Quiz time! How long would you estimate it takes for a paper to go through peer review?
On average, it takes 80 days per paper or 1,920 hours (according to an article by M. Ware in Publishing Research Consortium). That’s a lot of time spent waiting for a decision. In hopes to alievating this pain point, Wiley is piloting “transferable peer review.” As outlined in a recent Wiley Exchanges article, this new system will cut down on review time.
Here are a few of the main points:
- The system allows you the option to preserve and transfer initial peer review, should you receive a decision to reject from one journal and wish to request transfer to another.
- The review is now able to travel with the article on its route to publication. By reducing the number of reviews in the universe, the aim is to reduce the burden on reviewers, while helping editors to make faster decisions and increase the publication speed.
There are initiatives to take some journals out of the peer review process altogether and detach reviewer reports from publication in a specific journal. Many authors know which journals they would prefer to publish and would rather not be told which journal they should submit. Many authors do not want undesirable journals to bid for publication of their paper.
For more information, check out the full article visit the Wiley Exchanges page here.
ChemistryViews‘ series on submitting manuscripts continues with “After Submission and Handling Referee Comments: Manuscript Accepted or Revision Requested.”
In this post, Richard Threlfall writes about how to revise your manuscript after receiving reviewers’ comments. This task can be the most difficult but considering suggestions from reviewers and “referees” is important for the publishing process.
Here are some of Threlfall’s major points to consider:
- Think about the reviewer’s comments in their broadest sense and try not to just alter the few things that they might have specifically mentioned.
- If you believe that a suggestion is unreasonable or is not scientifically accurate, then say so.
- Electronically highlight all the changes that you.
- Thoroughly describe all the changes in a cover letter.
Threlfall states, “Marking the changes and explaining them clearly in your letter shows you are genuinely interested in improving your work and not trying to do just the minimum to get it published.”
Above all, it is important to examine a reviewer’s recommendations and address them as impartially as possible.
Gary Spencer, Associate Director of Product Management in Wiley’s Global Research Division, created a video presentation about the evolution of digital publishing. Even though researchers used PDFs most of the time, there are many different ways to view and access journal articles. From PDFs and HTML to tablet apps and “smart-articles,” scholarly publishing and researchers have to adapt to these developments.
View the video from Gary Spencer below and let us know what you think. Are you devoted to print articles or do you find electronic versions easier to navigate? What advancements would you like to see in digital publishing?
For more information on this topic, click here to read the full article on Wiley Exchanges.
Our colleagues at Wiley Exchanges surveyed authors about their experiences and opinions on Open Access. You can view these results through this interactive visualization tool. The tool allows you to easily manipulate the charts to view results by a variety of groupings including geographic region, age group, and subject area.
If you published an open access article in the past 3 years, take this short poll.