1

Thepublishingdelayinscholarlypeer‐reviewedjournalsBo‐ChristerBjörkProfessor,InformationSystemsScienceHankenSchoolofEconomicsP.B.47900101Helsinki,Finlandbo‐christer.bjork@hanken.fiDavidSolomon(CorrespondingAuthor)Professor,DepartmentofMedicineandOMERADA‐202EFeeHallMichiganStateUniversityELansing,MIUSA48824dsolomon@msu.edu+1517339‐0720

Abstract:  Publishinginscholarlypeerreviewedjournalsusuallyentailslongdelaysfromsubmissiontopublication.Inpartthisisduetothelengthofthepeerreviewprocessandinpartbecauseofthedominatingtraditionofpublicationinissues,earlieranecessityofpaper‐basedpublishing,whichcreatesbacklogsofmanuscriptswaitinginline.Thedelaysslowthedisseminationofscholarshipandcanprovideasignificantburdenontheacademiccareersofauthors.Usingastratifiedrandomsamplewestudiedaveragepublishingdelaysin2700paperspublishedin135journalssampledfromtheScopuscitationindex.Theshortestoveralldelaysoccurinsciencetechnologyandmedical(STM)fieldsandthelongestinsocialscience,arts/humanitiesandbusiness/economics.Business/economicswithadelayof18monthstooktwiceaslongaschemistrywitha9monthaveragedelay.Analysisofthevarianceindicatedthatbyfarthelargestamountofvarianceinthetimebetweensubmissionandacceptancewasamongarticleswithinajournalascomparedwithjournals,disciplinesorthesizeofthejournal.Forthetimebetweenacceptanceandpublicationmostofthevariationindelaycanbeaccountedforbydifferencesbetweenspecificjournals.Keywords:ScholarlyPublishing;ReviewTime;ProcessingTime

2

1 Introduction ScholarlyjournalpublishinghasalonghistorygoingbacktoHenryOldenburg’sPhilosophicalTransactionoftheRoyalSocietyfoundedin1665.Forthepasttwocenturiesthevolumeofpeerreviewedarticlespublishedperyearhasincreasedbyarelativesteady3,5%peryear,withacurrentnumberofarticlesofaround1,8–1,9million,publishedinanestimated28’000journals(WareandMabe2012).Overtheyearsthescientificjournalasaninstitutionhasevolvedinmanywaysandafterthesecondworldwarandtheensuingrapidgrowthinsciencecommercialpublishershaveincreasinglyenteredthismarket,whichearlierwasdominatedbyscientificsocieties.Thedisseminationmediumhasveryrapidlychangedfromprintedissuestopredominantlydigitallydistributedpublishing(VanOrsdelandBorn,2002).Atthesametimethishastriggeredtheemergenceofnewbusinessmodelsfordigitalpublishing,includingbundlede‐licenses,pay‐per‐viewandopenaccesspublishing.ScholarlyjournalpublishinginitscurrentformhasbeentheobjectofincreasedcritiquesincetheadventoftheWorldWideWebandtheopportunitiesitoffersforprocessinnovation,Thedebatehasinparticularconcernedthreeaspects.Firstlythatthereachofthedisseminationthatthetraditionalsubscriptionmodelachievesissuboptimal.Secondlythatthepeerreviewprocessisflawedandfrequentlyleadstoarbitrarydecisions.Thirdlythattherearesignificantdelaysinpublishingarticles.Traditionalpaperpublishinginparticularcreatessignificantdelaysbothduetotheneedtobundlearticlesintoissuesandbacklogscreatedbypagelimitsresultingfromthehighperpagecostofthistypeofpublishing.ThesolutionproposedtothelimiteddisseminationisOpenAccess(OA),whichcanbeachievedeitherthroughpublishinginopenaccessjournals(“goldOA”)orthroughauthor’suploadingmanuscriptversionsoftheirarticles(“greenOA”)tosubjectorinstitutionalrepositories(Suber2012).OAjournalshaveincreasedtheiroutputby20‐30%peryearforoveradecadeandnowpublisharound12%ofallpeerreviewedarticles(LaaksoandBjörk2012).Theopenaccessibilitycanbeachievedviaanumberofbusinessmodelsofwhichthepublishingfeevariantisrapidlyincreasingitsmarketshare.Thecritiqueofthepeerreviewprocesshasledtoanumberofexperimentswithalternativemodels.Thewebmediumlendsitselftodifferentformsofopenreview,wheremanuscriptscanbe“published”priortorevieworwithminimalreviewandsubsequentlyevaluatedbyreadercommentsandelevatedtofullarticlestatusviapostpublicationfeedback.(Björk2011).Openreviewwastriedanddeemedafailureinawell‐knownexperimentbyNature(2006).MoresuccessfulthanopenreviewexperimentsisanalternativepeerreviewmodelpracticedbyanincreasingnumberofOA“megajournals”inthewakeofPLoSONE,whichcurrentlypublishesaround20,000articlesperyear.Inthisformofpeerreviewonlythescientificvalidityoftheresultsischecked,thedecisionconcerningthepotentialcontributionisleftforthereaderstodecide.

