Use of peer reviewing indicators for planning the work of the editorial office of a scientific edition (on the example of a biological journal)

Abstract

The peer review process is an extremely important and time-consuming step in preparing a manuscript for publication. It often takes longer than all other stages of article processing. Due to the complexity of peer reviewing, it becomes necessary to analyze it and determine the key points that you should pay attention to when planning the work of the editorial office. In this study, the authors used data obtained in the process of work with reviewers of the journals “Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 16. Biologiya” and “Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin” in 2017–2021, as well as information on articles received by the editorial office in the same period time. The sample of peer reviewers consisted of 319 specialists from various fields of biology and related disciplines. The results of the analysis showed that the average time spent on the primary review was about 11 days, and the average time during which experts respond to the invitation was about 2 days. Reviews received by the editors over five years, on average, contain a little less than 3 000 characters, the volume of reviews does not correlate with the timing of the reviews and their quality. In recent years, the editorial office has managed to reduce the proportion of formal uninformative reviews to 6 %. Both women and men, employees of both universities and research institutes, scientists with candidate and doctoral degrees are equally involved in the work on articles. The important role of reviewers in improving the article and at the same time insufficient encouragement of this important work are emphasized. The results obtained can be useful to the editors of scientific journals when they plan the stages of reviewing articles.