Time to publish? Turnaround times, acceptance rates, and impact factors of journals in fisheries science

Double-blind peer review is detrimental to scientific integrity

I make six arguments for why double-blind peer review practices increase vulnerability to scientific integrity lapses over more transparent peer review practices: (1) obscuring data from reviewers is detrimental; (2) obscuring sponsorship makes bias harder to detect; (3) author networks can be revealing; (4) undue trust and responsibility are placed on editors; (5) double-blind reviews are not really all that blind; and (6) willful blindness is not the answer to prestige bias. I offer an alternative approach that could provide a more transparent approach for improving scientific integrity and equity in publishing.

Publishing during a Pandemic: Analyzing Recent Publication Times in Hand Surgery

Background

Timely distribution of research is crucial for improving treatments and patient care; however, the publication process is historically unhurried. The primary goal of this study was to analyze the time to publication in hand surgery for 5 years and to examine potential factors affecting publication speed.

Methods

A 5-year review (2017-2021) was performed on 4 major hand surgery journals. The Journal of Hand Surgery American Volume, Journal of Hand Surgery European Volume, Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery were included in the review. Differences were assessed using analysis of variance or 2-sided independent t tests for continuous variables.

Results

There was a significant difference in submission-to-publication time between journals (P < 0.001). This differed by year (P < 0.001), with a significant increase in time from submission to publication after 2019, during the COVID-19 pandemic (447 ± 198 versus 406 ± 169 d, P < 0.001). Geographic region of the primary institution did affect submission-to-publication time (P < 0.001). No significant difference was seen in submission-to-publication time based on the number of institutions contributing, article type, or first author or corresponding author surgical specialty (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Time to publication in hand surgery varies by hand surgery journal and significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. New research reflects work done over a year ago at least. Participation in the peer-review process should be encouraged and bolstered within the hand surgery community to improve research dissemination times within the field.

Five problems plaguing publishing in the life sciences-and one common cause

Although publication in scholarly peer-reviewed journals remains the gold standard for communication of findings in the life sciences, the gold has been debased in the digital age by various impurities, including (a) reviewer fatigue, (b) fraud, paper mills, and the perils of artificial intelligence, (c) predatory journals, (d) the ongoing use of journal impact factor as a proxy for individual article quality, and (e) salami-slicing and other unethical practices. In this article, I present a detailed overview of these problems, as well as solutions proposed and implemented to counter them. Finally, I suggest that these are all symptomatic of a wider problem, namely the culture of 'publish or perish' and ongoing issues with how researcher performance is evaluated for grant, hiring, and promotion decisions. Only by working towards a global shift in the way scientists view the purpose of publication can we finally remove the impurities and refine the gold.

Vet the journal before you submit: turnaround times of journals publishing in zoological medicine and related fields

Many factors influence selection of a target journal for publishing scientific papers, including "fit" within the journal's scope, acceptance rate, readership, open access options, submission and publication costs, journal quality, and timeliness of publication. Timeliness of publication can be a critical factor affecting career development, but many journals are not transparent about turnaround times. Here we evaluated 49 journals publishing papers in zoological medicine and related fields between 2017 and 2022, and aggregated and examined distributions of turnaround time of journals that publicly provided the requisite data, in order to aid authors in selecting target journals that best meet their needs. Of 49 journals evaluated, 39 provided necessary dates for reconstructing turnaround times. Of these, median times to acceptance ranged from 37 to 338 days, and median times to publication ranged from 41 to 403.5 days. The percentage of papers published in greater than 1 year ("slow") ranged from 0 to 57.1%, while the percentage of papers published in under 6 months ("timely") ranged from 0.8 to 99.8%. Acceptance rates and times to first decision were available for only 22% and 20%, respectively, of journals evaluated. Results may prove useful for authors deciding where to submit their works, depending on how they prioritize the many factors involved.