3

AnimportantreasonforthesuccessofPLoSONEisalsothatisoffersaveryattractivealternativetoauthorswhoaretiredofthelongdelaysinvolvedinpublishingintraditionaljournalsandrejectiononwhatarefelttobearbitraryandorbiasedopinionsofreviewersand/oreditor.Thedelaywasanecessaryfacetofthepublishingprocesspriortotheturnofthemillennium,whenjournalswerealmostexclusivelypublishedinpaperform,andwherejournalpagelimitswereaneconomicnecessity.Sincethenelectroniconlyjournalshaveshownthatthedelaycanbeconsiderablyshortened.Alsothetraditionaljournalshaveacknowledgedtheexistenceoftheproblembystartingtopost“inpress”orcompletelycopyeditedandformatted“aheadofprint”versionsofacceptedmanuscriptsevenbeforetheybecomepartofanissueandreceivepagenumbers.Arecentsurveywithauthorsshowedthatthespeedofpublicationwasthethirdmostimportantfactoraffectingauthors’choiceofjournal,aftertopicalfitandthequalityofthejournal(SolomonandBjörk2012).Insomefieldsofscienceauthorshavetriedtopartlybypassthesystembypublishingtheirmanuscriptsinopenwebrepositoriespriortosubmissionasworkingpapers(economics)orpreprints(physics),inordertospeedupthedisseminationoftheresults.Inothercasesexperimentshavebeenmadewithnewtypesofpeerreviewjournals,inwhichonlylightlyscreenedmanuscriptshavebeenopenlypublishedonthejournalwebsites,andthebetteroneshavelaterbeenelevatedtofulljournalarticlestatus(Björk2011),provingthesealofquality.Itisourbeliefthatthelengthofthedelayisnotconstantacrossdifferentfieldsofscience,butdependsonthereviewandpublishingculturesthathaveevolvedindifferentsciences.Forexampleadelayoftwoyears,commonineconomicsandmanagement,wouldbedifficulttoacceptforacademicsinthebiomedicalsciences.

1.1 The Life‐cycle stages of a peer‐reviewed article Duringitslife‐cycleascholarlyarticleundergoesanumberofstages,someofwhichareinfocusinthisstudy.Duringthewritingandfinalizingofamanuscriptmostauthorstendtoshowittoafewtrustedcolleagues,fromwhomtheyreceivefeedbackandsuggestionsforimprovement.Inmanydisciplinesit’salsocommontopublishversionsasconferencepapersandinafewdisciplines,inparticularphysicsandeconomics,atraditionofpublishingworkingpapershasevolved.Atsomestagetheauthor(orauthors)formallysubmitsthemanuscripttoaparticularjournal.Mostjournalsrequirethatamanuscripthasn’tbeenpublishedelsewhereandthatisnotunderconsiderationforpublishingbyanotherjournal.Inmedicinethisrulecanbeevenstricterinthatauthorsarealsorestrictedfromdiscussingtheresultswiththepopularmedia,theso‐calledInglefingerrule.Fromtheviewpointofthewholescholarlycommunitytheruleexcludingparallelsubmissionisunderstandableintermsofavoidingunnecessaryreplicationoftheunpaidrefereeworkdonebytheeditorandother

