IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i5d10.1007_s11192-024-05008-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The true latency of biomedical research papers

Author

Listed:
  • Lorenzo Manganaro

    (aizoOn Consulting s.r.l.)

Abstract

It is very difficult to get a data-driven estimate of the time needed, on average, to publish a research paper in a biomedical area. This difficulty arises because the metrics reported by individual journals, such as (when available) submission-to-acceptance or submission-to-publication times, are not designed to capture the entire journey of a manuscript, that often faces one or more rejections before finding acceptance in a journal. Consequently, there is a lack of published data, statistics and scientific literature about the actual overall time required, on average, for publication. This study aims at filling this gap across all biomedical research areas by providing a reliable estimate of the time from the moment a new manuscript is drafted and ready for submission to the moment it is actually published. This is done by integrating data from multiple databases to reconstruct the complete journey of each manuscript. Specifically, data from pre-print repositories, namely bioRxiv and MedRxiv, were exploited to link the first version of 129,769 manuscripts, to their published version (involving 4459 peer-reviewed journals), accessed through Europe PubMed Central. As a results, it was estimated a median time for publication of 199 days overall, with a wide variability among different categories, ranging from 238 days in the case of radiology and imaging to 139 days for infectious diseases (which is actually shortened by COVID-19 papers) or 150 days in the case of biochemistry, which was found to be the second-fastest category. It was also found an increasing trend in publication time, with a 4-weeks increase from 2014 to 2019.

Suggested Citation

  • Lorenzo Manganaro, 2024. "The true latency of biomedical research papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(5), pages 2897-2910, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05008-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05008-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05008-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-024-05008-0?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Björk, Bo-Christer & Solomon, David, 2013. "The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 914-923.
    2. Ofer H. Azar, 2007. "The Slowdown In First‐Response Times Of Economics Journals: Can It Be Beneficial?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 179-187, January.
    3. Philip E Bourne & Alon Korngreen, 2006. "Ten Simple Rules for Reviewers," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(9), pages 1-2, September.
    4. Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits, 2017. "Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 633-650, October.
    5. Glenn Ellison, 2002. "The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 947-993, October.
    6. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Panagiotis Tsigaris & Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh, 2021. "Publishing volumes in major databases related to Covid-19," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 831-842, January.
    7. Charles W. Fox, 2017. "Difficulty of recruiting reviewers predicts review scores and editorial decisions at six journals of ecology and evolution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 465-477, October.
    8. Raymond J. Carroll, 2001. "Review Times in Statistical Journals: Tilting at Windmills?," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 57(1), pages 1-6, March.
    9. Arie Y. Lewin, 2014. "The Peer-review Process: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the Extraordinary," Management and Organization Review, The International Association for Chinese Management Research, vol. 10(2), pages 167-173, July.
    10. Lewin, Arie Y., 2014. "The Peer-review Process: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the Extraordinary," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(02), pages 167-173, July.
    11. Ádám Kun, 2020. "Time to Acceptance of 3 Days for Papers About COVID-19," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-10, June.
    12. Ofer H. Azar, 2004. "Rejections and the importance of first response times," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 31(3), pages 259-274, 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. Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits, 2017. "Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 633-650, October.
    2. Lucas Rodriguez Forti & Luiz A. Solino & Judit K. Szabo, 2021. "Trade-off between urgency and reduced editorial capacity affect publication speed in ecological and medical journals during 2020," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    3. Lokman Tutuncu, 2023. "All-pervading insider bias alters review time in Turkish university journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3743-3791, June.
    4. Besim Bilalli & Rana Faisal Munir & Alberto Abelló, 2021. "A framework for assessing the peer review duration of journals: case study in computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 545-563, January.
    5. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    6. Josep Maria Argilés-Bosch & Yuliya Kasperskaya & Josep Garcia-Blandon & Diego Ravenda, 2025. "The interplay of author and editor gender in acceptance delays: evidence from accounting journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1939-1965, March.
    7. Püttmann, Vitus & Thomsen, Stephan L. & Trunzer, Johannes, 2020. "Zur Relevanz von Ausstattungsunterschieden für Forschungsleistungsvergleiche: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag für die Wirtschaftswissenschaften in Deutschland," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-679, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, revised Mar 2021.
    8. Katrin Hussinger & Lorenzo Palladini, 2024. "Information accessibility and knowledge creation: the impact of Google’s withdrawal from China on scientific research," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 753-783, July.
    9. Estevao Alves-Silva & Ana Carolina Figueira Porto & Carine Firmino & Henrique Venancio Silva & Ingrid Becker & Liegy Resende & Livia Borges & Luana Pfeffer & Marcela Silvano & Melina Santos Galdiano &, 2016. "Are the impact factor and other variables related to publishing time in ecology journals?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1445-1453, September.
    10. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2021. "The editor-manuscript game," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4277-4295, May.
    11. Abdelghani Maddi & Luis Miotti, 2024. "On the peer review reports: does size matter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(10), pages 5893-5913, October.
    12. Zhao, Zhi-Dan & Chen, Jiahao & Lu, Yichuan & Zhao, Na & Jiang, Dazhi & Wang, Bing-Hong, 2021. "Dynamic patterns of open review process," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).
    13. Ivana Drvenica & Giangiacomo Bravo & Lucija Vejmelka & Aleksandar Dekanski & Olgica Nedić, 2018. "Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    14. Ofer H. Azar, 2006. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 50(1), pages 37-50, March.
    15. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2008. "Can incentives for research harm research? A business schools' tale," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1248-1265, June.
    16. Azar, Ofer H., 2008. "Evolution of social norms with heterogeneous preferences: A general model and an application to the academic review process," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 420-435, March.
    17. Rodrigo Dorantes-Gilardi & Aurora A. Ramírez-Álvarez & Diana Terrazas-Santamaría, 2023. "Is there a differentiated gender effect of collaboration with super-cited authors? Evidence from junior researchers in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2317-2336, April.
    18. 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.
    19. Dan Tian & Xin Liu & Jiang Li, 2024. "Accelerated acceptance time for preprint submissions: a comparative analysis based on PubMed," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 3787-3807, July.
    20. Sebastian Galiani & Ramiro H. Gálvez, 2017. "The Life Cycle of Scholarly Articles across Fields of Research," NBER Working Papers 23447, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05008-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.