IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0223976.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The high resource impact of reformatting requirements for scientific papers

Author

Listed:
  • Yan Jiang
  • Robert Lerrigo
  • Anika Ullah
  • Muthu Alagappan
  • Steven M Asch
  • Steven N Goodman
  • Sidhartha R Sinha

Abstract

Background: Most research manuscripts are not accepted for publication on first submission. A major part of the resubmission process is reformatting to another journal’s specific requirements, a process separate from revising the scientific content. There has been little research to understand the magnitude of the burden imposed by the current resubmission process. Methods: We analyzed original research article submission requirements from twelve randomly selected journals in each of eight scientific and clinical focus areas from the InCites Journal Citation Reports database. From the 96 journals selected, we randomly identified three recently published manuscripts and sent surveys to those first and/or corresponding authors (288 total) to solicit information on time spent reformatting resubmissions and opinions on the process. Findings: There was significant variation in manuscript submission requirements for journals within the same scientific focus and only 4% of journals offered a fully format-free initial submission. Of 203 authors responding (71.5% response rate), only 11.8% expressed satisfaction with the resubmission process and 91% desired reforming the current system. Time spent on reformatting delays most publications by at least two weeks and by over three months in about 20% of manuscripts. The effort to comply with submission requirements has significant global economic burden, estimated at over $1.1 billion dollars annually when accounting for a research team’s time. Interpretation: We demonstrate that there is significant resource utilization associated with resubmitting manuscripts, heretofore not properly quantified. The vast majority of authors are not satisfied with the current process. Addressing these issues by reconciling reformatting requirements among journals or adopting a universal format-free initial submission policy would help resolve a major subject for the scientific research community and provide more efficient dissemination of findings.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0223976
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223976
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223976
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223976&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0223976?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. Kendall Powell, 2016. "Does it take too long to publish research?," Nature, Nature, vol. 530(7589), pages 148-151, February.
    2. Ewen Callaway & Kendall Powell, 2016. "Biologists urged to hug a preprint," Nature, Nature, vol. 530(7590), pages 265-265, February.
    3. John P. Moore, 2017. "Journals, do your own formatting," Nature, Nature, vol. 542(7639), pages 31-31, February.
    4. Quanmin Guo, 2016. "Journals, agree on manuscript format," Nature, Nature, vol. 540(7634), pages 525-525, December.
    5. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hans Oh, 2020. "A Call for a More Efficient Submission Process," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-3, July.

    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. Hans Oh, 2020. "A Call for a More Efficient Submission Process," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-3, July.
    2. 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.
    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. Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    5. Corsini, Alberto & Pezzoni, Michele & Visentin, Fabiana, 2021. "What makes a productive Ph.D. student?," MERIT Working Papers 2021-011, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    6. Graddy-Reed, Alexandra & Lanahan, Lauren & D'Agostino, Jesse, 2021. "Training across the academy: The impact of R&D funding on graduate students," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    7. Lanu Kim & Jason H. Portenoy & Jevin D. West & Katherine W. Stovel, 2020. "Scientific journals still matter in the era of academic search engines and preprint archives," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(10), pages 1218-1226, October.
    8. Nicholas Yee Liang Hing & Xin Ci Wong & Pei Xuan Kuan & Mohan Dass Pathmanathan & Mohd Aizuddin Abdul Rahman & Kalaiarasu M. Peariasamy, 2022. "Scientific Abstract to Full Paper: Publication Rate over a 3-Year Period in a Malaysian Clinical Research Conference," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Corsini, Alberto & Pezzoni, Michele & Visentin, Fabiana, 2022. "What makes a productive Ph.D. student?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    11. Hu, Beibei & Ding, Yang & Dong, Xianlei & Bu, Yi & Ding, Ying, 2021. "On the relationship between download and citation counts: An introduction of Granger-causality inference," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    12. Maciej J Mrowinski & Piotr Fronczak & Agata Fronczak & Marcel Ausloos & Olgica Nedic, 2017. "Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, September.
    13. Niccolò Casnici & Francisco Grimaldo & Nigel Gilbert & Pierpaolo Dondio & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2017. "Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: the case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 533-546, October.
    14. Paul Sebo, 2023. "Are acceptance and publication times longer in primary health care journals compared to internal medicine journals? A comparative study of 117 high-impact journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 873-876, January.
    15. Miguel Abambres & Tony Salloom & Nejra Beganovic & Rafał Dojka & Sergio Roncallo-Dow & Tarun Verma & Sukhraj Takhar, 2019. "Bye Bye Peer-Reviewed Publishing," Working Papers hal-02114531, HAL.
    16. Petersen, Alexander M., 2019. "Megajournal mismanagement: Manuscript decision bias and anomalous editor activity at PLOS ONE," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    17. Miguel Abambres & Tony Salloom & Nejra Beganovic & Rafał Dojka & Sergio Roncallo-Dow & Tarun Verma & Sukhraj Takhar, 2019. "Bye Bye Peer-Reviewed Publishing," Post-Print hal-02114531, HAL.
    18. Jian Gao & Yian Yin & Kyle R. Myers & Karim R. Lakhani & Dashun Wang, 2021. "Potentially long-lasting effects of the pandemic on scientists," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-6, December.
    19. Mancuso, Raffaele & Rossi-Lamastra, Cristina & Franzoni, Chiara, 2023. "Topic choice, gendered language, and the under-funding of female scholars in mission-oriented research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    20. Shannon Mason, 2020. "Adoption and usage of Academic Social Networks: a Japan case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1751-1767, March.

    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:pone00:0223976. 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.