4

scholars.Ontheotherhandthiscausespublishingdelaysforauthorswhoseworkisrejectedinthefirstandevensecondjournaltowhichtheysubmit.Thequalityandextentofthepeerreviewthatamanuscriptundergoesvariesconsiderablyacrossjournalsanddisciplines.Theeditorsofmanyjournalsscreensubmissionsandquicklyrejectmanuscriptsthatareclearlyunsuitablewithoutsendingthemoutforexternalpeerreview.Thereviewprocesscanalsoinvolveseveralcyclesofreviewandrevision,apracticecommoninmoreselectivejournalsparticularlyinspecificdisciplinessuchasbusinessandmanagement.Manuscriptsatsomepointareaccepted,rejectedorinsomecaseswithdrawnbytheauthorwhomayfindtherequestedrevisionsortherevisionprocessunacceptable.Ifacceptedmanuscriptsaregenerallycopyeditedandtypesetbythepublisherorcontractor,afterwhichtheauthorisusuallyaskedtocheckthefinalversion.Intraditionalprintpublishingthefinalizedmanuscriptisthenputinthequeueforpublishing,awaitingitsturn,usuallythoughnotalwaysaccordingtoitspositioninthequeue.Articlessubmittedtoaspecialissuearetreatedabitdifferently.Thequeuingcantakeaslongasayearormoreifthejournalhasasignificantback‐log.Ifthejournalalsopublishesanelectronicversionmanuscriptsareoftenpublishedearlieronthejournalwebsiteunderheadingslike“in‐press”usuallywithoutexactpagenumbersandassignmentofissue.Mostelectronicopenaccessjournalspublisharticlesdirectlywhentheyarereadyratherthaninissues,thusspeedinguptheprocess.Ifwewouldtakeamanuscriptandnotjournal‐centricviewthetotaldelaywouldoftenbeevenlongersincemanymanuscriptsarerejected,andinsomecasesseveraltimesbeforepublication.Thistimefromsubmissiontorejection,insomecasesfrommultiplejournals,needstobeaddedtothedelayofthejournalthatfinallypublishesthearticle.Azar(2004)discussesthisforthecaseofeconomicsjournalsandpointsouttheimportanceoffirst‐responsedelays,sinceitisoftenatthisstagethatauthorsneedtofindalternativejournalsforsubmittingtheirmanuscripts.Inthisstudywetakethejournal‐centricviewlookinginparticularatthedelayfromsubmissiontoacceptanceandthedelayfromacceptancetofinalpublication,aswellasthetotaldelaytime.Althoughitmightbepossibletogetdataforotherstagesintheoverallprocessforsomejournalsthesethreepointsintimearecommonforallpeerreviewedjournals.

1.2 Previous Research Thereareanumberofpossiblesourcesofinformationaboutpublicationdelays.Ideallypublisherswouldtrackandmakethisdataavailable.Thisishoweverrare,perhapsbecausepublishersandeditorsmaybehesitanttodiscloselongdelays.Sometimestheinformationcanbefoundineditorialsinjournals,whichoftenalsoprovideinformationabouttheacceptanceratesofjournals.Anotheroptionistogatherarticledataaboutsubmissionandacceptancedateswhichisoftenpublishedindividuallyineacharticleoronthearticles’facepageonthe

