Cargando…

Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows

In this paper, we undertake a data-driven theoretical investigation of editorial workflows. We analyse a dataset containing information about 58 papers submitted to the Biochemistry and Biotechnology section of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. We separate the peer review process into sta...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mrowinski, Maciej J., Fronczak, Agata, Fronczak, Piotr, Nedic, Olgica, Ausloos, Marcel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819515/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27073291
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1871-z
_version_ 1782425215241814016
author Mrowinski, Maciej J.
Fronczak, Agata
Fronczak, Piotr
Nedic, Olgica
Ausloos, Marcel
author_facet Mrowinski, Maciej J.
Fronczak, Agata
Fronczak, Piotr
Nedic, Olgica
Ausloos, Marcel
author_sort Mrowinski, Maciej J.
collection PubMed
description In this paper, we undertake a data-driven theoretical investigation of editorial workflows. We analyse a dataset containing information about 58 papers submitted to the Biochemistry and Biotechnology section of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. We separate the peer review process into stages that each paper has to go through and introduce the notion of completion rate - the probability that an invitation sent to a potential reviewer will result in a finished review. Using empirical transition probabilities and probability distributions of the duration of each stage we create a directed weighted network, the analysis of which allows us to obtain the theoretical probability distributions of review time for different classes of reviewers. These theoretical distributions underlie our numerical simulations of different editorial strategies. Through these simulations, we test the impact of some modifications of the editorial policy on the efficiency of the whole review process. We discover that the distribution of review time is similar for all classes of reviewers, and that the completion rate of reviewers known personally by the editor is very high, which means that they are much more likely to answer the invitation and finish the review than other reviewers. Thus, the completion rate is the key factor that determines the efficiency of each editorial policy. Our results may be of great importance for editors and act as a guide in determining the optimal number of reviewers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4819515
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48195152016-04-10 Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows Mrowinski, Maciej J. Fronczak, Agata Fronczak, Piotr Nedic, Olgica Ausloos, Marcel Scientometrics Article In this paper, we undertake a data-driven theoretical investigation of editorial workflows. We analyse a dataset containing information about 58 papers submitted to the Biochemistry and Biotechnology section of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. We separate the peer review process into stages that each paper has to go through and introduce the notion of completion rate - the probability that an invitation sent to a potential reviewer will result in a finished review. Using empirical transition probabilities and probability distributions of the duration of each stage we create a directed weighted network, the analysis of which allows us to obtain the theoretical probability distributions of review time for different classes of reviewers. These theoretical distributions underlie our numerical simulations of different editorial strategies. Through these simulations, we test the impact of some modifications of the editorial policy on the efficiency of the whole review process. We discover that the distribution of review time is similar for all classes of reviewers, and that the completion rate of reviewers known personally by the editor is very high, which means that they are much more likely to answer the invitation and finish the review than other reviewers. Thus, the completion rate is the key factor that determines the efficiency of each editorial policy. Our results may be of great importance for editors and act as a guide in determining the optimal number of reviewers. Springer Netherlands 2016-02-09 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4819515/ /pubmed/27073291 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1871-z Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Article
Mrowinski, Maciej J.
Fronczak, Agata
Fronczak, Piotr
Nedic, Olgica
Ausloos, Marcel
Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows
title Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows
title_full Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows
title_fullStr Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows
title_full_unstemmed Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows
title_short Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows
title_sort review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819515/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27073291
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1871-z
work_keys_str_mv AT mrowinskimaciejj reviewtimeinpeerreviewquantitativeanalysisandmodellingofeditorialworkflows
AT fronczakagata reviewtimeinpeerreviewquantitativeanalysisandmodellingofeditorialworkflows
AT fronczakpiotr reviewtimeinpeerreviewquantitativeanalysisandmodellingofeditorialworkflows
AT nedicolgica reviewtimeinpeerreviewquantitativeanalysisandmodellingofeditorialworkflows
AT ausloosmarcel reviewtimeinpeerreviewquantitativeanalysisandmodellingofeditorialworkflows