Journal Selection Primer for Neuroradiology Researchers

Junior Neuroradiology investigators face a rapidly expanding universe of potential journals for manuscript submission. Each journal possesses many unique features, including scope/breadth of research focus, willingness to accept specific types of articles (for example, Review Articles, or Case Reports), status of indexing on major academic indices, scholarly relevance (usually defined as Impact Factor) and access type (Open Access, subscription, or Hybrid Access). An uninformed choice of target journal can burden not only Editors and Reviewers but also increase the effort and frustration level of relatively inexperienced investigators and ultimately result in a worthy manuscript not getting published. In order to assist Junior Neuroradiology investigators in optimizing journal selection for manuscript submission, we provide a Primer that includes background information on all the journal features listed previously. We also provide detailed tabular data for all Radiology, Neuroradiology, and associated Neuroscience Clinical Journals that follow proper academic standards as a quick and useful reference guide for optimal journal selection.

How publication timelines effect the impact metrics: studying the influence of submission to first decision and submission to acceptance on impact factor and 5-year impact factor of journals

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the Publication Timeline, i.e. Submission to First Decision and Submission to Acceptance on Journal Metrics, i.e. Impact Factor (IF) and 5-year IF.

Design/methodology/approach

Data related to the IF and 5-year IF were retrieved from Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Citation Report 2020. The Publication Timeline of each journal was ascertained through their respective websites. To attain the model fit summary, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was performed. Regression analysis was also performed on the models using SPSS 21 software to ascertain the nature and degree of impact the Publication Timeline (Submission to First Decision and Submission to Acceptance) has on Journal Metrics (IF and 5-year IF).

Findings

Submission to First Decision has a significant inverse relationship with both the IF and 5-year IF, whereas Submission to Acceptance has a significant direct relation with 5-year IF and an inverse but insignificant relationship with IF.

Research limitations/implications

Journals published by Springer Nature and of multidisciplinary nature have been considered for the study. Only those journals were selected that provided the information regarding the Publication Timeline, whereas those which did not provide the same, were excluded. However, new insights can be revealed if the journals published by different publishers and belonging to one particular discipline are studied.

Practical implications

The study helps to ascertain the impact of the Publication Timeline on the Impact Metrics of the journals. It can help the authors select the journals as their publishing venues considering the Publication Timeline. Publishers can also be benefitted from the findings of this study since improvisations and modifications in their Publication Timelines can positively influence the impact metrics of their respective journals.

Originality/value

The study attempts to measure the impact of the Publication Timeline on Journal Metrics using cross-sectional secondary data, by performing regression analysis. Though various studies have examined the influence of the Publication Timeline on the IF using correlation analysis, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first of its kind to use regression analysis to check the relation, as well as the degree of impact the Publication Timeline, has on Journal Metrics.

The impact of radiomics for human papillomavirus status prediction in oropharyngeal cancer: systematic review and radiomics quality score assessment

Purpose

Human papillomavirus (HPV) status assessment is crucial for decision making in oropharyngeal cancer patients. In last years, several articles have been published investigating the possible role of radiomics in distinguishing HPV-positive from HPV-negative neoplasms. Aim of this review was to perform a systematic quality assessment of radiomic studies published on this topic.

Methods

Radiomics studies on HPV status prediction in oropharyngeal cancer patients were selected. The Radiomic Quality Score (RQS) was assessed by three readers to evaluate their methodological quality. In addition, possible correlations between RQS% and journal type, year of publication, impact factor, and journal rank were investigated.

Results

After the literature search, 19 articles were selected whose RQS median was 33% (range 0–42%). Overall, 16/19 studies included a well-documented imaging protocol, 13/19 demonstrated phenotypic differences, and all were compared with the current gold standard. No study included a public protocol, phantom study, or imaging at multiple time points. More than half (13/19) included feature selection and only 2 were comprehensive of non-radiomic features. Mean RQS was significantly higher in clinical journals.

Conclusion

Radiomics has been proposed for oropharyngeal cancer HPV status assessment, with promising results. However, these are supported by low methodological quality investigations. Further studies with higher methodological quality, appropriate standardization, and greater attention to validation are necessary prior to clinical adoption.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00234-022-02959-0.