Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals

Peer review is fundamental to science as we know it, but is also a source of delay in getting discoveries communicated to the world. Researchers have investigated the effectiveness and bias of various forms of peer review, but little attention has been paid to the relationships among journal reputation, rejection rate, number of submissions received and time from submission to acceptance. In 22 ecology/interdisciplinary journals for which data could be retrieved, higher impact factor is positively associated with the number of submissions. However, higher impact factor journals tend to be significantly quicker in moving from submission to acceptance so that journals which receive more submissions are not those which take longer to get them through the peer review and revision processes. Rejection rates are remarkably high throughout the journals analyzed, but tend to increase with increasing impact factor and with number of submissions. Plausible causes and consequences of these relationships for journals, authors and peer reviewers are discussed.

[1]  E. Garfield.  The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. , 2006, JAMA.

[2]  P. Lawrence.  The politics of publication , 2003, Nature.

[3]  M. Eisenhart.  The Paradox of Peer Review: Admitting too Much or Allowing too Little? , 2002 .

[4]  J. Olden,et al.  Is Peer Review a Game of Chance? , 2006 .

[5]  Alan Hastings,et al.  The tragedy of the reviewer commons. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[6]  D. Benos,et al.  The ups and downs of peer review. , 2007, Advances in physiology education.

[7]  Michael Graber,et al.  Publish or Perish? The Increasing Importance of Publications for Prospective Economics Professors in Austria, Germany and Switzerland , 2008 .

[8]  R. Pitkin,et al.  Prodding tardy reviewers: a randomized comparison of telephone, fax, and e-mail. , 2002, JAMA.

[9]  Alan Jay Smith,et al.  The task of the referee , 1990, Computer.

[10]  Andrey Launov,et al.  Publish or perish? The increasing importance of publications for tenure , 2008 .

[11]  Rigor of peer review and the standing of a journal. , 2002, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[12]  Tim M. Blackburn,et al.  Publication rejection among ecologists , 2003 .

[13]  Helmut A. Abt,et al.  Publication practices in various sciences , 1992, Scientometrics.

[14]  F. Davidoff.  Masking, Blinding, and Peer Review: The Blind Leading the Blinded , 1998, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  Peer‐Reviewed Publication: A View from Inside , 2004, Epilepsia.

[16]  F. Hoppin.  How I review an original scientific article. , 2002, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[17]  Roger A Brumback.  Impact Factor Wars: Episode V—The Empire Strikes Back , 2009, Journal of child neurology.

[18]  Amber E. Budden,et al.  Publication bias and merit in ecology , 2007 .

[19]  Amber E. Budden,et al.  Bang for Your Buck: Rejection Rates and Impact Factors in Ecological Journals , 2008 .

[20]  A. Casadevall,et al.  Is Peer Review Censorship? , 2009, Infection and Immunity.

[21]  Marc Hauser,et al.  An Incentive Solution to the Peer Review Problem , 2007, PLoS biology.

[22]  D. Weaire.  Time for a rethink of research proposal evaluation? , 2007, European Review.

[23]  Reviewing: The unsung heroes of excellent journals and publications , 2009 .