Acceptance Rate For Manuscripts Research Articles

Journal Status Report 2023

Manuscript submissions to the Philippine Journal of Science (PJS; philjournalsci.dost.gov.ph) in 2023 were at 42.50 ± 13.29 per month, which is 47% higher than that (28.92 ± 8.49) in 2022. The acceptance rates in 2022 and 2023 were 66.18 and 42.68%, respectively. Presented below are figures of manuscript submissions (blue) and acceptance rate (green) from 2010–2023. The number of submissions in 2023 was 8.5 times higher than that in 2015, whereas the acceptance rate decreased by more than 24% compared to the average rate of 67 ± 4% in the last eight years ending 2022. Without exception, the Editorial Office subjects every submission to a single-blind peer-review process involving at least two independent expert-evaluators, and an editorial decision is rendered immediately after the first round when major manuscript revision is unanimously recommended. In most cases, the final decision is made on publication suitability after two rounds of evaluation.

Status of mental health in South Asian countries

Status of mental health in South Asian countries

Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Author Sex and Manuscript Acceptance Rates among Pulmonary and Critical Care Journals.

Rationale: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has negatively affected women more than men and may influence the publication of non-COVID-19 research. Objectives: To evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with changes in manuscript acceptance rates among pulmonary/critical care journals and sex-based disparities in these rates. Methods: We analyzed first, senior, and corresponding author sex (female vs. male, identified by matching first names in a validated Genderize database) of manuscripts submitted to four pulmonary/critical care journals between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. We constructed interrupted time series regression models to evaluate whether the proportion of female first and senior authors of non-COVID-19 original research manuscripts changed with the pandemic. Next, we performed multivariable logistic regressions to evaluate the association of author sex with acceptance of original research manuscripts. Results: Among 8,332 original research submissions, women represented 39.9% and 28.3% of first and senior authors, respectively. We found no change in the proportion of female first or senior authors of non-COVID-19 or COVID-19 submitted research manuscripts during the COVID-19 era. Non-COVID-19 manuscripts submitted during the COVID-19 era had reduced odds of acceptance, regardless of author sex (first author adjusted OR [aOR], 0.46 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.36-0.59]; senior author aOR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.37-0.57]). Female senior authorship was associated with decreased acceptance of non-COVID-19 research manuscripts (crude rates, 14.4% [male] vs. 13.2% [female]; aOR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.71-0.99]). Conclusions: Although female author submissions were not disproportionately influenced by COVID-19, we found evidence suggesting sex disparities in manuscript acceptance rates. Journals may need to consider strategies to reduce this disparity, and academic institutions may need to factor our findings, including lower acceptance rates for non-COVID-19 manuscripts, into promotion decisions.

Dynamic patterns of open review process

Recently, the open review process has attracted the attention of more and more researchers. In order to deeply and quantitatively understand the process, we employ statistical analysis methods, combining human dynamics theory with the assortative mixing analysis of networks to study the process. Our results present the burst characteristics and preference characteristics of authors and reviewers during the review process. Simultaneously, these results demonstrate the irrelevance between the popularity of the manuscript research topic and the manuscript acceptance rate. Moreover, using the assortative mixing analysis method confirmed that the keywords network basically has obvious assortativity. Furthermore, these results suggest that although no inevitable connection between keywords and the acceptance rate of the manuscript, the combination of keywords in the manuscript is influential. Our research results provide useful points for the design of the review system and paper submission. Future work should analyze more data from other disciplines or deconstruct the underlying mechanism of the open review process.

