Optimizing the deadlines we give authors and reviewers
Establishing new revision times for Elsevier journals
By Arnout Jacobs | Business Development Director, Elsevier Posted on 22 April 2014
Sometimes, even simple things can make a big difference. An Elsevier project designed to reassess reviewer and revision times is large-scale, involving 1,100 journals. Yet we are focused on one small aspect: optimizing the deadlines we give authors and reviewers. The idea was born at Cell Press, where we decided to look at what would happen if a journal set its review deadline a few days earlier. Results were encouraging: reviews did indeed come in earlier, and there was no difference in reviewer response rates.
Recently, via a controlled experiment on the Journal of Public Economics, we also received confirmation from the scientific community that shorter review deadlines can work. You can find out more in the Short Communication How small changes can influence reviewer behavior.
Building on the lessons learnt at Cell Press, we made an inventory of deadlines across all of our titles. Some journals did not mention any. We also found titles where contributions were routinely received well before the stated deadline. And then there were journals that were still using timeframes from the days when manuscripts were physically sent around the world and back, with deadlines extending up to a year! For journals publishing on arctic geology in the 1980s, this may well have been understandable, but with today’s instant communication, a new policy was due.
Whereas speed has always been important, that importance is increasing in today’s publishing environment. In the past, even if an article was ready, it may still have had to wait for backlogs to clear and issues to be complete. Today, we aim to publish articles online as quickly as possible after they are accepted. So a day saved in peer review, means a day quicker online!
So, how did we set our new deadlines? Our first principle was not to disrupt existing practices. Some fields are slower than others, and usually there is a good reason for this. Other journals are already very fast, and there is little gain in asking contributors to submit within 4 days instead of the existing 5. So we looked at actual reviewing and author revision times, and at stated deadlines, and we used these as a starting point. The biggest gains were to be found in author revision times, where articles can sometimes linger for months. We then came up with proposed new deadlines, and consulted with you as editors. As a result, new reviewer and revision deadlines were implemented at the beginning of the year for around 600 titles.
It’s still early days, so we do not yet know what the results will be. We are keeping a close eye on measurable items, such as response rates, compliance, and submission-to-acceptance times. But qualitative feedback is equally important. Ultimately, we hope that this initiative will speed up the publication process, while keeping all participants satisfied.
Robin Mockett says: May 16, 2014 at 7:03 pm
Speed is good, but the ability of editors to be flexible should not be lost. I did extra experiments that resulted in a stronger paper, based on a reviewer’s suggestions. That was only possible because the editor agreed in advance to double the time to resubmit (from 2 up to 4 months).
As a reviewer, I usually get close to – or even a few days beyond – the 2-week deadline. If the deadline was 7 or 10 d, I would get the reviews done a bit faster, but I would decline a larger fraction of requests to review.
Arnout Jacobs says: May 21, 2014 at 11:16 am
Agree that journals should remain flexible! We all want the best content, and missing out on a great article because its revisions are overdue would be a shame. Especially if authors/reviewers notify the Editors that they will be a bit late.
rldawkins says: May 16, 2014 at 10:51 pm
some referees delay intentionally while they improve their competitive position
some ask for changes for the same reason
some of these bad guys insist that their work be cited
You might like to warn reviewers that you are on the lookout for bad behavoir