5

publisher’swebsite.Thisisaverylabor‐intensiveprocessbutprovidesprecisestatisticsforthearticlessampled.Afinaloptionistogatherthedatafromauthorswhichwouldbedifficultandlikelytobefairlyinaccurate.Earlierstudieshavemostlycollectedthedataincludedinpublishedarticles.OneofthefewstudiesusingstatisticssolicitedfrompublisherswastheearlystudyofeconomicsjournalbyYohe(1980),whoobtainedstatisticsfromtheeditorsof20journalsandextractedarticleleveldatafor5more.Trivedi(1993)foundthattheaveragetotalpublicationdelayforeconometricsarticlesinsevenstudiedjournalswas22.8months,consistingof13.4monthsfromsubmissiontoacceptanceand9.4monthsfromacceptancetopublication.Ellison(2002)concentratedhisstudyonthereviewtimesonly(submissiontoacceptance)andfoundanaverageof16.5monthsin1999foraselectionof25journalsineconomicsandrelatedfields.HewasalsoabletodoalongitudinalanalysisforasubsetofthejournalsusingdatabothfromYohe(1980)andCoeandWeinstock(1967)andfoundthatthereviewtimeshadmorethandoubledinthreedecades(1970‐1999),forfiveleadingeconomicsjournalsfrom8.7to20.7months.Themainreasonforthisseemstobetheincreasingnumberofiterativeroundsinthereviewprocess.Healsofoundthattheaveragereviewtimesvarybetweendifferentsub‐specialtiesofeconomics,evenforarticlespublishedinthesamejournalswithbroaderscopes,andsuggestthattheexpectationsforthetypeandlengthofthereviewshavebeensociallyshapedwithinnarrowscholarlycommunities.AlsoHartmann(1997)reportsonadramaticincreaseinsubmissiontopublicationdelays.ForarticlesintheJournalofAtmosphericSciencesthetotaltimeincreasedfrom5.9to15.2monthsbetween1970and1997andwhiletheacceptancetopublicationlagincreasedsomewhat(4.4to6.6months)theincreasewasmainlyattributabletotheincreaseinthetimerequiredbythereviewprocess(1.5to8.5months).KlingandSwygart‐Hobaugh(2002)comparedtheevolutionofpublicationdelaysforthreenaturalscienceandthreesocialsciencejournalsbetween1970/1980and2000,inanattempttoseeiftheemailcommunicationwidelyinusein2000hadreducedaveragedelays.Theyfoundthatthedelaysinchemistryandphysicsjournalshaddecreasedfrom6.5monthsto5.8(andevenmoresoforaminorityofarticlespublishedelectronicallybeforepaperpublication)butthatthedelaysintheeconomics,managementandpsychologyjournalshadincreasedfrom9.0to23.8months.Diospatonyietal(2001)studiedtheevolutionofpublicationdelaysintenchemistryjournalsintheperiod1985‐1999,andcouldnotfindanycleardevelopmenttoshorterorlongerperiods,withtheyearlyaveragesrangingbetween6.7and7.5months.Thepapercontainsdetailedbreakdownsofthespreadofdelaywithinjournalsaswellasananalysisofthebreakdownbetweensubmissiontoacceptancevsacceptancetopublication.