Peer review declaration

All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information:• Type of peer review: Single-blind• Conference submission management system: Manual by Email• Number of submissions received: 89 manuscript• Number of submissions sent for review: 89 manuscript• Number of submissions accepted: 77 manuscriptAcceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 86.52• Average number of reviews per paper: 1• Total number of reviewers involved: 20• Any additional info on review process:A review process was conducted in four main steps: (i) A minimum of one reviewer was assigned to referee the manuscript. (ii) suggestions/comments from reviewers were mailed to the corresponding authors. There will be 21 days period for the authors to revise the manuscript (iii) once the manuscript was declared accepted by the reviewers, the committee looked over the format of the manuscript and conduct the similarity check using Turnitin software. (iv) if the manuscript has a similarity higher than 40%, the manuscript was sent back again to the corresponding authors and ask for another revision. On the other hand, if the format and the similarity check has fulfilled the criteria, the manuscript was ready to be submitted. The main criteria when assessing the paper are originality, quality and clarity of contents, suitability of references used, contribution to the related fields, depth of research, and quality of English. The reviewer was asked to fill in the comments in the provided tables including general comment and comments on introduction, methodology, results and discussion, bibliography/references, other comments, and final notes. There are five referee’s decisions on review process including: (i) can be published without revision (ii) can be published with minor revision (iii) can be published with major revision (iv) shall be returned to the reviewer after revision (v) rejected.• Contact person for queries: Wibawa Hendra Saputera (hendra@che.itb.ac.id)Please submit this form along with the rest of your files on the submission date written in your publishing agreement.The information you provide will be published as part of your proceedings.

Gender and Geographic Origin as Determinants of Manuscript Publication Outcomes: JBMR® Bibliometric Analysis from 2017 to 2019.

The Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (JBMR®), the flagship journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), enjoys a premiere position in its field and has a global reach. The journal uses a single-blind peer-review process whereby three editors are typically involved in assessing each submission for publication, in addition to external reviewers. Although emphasizing fairness, rigor, and transparency, this process is not immune to the influence of unconscious biases. The gender and geographic diversity of JBMR® authors, editors, and reviewers has increased over the last three decades, but whether such diversity has affected peer-review outcomes is unknown. We analyzed manuscript acceptance rates based on the gender and geographic origin of authors, reviewers, and Associate Editors. The analysis included 1662 original research articles submitted to JBMR® from September 2017 through December 2019. Gender was assigned using probabilities from an online tool and manually validated through internet searches. Predictor variables of manuscript outcome were determined with multivariate logistic regression analysis. The acceptance rate was highest when the first and last authors were of different genders, and lowest when both authors were men. Reviewer gender did not influence the outcome regardless of the genders of the first and last authors. Associate Editors from all geographical regions tended to select reviewers from their same region. The acceptance rate was highest when the Associate Editor was from Europe. Manuscripts with authors from North America and Australia/New Zealand had greater overall odds of acceptance than those from Europe and Asia. Manuscripts reviewed only by Editorial Board (EB) members had a lower acceptance rate than those refereed by non-EB reviewers or a mix of EB and non-EB reviewers. Overall, the geographical origin of authors, reviewers, and editors, as well as reviewers' EB membership may influence manuscript decisions. Yet, the JBMR® peer-review process remains largely free from gender bias. © 2022 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Other Voices: International Manuscripts Published in The Family Journal: Calling for a Mentor

This special issue contains representative manuscripts from international authors reporting the results of research conducted in 11 countries or regions. Some of the results are generalizable to particular cultures or groups. Although the International Association of Marriage and Family Counselors, the sponsor of The Family Journal, endeavors to encourage scholars and readers across the globe, many international manuscripts are not accepted for publication. There are challenges faced by authors in the submission, review, and revision process. This overview converges on the need for a mentor for other voices to provide resources and support needed to increase the acceptance rate of international manuscripts.

A Review of Journal Impact Metrics and Characteristics to Assist Emergency Medicine Investigators with Manuscript Submission Decisions.

IntroductionA crucial, yet subjective and non-evidence-based, decision for researchers is where to submit their original research manuscripts. The approach of submitting to journals in descending order of impact factor (IF) is a common but imperfect strategy. The validity of the IF as a measure of journal quality and significance is suspect, and a number of other journal impact scores have emerged, such that no one scale is universally accepted. Furthermore, practical considerations, such as likelihood of manuscript acceptance rates and times for decisions, may influence how authors prioritize journals. In this report, we sought to 1) review emergency medicine (EM) journal impact metrics, and 2) provide a comprehensive list of pertinent journal characteristics that may influence researchers’ choice of submission.MethodsWe systematically reviewed five impact metrics (IF, H Index, CiteScore, Source-Normalized Impact per Paper, and SCImago Journal Rank) and other relevant characteristics of 20 EM journals.ResultsWe found good to excellent agreement in ordinal rankings of four of the journal impact metrics, as measured by the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. The median acceptance rate for original research manuscripts in the EM category was 25% (interquartile range [IQR] 18, 31%), and the median initial decision time was 33 days (IQR 18, 56 days). Fourteen EM journals (70%) accepted brief reports, and 15 (75%) accepted case reports/images.ConclusionWe recommend replication, expansion, and formalization of this repository of information for EM investigators in a continuously updated, open-access forum sponsored by an independent organization.

