A Three-Decade History of the Duration of Peer Review

R. Lee Lyman

26 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Scholarly Publishing

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Writing and Publishing Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

Review time is the duration between submission of a manuscript for possible publication and the author's receipt of notification of the editor's decision. There are two key questions about the peer-review process: (1) Has average review time changed over the past several decades? and (2) Has the adoption of online submission reduced average review time? A sample of 170 manuscripts submitted to a variety of journals from 1980 through 2012 indicates (1) no statistically significant difference between average review time for manuscripts submitted to behavioural science journals (mean=14.8 weeks) and average review time for manuscripts submitted to natural history journals (mean=15.2 weeks); (2) a statistically significant decrease from 1980 to 2012 in average review time irrespective of form of submission (i.e., paper or electronic); and (3) manuscripts submitted in paper form (1980–2009) had an average review time five weeks longer than that of manuscripts submitted online or electronically (2004–2012).

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

References

2003The politics of publication 2007An Incentive Solution to the Peer Review Problem 2008Reviewing Peer Review 1996Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times?2010Pubcreds: Fixing the Peer Review Process by “Privatizing” the Reviewer Commons 2008The tragedy of the reviewer commons*2006Is Peer Review a Game of Chance?2009The Golden Rule of Reviewing

Cited by

2014Reviewer overload and what can we do about it 2014Improving the reviewing process in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 2018Ethics in Peer Review of Academic Journal Articles as Perceived by Authors in the Educational Sciences 2018Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long 2021Peer reviewing in the contemporary academic communications

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.