6

Carroll(2001)comparedpublicationdelaysforsixstatisticsjournalsandfoundaslightdecreasefrom25.2monthsin1994to22.3in1999.Hesuggestthatthedeclinemightbeduetoelectronicpublishingbecomingmorecommoninthefiveyearinterval.Amat(2008)studied14journalsinfoodscienceandfoundanaveragepublicationdelayof11.8months(forarangeof6.2‐17.2months).ThedelaysofthreecivilengineeringjournalsreportedbyBjörkandTurk(2006)variedbetween6.7months(foranOAjournal)comparedto18.0and18.9fortwoconventionaljournals.ThestudybyLuwelandMoed(1998)differedfromtheabovebecauseitincludedjournalsfromdifferentsubjectareas.ThestudywastriggeredbyclaimsofDutchresearchersthatarticlesintechnicalsciencesandmathematicshavemuchlongerdelaysthanarticlesinphysicsandchemistry,andthatresearchersintheformerfieldsaredisadvantagedinshorttermbibliometriccomparisons,oftenusedwhencomparingcandidatesforpromotionetc.Inaselectionof15leadinginternationaljournalsintheabovefields,therangeofdelayswasbetween2.5and17.5monthswithmathematicsandengineeringjournalstendingtobetowardsthehigherend.Anotherstudywithjournalsfromdifferentdisciplineswasthestudyof26IranianjournalspublishinginthePersianlanguage(Khosrowjerdietal2011).Thedelayrangeforthesepredominantlysocialscienceandhumanitiesjournalswasverywide(5.8to34.6months)withanaverageof17.3months.ThestudybyDongetal(2006)istheonlystudythattriedtoanalyseifthedelaytimesforOAjournalsdifferfromsubscriptionjournalsinbiomedicine.TheycomparedsixOAjournalsfromtheleadingOApublisherBioMedCentral(BMC)withsixjournalsoncorrespondingtopicsfromNaturePublishingGroup(NPG)aswellassixotherBMCjournalswithelevensocietyjournals.TheresultsdemonstratedthattheNPGjournalswereequaltotheBMCjournalsinoverallpublicationdelay(4.5months)butmarginallyfasteriftheelectronicpublicationdateswerecompared.TheBMCjournalsclearlyoutperformedthesocietyjournals(4.8vs8.9months).Itisnoteworthythattheinthesubscriptionjournalstheprintversionstrailedtheelectronicversionsbyonlyshortperiodsofbetween0.5to1.5months.Yuetal(2004),aspartofthebuildingofamathematicalmodelofthedelayprocess,collecteddelaydataforsevenjournals.Scientometrics,aninformationsciencejournalhadadelayof5.5monthsandtheJournalofMathematicalphysicsadelayof9.0butthefiveotherjournals,fourofwhichwereindifferentengineeringfieldsandoneinthesocialsciences,haddelaysintherange16.4–20.0months.Tortetal(2011)studiedthedelaysbetweenelectronicandprintpublishinginneurosciencejournal,andfoundasignificantincreasebetween2003and2011.Theywerealsoabletodemonstratethatincreasingthedelayincreasesaparticularjournal’simpactfactor,duetothetimewindowsusedbytheISIincalculatingtheimpactfactor!

7

Table1aboutHerePreviousstudiespointtotwothings.Firstlythattherearesubstantialdifferencesinpublicationdelayswithleadingbiomedicalandchemistryjournalsachievingdelaysofroughlyhalfayearandattheotherendofthespectrumeconomicsandstatisticsjournalstypicallyhavingaveragedelaysofclosetotwoyears.Secondlythatthedelayshaveincreasedsubstantiallyinsomedisciplinesoverthepastdecades,partlyduetoanincreaseinthelengthofthereviewprocess.Twofactorswhichhavenotbeenexplicitlystudiedaretheeffectsofjournalsizeandscientificqualitylevelonthedelays.Mostofthepreviousstudieshavebeenbenchmarkingstudieswithinnarrowdisciplinesofrelativelyhomogeneous,highlycitedjournals.Sizecouldinparticulareffectthedelayafteracceptancesincesmallerjournalsmayappearonlyfourtimesayearoreventwiceayear,whichmeansthatarticlesmighthavetowaitinaqueueforquitesometimebeforepublication.Qualitymightlengthenthesubmissiontoacceptancetimessincearticlesmightgothroughseveraliterationsinthereviewprocess.Ontheotherhandthemosthighlycitedjournalsintheirfieldsmightfinditeasiertorecruitreviewersandaremorelikelytohavealargereditorialstaffandprocesssubmissionsmorequickly.

1.3 Aims Basedonthepreviouslypublisheddata,alotofanecdotalevidenceandpersonalexperiencesasauthorstheaimsofthisstudyweredefinedasfollows.Tostudypublicationdelaysinscholarlypeer‐reviewedjournalsacrossdisciplines,journalsizeandjournalquality.Weexplicitlyruledoutdoingalongitudinalanalysis,duetotheverytime‐consumingworkofdatacollection.