Reflections on theJournal of the Society for Social Work and Research

Reflections on the<i>Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research</i>

Editorial Introduction: Governance, Citizenry, and Methodological Advancement in Policy Research

Editorial Introduction: Governance, Citizenry, and Methodological Advancement in Policy Research

Personal Manuscript Acceptance Rates: Metrics for Self-assessment in Scholarship.

There is no established baseline for how frequently clinical researchers personally encounter manuscript rejection, making it difficult for faculty to put their own evolving experience in context. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of obtaining personal acceptance per submission (APS) and acceptance per manuscript (APM) rates for individual faculty members. We performed a cross-section survey pilot study of clinical faculty members of two departments (family medicine and pediatrics), in one academic health center in the academic year 2017-2018. The survey asked participants to report the number of attempted submissions required per journal article they have had accepted in the prior 2 years as well as any submissions that did not lead to publication. Sixty-eight of 136 eligible faculty (50%) completed the questionnaire. Academic clinicians in the sample eventually published 80% of the manuscripts submitted, with 39% of papers rejected per submission attempt. Associate professors had the highest APS (0.71) and APM (0.88). In this pilot, we demonstrated the feasibility of retrospectively collecting data that could identify baseline manuscript acceptance rates and were able to generate department averages and rank specific averages for manuscript acceptance and rejection. We confirmed that rejection is common among academic clinicians. The APS and APM can be used by academic clinicians to track their own progress from day one of their publishing careers as a method of self-assessment, rather than having to wait for citations to accumulate.

Difficulty in finding manuscript reviewers is not associated with manuscript acceptance rates: a study of the peer-review process at the journal Radiology

Beyond explicit reviewer commentary, editors may rely on other metrics when evaluating manuscripts under consideration for publication. One potential, indirect measure of merit may be the ease or difficulty in identifying reviewers willing to review a given paper. We sought to determine whether reviewer decisions to agree or decline to review a manuscript are associated with manuscript acceptance. Original Research submissions to “Radiology” from 1/1/2008 to 12/31/2011 were studied. Using Student’s t tests, we studied the association between the ratio number-of-reviewers-declining:number-of-reviewers-agreeing to review manuscripts (“decline:agree ratio”) and editor decision to accept or reject the manuscript. A subgroup analysis of papers in which all four invited reviewers agreed to review the paper (“universal agree-to-review group”) was performed. Pearson’s correlation was used to study decline:agree ratio and accepted manuscript citation rate. Original Research manuscript acceptance rate at Radiology was 14.5% (780/5375). Decline:agree ratio was similar between accepted and rejected manuscripts (0.87 ± 0.84 versus 0.90 ± 0.86 respectively, P = 0.35). “Universal agree-to-review” papers were accepted at similar rates to other papers (15.7% [22/140] versus 14.5% [758/5235] respectively, P = 0.69). Higher decline:agree ratios corresponded to lower manuscript citation rates (r = 0.09, P = 0.048). Our study, based on the lack of correlation between agreement to review rate and acceptance rate to Radiology and the direct correlation between agreement to review rate and manuscript citation rate, suggests that reviewers may have a preference for manuscripts with greater potential scientific relevance, but that reviewer motivation to agree to review does not include the expectation of manuscript acceptance.

Acceptance rates for manuscripts submitted to veterinary peer-reviewed journals in 2012.

