Publication speed in pharmacy practice journals: A comparative analysis.

Antonio M Mendes,Fernanda S Tonin,Fernando Fernandez-Llimos,Roberto Pontarolo,Felipe F Mainka,Tim Mathes

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253713

Abstract

Scholarly publishing system relies on external peer review. However, the duration of publication process is a major concern for authors and funding bodies. To evaluate the duration of the publication process in pharmacy practice journals compared with other biomedical journals indexed in PubMed. All the articles published from 2009 to 2018 by the 33 pharmacy practice journals identified in Mendes et al. study and indexed in PubMed were gathered as study group. A comparison group was created through a random selection of 3000 PubMed PMIDs for each year of study period. Articles with publication dates outside the study period were excluded. Metadata of both groups of articles were imported from PubMed. The duration of editorial process was calculated with three periods: acceptance lag (days between 'submission date' and 'acceptance date'), lead lag (days between 'acceptance date' and 'online publication date'), and indexing lag (days between 'online publication date' and 'Entry date'). Null hypothesis significance tests and effect size measures were used to compare these periods between both groups. The 33 pharmacy practice journals published 26,256 articles between 2009 and 2018. Comparison group random selection process resulted in a pool of 23,803 articles published in 5,622 different journals. Acceptance lag was 105 days (IQR 57-173) for pharmacy practice journals and 97 days (IQR 56-155) for the comparison group with a null effect difference (Cohen's d 0.081). Lead lag was 13 (IQR 6-35) and 23 days (IQR 9-45) for pharmacy practice and comparison journals, respectively, which resulted in a small effect. Indexing lag was 5 days (IQR 2-46) and 4 days (IQR 2-12) for pharmacy practice and control journals, which also resulted in a small effect. Slight positive time trend was found in pharmacy practice acceptance lag, while slight negative trends were found for lead and indexing lags for both groups. Publication process duration of pharmacy practice journals is similar to a general random sample of articles from all disciplines.

Highlights

Publishing articles is the most common way to disseminate the results of research activities
Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process; we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles
All the articles published from 2009 to 2018 by the 33 pharmacy practice journals identified in Mendes et al study and indexed in PubMed were gathered as study group

Summary

Introduction

Publishing articles is the most common way to disseminate the results of research activities. Publication times have always been a major concern for authors because a delay in the publication leads to a delay in the dissemination of the knowledge they discovered and because their careers and future funding depend on publications [2]. These delays are amplified because many articles are peer reviewed and rejected at least once before they are published [3]. The U.S National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) reported that the results of 42% of the 232 RCTs funded between 2000 and 2011 had been published before January 2013, with a median time from funding to publication of 25 months [5]. The duration of publication process is a major concern for authors and funding bodies

Methods

Results

Conclusion