2. Method 

2.1 Pilot study Beforestartingdatacollectionwedida“feasibilitystudy”thataddressedtwoissues.FirstlywecheckedourabilitytoobtaincopiesofarticlesfromjournalsindexedinScopusoratleasttheabstractsiftheyhappentocontainthenecessaryinformation.Secondlywecheckedwhetherthejournalsortheirfreelyavailableabstractsincludedsufficientinformationonthepublicationtimeframe.Itwasnecessarytocheckaccesstoelectroniccopiesofthejournalsthroughourlibraries’electronicholdingsaswefeltitwouldnotbefeasibletogatherthedatafrompapercopiesofagivenjournalorgetthenecessarycopiesviainterlibraryloan.AccesstothejournalswascheckedviathelibrariesofHankenSchoolof

8

EconomicsandMichiganStateUniversity.Forthispilotstudywerandomlyselected100journalsindexedinScopus.Atotalof66%ofthesejournalswereavailablethrougheithertheelectronicholdingsofourlibrariesortheywerefreelyavailableonlineandweredeemedtobeappropriateforanalysis.ThemajorityofjournalswecouldnotfindorgainaccessweresmallerjournalspublishedinothercountriesthantheUS,UK,NetherlandsandGermany.Sixty‐fourpercentoftheavailablejournalscontainedatleastthesubmissionandacceptancedatesanditwaspossibletodeterminethedateofpublicationeitheraslistedorbythedateoftheissueinwhichanarticlewaspublished.Wealsofoundthatjournalstypicallypublishedthedatesofuptofivedifferentkeypointsinthepublicationprocess.Theseincluded,submission,revisionbasedonfeedback,acceptance,publicationaheadofprintinanelectronicformat,andfinalpublicationaspartofanissue.Thefirstfourwereusuallyincludedasdates,whereasthelastitemcouldoftenonlybedeterminedbythemonthoftheissuewhichcontainedthearticle.Theresultsofthepilotstudyconfirmedthatthereisenoughdataavailabletomakethestudyfeasible.

2.2 Main study ThemainsourcedatabaseforthestudywastheScopuscitationindex,whichcontainsinformationaboutsome19,500scholarlyjournals,includingtheyearlyarticleandcitationcounts.TheSCImagoJournal&CountryRankwebsite(SCImago,2013)providesfreelyaccessibleScopusdataatthejournallevelwhichwasthedatasourceforthisstudy.Elsevier,thepublisherofScopusprovidesafreelydownloadablespreadsheetontheirwebsite(Scopus,2013)thatamongotherinformationprovidesahierarchicalclassificationofeachjournal’sdiscipline.Thehighestclassificationincludedonly4categoriesandwasfelttobetoobroad.Thesecondlevelincludes27categoriesandwasfelttobetoospecific.Wedecidedtomergesomeoftheselattergroupsbasedonoursubjectiveassumptionofsimilarityinreviewingcultureandpublicationspeedresultinginninegroups.Theseincludearts/humanities,biomedicine,business/economics,chemistry,earthscience,engineering,mathematics,physics,andsocialsciences.Wehypothesizedthatthereweredifferencesinthepublicationtimeassociatedwithjournalsize.Westratifiedbysizeinsuchawaytoensureeacharticlewithinadisciplinecategoryhadanequalchanceofinclusioninthestudy.ThejournalswereorderedbysizebasedonScopusarticlecountsin2010.Thejournalscontainingthefirstthirdofthearticlesinadisciplinemadeupthesmallestjournalstrata,thejournalscontainingthemiddlethirdmadeupthemiddlejournalstrataandthelastthirdofthearticlesthelargejournalstrata.Thisresultedinamuchsmallernumberofjournalsinthelargestjournalstratathoughanequalnumberofarticlesperstrata.