Relatively few journals publish their annual acceptance rate, although this figure is of scientific and academic interest. To determine the acceptance rate for manuscripts submitted to veterinary peer-reviewed journals during 2012 and to determine the proportions of submitted manuscripts that were accepted without revision, accepted after revision or rejected. Self-reporting email questionnaire Editors of 118 peer-reviewed journals listed in the Web of Science in the subject category veterinary sciences were invited by email to submit data pertinent to manuscripts submitted to their journal in 2012. Data were received from 30 (26%) journals. Mean ± s.d. acceptance rate was 47 ± 15%. On average 3 ± 5% submitted manuscripts were accepted without revision, 44% ± 15% manuscripts were accepted after revision, 4 ± 4% manuscripts were withdrawn by authors, 46 ± 17% manuscripts were rejected and 3 ± 5% manuscripts were still pending at the end of the study period. With so few manuscripts accepted without revision, prospective authors must expect to expend time and effort revising and resubmitting their manuscripts for publication. Although authors are frequently able to correct manuscript flaws identified by reviewers, the knowledge that less than half submitted manuscripts are accepted might help stimulate prospective authors to try to submit better quality manuscripts.

Fate of Manuscripts Rejected From the Red Journal

To evaluate characteristics associated with higher rates of acceptance for original manuscripts submitted for publication to the International Journal of Radiation Oncology • Biology • Physics (IJROBP) and describe the fate of rejected manuscripts. Manuscripts submitted to the IJROBP from May 1, 2010, to August 31, 2010, and May 1, 2012, to August 31, 2012, were evaluated for author demographics and acceptance status. A PubMed search was performed for each IJROBP-rejected manuscript to ascertain whether the manuscript was ultimately published elsewhere. The Impact Factor of the accepting journal and the number of citations of the published manuscript were also collected. Of the 500 included manuscripts, 172 (34.4%) were accepted and 328 (65.6%) were rejected. There was no significant difference in acceptance rates according to gender or degree of the submitting author, but there were significant differences seen based on the submitting author's country, rank, and h-index. On multivariate analysis, earlier year submitted (P<.0001) and higher author h-index (P=.006) remained significantly associated with acceptance into the IJROBP. Two hundred thirty-five IJROBP-rejected manuscripts (71.7%) were ultimately published in a PubMed-listed journal as of July 2014. There were no significant differences in any submitting author characteristics. Journals accepting IJROBP-rejected manuscripts had a lower median [interquartile range] 2013 impact factor compared with the IJROBP (2.45 [1.53-3.71] vs 4.176). The IJROBP-rejected manuscripts ultimately published elsewhere had a lower median [interquartile range] number of citations (1 [0-4] vs 6 [2-11]; P<.001), which persisted on multivariate analysis. The acceptance rate for manuscripts submitted to the IJROBP is approximately one-third, and approximately 70% of rejected manuscripts are ultimately published in other PubMed-listed journals, but these ultimate-destination journals usually have a lower impact factor, leading to fewer citations and overall visibility.

Publication patterns and citation analysis of APJTM during 2008 and June 2014

ObjectiveTo draw on data about publication patterns and citation indicators of Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Medicine (APJTM) during 2008 and June 2014 in order to know about the current state of the journal. MethodsData used in this study were collected based on publications in APJTM from 2008 to June, 2014. Information including publication issue, type of manuscript, country/region of Corresponding author, funded research paper, and international collaboration were aggregated and analyzed with Excel software. Citation indicators including total cites, average cites of each manuscript, h-index, and impact factors were primarily drawn from Web of Science™ database on June 15, 2014 and changes over the past six and half years were interpreted. The top 10 most cited papers in Web of Science™ database were also analyzed. ResultsNumber of all submissions has arisen from less than 200 in 2008 to over 1 500 in 2013, manuscript acceptance rate has decreased to be less than 14.00% indicating its improvement in quality over this period of time. Out of the 1 115 publiations, 23.77% were fruits of funded projects or produced by funded co-authors, 87.08% of all publications in APJTM were submited by authors from 10 most contributed countries. During the studied period, each published manuscript in the journal has received an average of 1.05 cites, and at least 10 publications has been cited for more 10 times. ConclusionDetailed analysis shows APJTM has made great progress over the past six and half years, but authors' originating countries are still disproportionate. Efforts should be made to improve its citation indicators.

