, August 2018.