9

Werandomlyorderedthejournalsineachdiscipline/sizestrataandwentthroughthejournalsinordercheckingtoseeiftheywereavailablefromeitherofourtwolibraries,HankenSchoolofEconomicsandMichiganStateUniversityoratleasttheabstractorjournalwasfreelyavailableandcontainedthenecessarydates.Forthosejournalswewereabletoaccess,wecheckedfirstwhethertheyappearedtobepeer‐reviewedscholarlyjournalsandcontainedatleastthedatesofsubmissionandacceptance.Whenanappropriatejournalwasfoundweselected20articlesworkingbackwardfromthelastarticlepublishedin2012.Specialissues,invitedarticlesandeditorialswhereskipped.ForeacharticlewerecordedtheISSN,DOI,orifnoteasilyobtained,title,submissionandacceptancedates.Ifavailablewealsorecordedthedatearevisionrequestwasmadeandthedatethearticlewaspublishedelectronicallyaheadofprint.Publicationdateunlessstatedspecificallywasbasedonthemidpointofthepublicationperiod.Soifajournalwaspublishedmonthly,itwasthe15thofthemonththeissuewaspublished.Ifitwasquarterly,thedatewasthemiddleofthequarter,forexampleFebruary15thforthefirstquarter.AhandfulOAjournalscontainedexactdateoffinalpublication,whichwasusedinplaceofanestimateddate.Whenourmethodofdeterminingthepublicationdateresultedinanegativenumberofdaybetweenacceptanceandpublication,wesetthenumberofdaysfromacceptancetopublicationtozero.Whileweoriginallycalculatedthetimebetweensubmissionandacceptanceandthetimebetweenacceptanceandpublicationindays,forthepurposesofanalyzingandpresentingthedata,weconverteddaysintomonthsbydividingby30.44.Fivejournalswereincludedforeachsizegroupforeachofthe9disciplinecategoriesresultingindatafor135journalsand2,700articles.Forthepurposesofthisstudy,thetimefromsubmissiontoacceptanceandacceptancetopublicationmeasuredinmonthswasusedasthemainoutcomevariables.SourceNormalizedImpactperPaper(SNIP)version2citationmeasureswereobtainedfromtheJournalM3tricswebsite(2013).WealsoobtainedinformationonwhetherajournalwasintheDirectoryofOpenAccessJournals(DOAJ).DatamanagementandmostoftheanalyseswereconductedusingtheStatisticalPackagefortheSocialSciences(SPSS).Mostanalyseswereconductedatthelevelofindividualarticles.SinceSNIPvaluesareassignedtojournals,weaveragedthetimefromsubmissiontoacceptanceandfromacceptancetopublicationforassessingtherelationshipbetweenthesetimesandeachjournal’sSNIP.Thedatacollectedformedabalanceddesignandhenceitwaspossibleusinganalysisofvariance(ANOVA)topartitionthevarianceassociatedwitheachfactorinthedesign.Disciplinewascrossedwithsizegroup.Journalswerenestedinbothdisciplineandsizegroupandarticleswerenestedinajournal.Disciplineandsizegroupwereconsideredtobefixedeffectswhilejournalsandarticleswithinajournalwereconsideredtoberandomeffectsthatweresampled.BasedonthisdesignweestimatedthevariancecomponentsforthetimebetweensubmissionandacceptanceaswellasacceptanceandpublicationusingGENOVA(Brennan,2001).Thisanalysiswasusedtoassessthepercentageofthevarianceinthetimesfromsubmissiontoacceptanceandfromacceptancetopublication

10

thatcouldbeattributedtoeachsource,discipline,size,theirinteraction,journalsandarticleswithinjournals.