Acceptance rate and reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound during 2012.

Better understanding of the reasons why manuscripts are rejected, and recognition of the most frequent manuscript flaws identified by reviewers, should help submitting authors to avoid these pitfalls. Of 219 manuscripts submitted to Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound in 2012, none (0%) was accepted without revision, four (2%) were withdrawn by the authors, 99 (45%) were accepted after revision, and 116 (53%) were rejected. All manuscripts for which minor revision was requested, and 73/86 (85%) manuscripts for which major revision was requested, were ultimately accepted. Acceptance rate was greater for retrospective studies and for manuscripts submitted from countries in which English was the primary language. The prevalences of flaws in manuscripts were poor writing (62%), deficiencies in data (60%), logical or methodological errors (28%), content not suitable for Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound (26%), and lack of new or useful knowledge (25%). Likelihood of manuscript rejection was greater for lack of new or useful knowledge and content not suitable than for other manuscript flaws. The lower acceptance rate for manuscripts from countries in which English was not the primary language was associated with content not suitable and not poor writing. Submitting authors are encouraged to do more to recognize and address manuscript flaws before submission, for example by internal review. Specifically, submitting authors should express clearly the potential added value of their study in the introduction section of their manuscript, describe completely their methods and results, and consult the Editor-in-Chief if they are uncertain whether their subject matter would be suitable for the journal.

Journal of Real-Time Image Processing: second issue of volume 9

The editorial board of JRTIP met in Brussels in April 2014 where they were attending the SPIE Conference on RealTime Image and Video Processing. The editorial board will have its next meeting in San Francisco in February 2015 where the same conference will take place as part of the SPIE Electronic Imaging Symposium. In the recently held editorial meeting (see Fig. 1), various items related to the status of the journal were discussed; a summary of these items is provided below. To address the backlog of printed versions of the accepted manuscripts that appear on Online First, we are pleased to state that the number of printed pages per issue will be increased to 200 pages per issue starting in 2015 for a total page count of 800 pages annually. It is hoped that the backlog situation is eased as a result of this page count increase. We will revisit this issue in 2015 to see whether further actions would be needed to resolve this issue. The journal performance numbers that have become available for the year 2013 clearly reflect the elevated recognition level of JRTIP. In 2013, similar to 2012, the acceptance rate of manuscripts submitted to JRTIP has remained at about 25 %. This is an indication that our review process is conducted in such a way that only quality papers are published in JRTIP. It is worth noting that the usage factor (UF) of JRTIP, which is the ratio of the number of paper downloads over the number of papers for a 2-year period, has increased by about 75 % from 2011 to 2012. With the substantial increase in the number of downloads to 34,000? in 2013 from 25,500? in 2012, it is expected that the 2013 UF would increase significantly. We would like to particularly thank the Associate Editors and the Springer Editorial Office for the major roles they have played in increasing these numerical indicators while maintaining the quality of published papers. Here, it is worth pointing out that the third issue in 2014 will be allocated to two special issues that are scheduled to appear together. These special issues are named ‘‘Algorithms and Architectures for Real-time Multi-Dimensional Image Processing’’ and ‘‘Convergence of Real-Time 3D Imaging and Optical Communications’’. This regular issue of JRTIP includes six papers. The first paper by Juliet et al. presents a compound image segmentation algorithm based on the mixed raster content (MRC) model (foreground/mask/background). After segmenting a compound image into different classes, each class is transformed to the MRC model according to its properties. The foreground and the background layers are compressed using JPEG 2000 while the mask layer is compressed using JBIG2. It is shown that this MRC compression achieves a higher subjective quality and coding efficiency than the state-of-the-art compression algorithms, such as JPEG, JPEG 2000 and H.264/AVC-I. The second paper by Bartovsky et al. introduces an additional, intra-operator level of parallelism for dilation/ erosion operations. Realized in a dedicated hardware, for rectangular structuring elements with programmable size, the implementation allows obtaining real-time performances for these operators that were previously unachievable. Low latency and memory requirements are the other main attributes of this parallelism. The third paper by Gaceb et al. describes a document classification approach based on physical layout features N. Kehtarnavaz (&) University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA e-mail: kehtar@utdallas.edu

