IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0223116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientific sinkhole: The pernicious price of formatting

Author

Listed:
  • Allana G LeBlanc
  • Joel D Barnes
  • Travis J Saunders
  • Mark S Tremblay
  • Jean-Philippe Chaput

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a time-cost analysis of formatting in scientific publishing. Design: International, cross-sectional study (one-time survey). Setting: Internet-based self-report survey, live between September 2018 and January 2019. Participants: Anyone working in research, science, or academia and who submitted at least one peer-reviewed manuscript for consideration for publication in 2017. Completed surveys were available for 372 participants from 41 countries (60% of respondents were from Canada). Main outcome measure: Time (hours) and cost (wage per hour x time) associated with formatting a research paper for publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Results: The median annual income category was US$61,000–80,999, and the median number of publications formatted per year was four. Manuscripts required a median of two attempts before they were accepted for publication. The median formatting time was 14 hours per manuscript, or 52 hours per person, per year. This resulted in a median calculated cost of US$477 per manuscript or US$1,908 per person, per year. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the cost of manuscript formatting in scientific publishing. Our results suggest that scientific formatting represents a loss of 52 hours, costing the equivalent of US$1,908 per researcher per year. These results identify the hidden and pernicious price associated with scientific publishing and provide evidence to advocate for the elimination of strict formatting guidelines, at least prior to acceptance.

Suggested Citation

  • Allana G LeBlanc & Joel D Barnes & Travis J Saunders & Mark S Tremblay & Jean-Philippe Chaput, 2019. "Scientific sinkhole: The pernicious price of formatting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-7, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0223116
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223116
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223116&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0223116?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P. Moore, 2017. "Journals, do your own formatting," Nature, Nature, vol. 542(7639), pages 31-31, February.
    2. Quanmin Guo, 2016. "Journals, agree on manuscript format," Nature, Nature, vol. 540(7634), pages 525-525, December.
    3. Julian Budd, 2017. "Reformatting wastes public funds," Nature, Nature, vol. 543(7643), pages 40-40, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yan Jiang & Robert Lerrigo & Anika Ullah & Muthu Alagappan & Steven M Asch & Steven N Goodman & Sidhartha R Sinha, 2019. "The high resource impact of reformatting requirements for scientific papers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-13, October.
    2. Hans Oh, 2020. "A Call for a More Efficient Submission Process," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-3, July.
    3. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal & Ram Nath Jaiswal, 2018. "A Unified Format for Manuscript Structure, Style and Reference Citation across the Journals," Open Access Journal of Neurology & Neurosurgery, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 7(4), pages 70-72, April.
    4. Yue Zhang & Weiyan Wang & Zhiyi Zhang, 2017. "Journals, Please go Further!," Global Journal of Reproductive Medicine, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 1(5), pages 104-105, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0223116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.