Manuscript Paths and Acceptance Rates at American Anthropologist

Manuscript Paths and Acceptance Rates at <i>American Anthropologist</i>

How authors can maximise the chance of manuscript acceptance and article visibility

The current peer-review system is being overloaded with manuscript submissions that increasingly exceed reviewer availability and journal publication space. Consequently manuscript rejections rates, peer-review requests, and subject-editors' workloads are mounting. Here we outline common problems with manuscript submissions and propose solutions that are both straightforward and easy to implement. We suggest that authors themselves can do much more to relieve the overloaded peer-review system, while simultaneously increasing their own manuscript acceptance rate and article visibility.

Editor's Note

It gives me great pleasure to welcome our readers to an exciting issue of Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology (UOG) to start the New Year. The Opinion and related articles on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) represent a new dawn for those of us who, in practicing obstetric ultrasound, have been reliant on invasive procedures that carry a risk of miscarriage to make the diagnosis of fetal aneuploidy. Not only is NIPT a reality today, but the implications of this technology and of array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) for the clinical management of pregnancy and practice of fetal medicine are considerable and far-reaching1. It is for this reason that UOG will make every effort to attract and publish work on NIPT and array CGH for the benefit of our readers. The recent festive holiday period also afforded me the opportunity to reflect on output and plan for the future of UOG. This time last year we set ourselves the challenging task of both improving the academic quality of the Journal and reducing the 6-month backlog of manuscripts awaiting publication2. I am pleased to confirm that, with the hard work, dedication and determination of our Reviewers, Editors and Editorial Staff, we have managed to reduce the waiting time to publication by a third without compromising the rapid manuscript turnaround times that we had achieved in the previous year. In light of the increased number of submissions, the acceptance rate for manuscripts in UOG fell slightly, to around 30%, a figure comparable to that of our competitor journals. The quality of UOG's peer review and editorial process was the subject of an internal audit of 250 rejected manuscripts; it was extremely reassuring to find that approximately 50% of these articles were not published in peer-reviewed journals in the subsequent year and that all but one of those that were published appeared in journals with lower Impact Factors. Incidentally, the article that was published in a higher impact journal concerned a topic judged not to be suitable for UOG. In keeping with the objective of improving the clinical relevance and impact of UOG, the Editorial Team have made a concerted effort to fast-track high-priority manuscripts and to aid the dissemination of information by assigning them as the Journal Club article of the month. The measureable effect of this process has been to increase both article and Journal Club slide downloads. In 2012, papers designated as Journal Club articles were downloaded four to five times more often than were other articles, with some reaching almost 2000 downloads3, 4. The Journal has also followed through on the promise to deliver each month a systematic or narrative review as a lead article, given their clinical relevance and academic impact in terms of citations5, 6. However, despite these positive steps, I am cognisant of the fact that there is a significant obstetric bias in UOG. It is with this in mind that we have specifically encouraged gynecology submissions in the last year. This policy has resulted in a marked increase in the quality of work submitted and published, especially in the fields of gynecological oncology and urogynecology7-9. A number of new features that should be of interest to our readers have been introduced recently or are planned for the forthcoming year. We are now regularly inviting two reviewers each month to pen a Referee Commentary to add context and counterpoint to some of the material that we publish. For trainees and other readers who are at a relatively early stage in their careers, a series of didactic ‘How To’ articles are planned on fundamental imaging procedures, backed up with online supplementary PowerPoint slides, images and videos. To keep the Journal focused on current topics of research and debate, and to remain responsive to authors and accessible to readers whilst maintaining a fast and effective editorial service, is a daunting task. Thankfully, this is made much easier by the efforts of my fellow Editors and the Journal office staff. I am confident that, with this continuing support, the Journal will remain an invaluable resource to researchers, readers and trainees alike. I would like to thank you for your continued loyalty to the Journal and, as always, would welcome your opinions and thoughts about UOG.