3. Results Althoughmoredetaileddatawereavailableforsomejournals,wefocusedthereportingonthetimefromoriginalsubmissiontoacceptanceandfromacceptancetofinalpublicationaswefeltthesewerethekeytimepointsandwewereabletoobtaincompletedataacrossalldisciplinesandsizegroups.Thefirsttimeperiodreflectsthedelayduetothepeerreviewandrevisionprocessusedbyajournalandthesecondthelengthofthepublishingprocess,backlogduetopublicationpagelimitsandpotentiallyotherfactors.Table2presentssummarystatisticsforsubmissiontoacceptance,acceptancetopublicationandtotaltimesubmissiontopublication.Figures1and2presentthisinformationingraphicformforthe9disciplines(Figure1)and3journalsizegroupings(Figure2).DetailedsummarystatisticsforthebreakdownbydisciplinesandsizegroupsarecontainedintheAppendix.AscanbeseeninFigure1,totaltimefromsubmissiontopublicationvariessignificantlybydisciplinewithbusinessatjustunder18monthshavingpublicationtimesnearlytwicethatofchemistryatabout9months.Largerjournalsappeartohavetheshortestpublicationtimeswithmid‐sizedjournalsthelongest.BasedoninclusionintheDOAJtherewere19OpenAccess(OA)journalsorapproximately14%ofthesample.Ofthese,7weredeterminedtobeOAfromtheirinceptionand12weredeterminedtohavebeenconvertedtoOAatsomepoint.Thelatterusuallymeansthatthejournalmaystillpublishaparallelpaperversionandalsoittypicallybundlesthearticlesinissues.Themethodologyfordeterminingbornversusconvertedaredescribedelsewhere(Solomon,Laakso&Björk,2013).Table3presentstheaveragetimeinmonthssubmissiontoacceptanceandacceptancetopublicationforjournalscreatedasOAandthosethatconvertedtoOA.SubmissiontopublicationtimesappeartobeconsiderablyshorterforOAjournals,particularlythosethatwerecreatedasOAjournals.Thedifferenceswerereflectedinbothreceivedtoacceptedandacceptedtopublishedbutthegreatestdifferences,particularlyforthejournalscreatedOAwereinacceptedtopublishedtimes.Thesedifferencesshouldbeconsideredwithcautionasthesamplesizesarefairlysmallandthepercentagesofjournalswithineachdisciplinearenotbalanced.Wefelttheremaybeacorrelationbetweenpublicationtimesandthecitationrateofthejournal.Sincecitationrateisatthelevelofthejournalratherthanthearticle,weaggregatedtothelevelofajournalusingaveragesforthetimesfromsubmissiontoacceptanceandfromacceptancetopublication.WeusedSNIPasthecitationmeasurebecausethesestatisticsarenormalizedtoaccountfordifferencesincitationratesacrossdisciplines.ThePearsonproductmomentcorrelationbetweenSNIPandsubmissiontoacceptanceandacceptancetopublicationwere0.20and‐0.09respectively.Thecorrelationforthetimefrom

11

submissiontoacceptancewithSNIPwassignificantlydifferentfromzerop<0.02.Table4containstheestimatedvariancecomponents1fordiscipline,sizegroup,journalswithindiscipline/sizegroupandarticleswithinjournals.Forsubmissiontoacceptance,thevariationamongjournalsandarticlesaccountedforthebulkofthevariation,mostlyintermsofarticleswithinjournals.Foracceptancetopublication,againthevariationwasalmostentirelyamongjournalsandarticlesnestedinjournals.Forthiscomponenthoweverthevariationamongjournalsaccountedforthebulkofthevariation.

4. Discussion Theresultsofthisstudyhavetobeinterpretedwithsomecaution.Themaincaveatisthatwewereonlyabletoincludedatafromjournalsthatpublishedthesubmissionandacceptancedateswhileinmostcasesthepublicationdatewasinferredfromtheissueandestimatedasthemid‐pointofthepublicationperiodfortheissue.Sincethedecisiontopublishthisinformationwasgenerallyconsistentacrossallthejournalsofaparticularpublisher,onlythosepublishersthatchoosetopublishsubmissionandacceptancedateareincludedinthestudy.Thisresultedin54%ofthesamplebeingpublishedbythetwobiggestpublishersElsevierandSpringer/Kluwer.Thiswasnotourintentionbutwastheresultofthelimitationnotedabove.AlistofthepublishersincludedinthestudythenumberofjournalsfromeachpublisherincludediscontainedintheAppendix.Therewerestrikingdifferencesbetweendisciplineswithbusiness/economicshavingaroundtwicethetotaldelaysubmissiontopublicationcomparedtochemistry.Differenceswerealsofoundintermsofthesizeofthejournalthoughtheywerefairlymodestwiththelargerjournalsappearingtobethemostefficientbothintermsofthetimefromsubmissiontoacceptanceandinpublishingarticlesonceaccepted.Openaccessjournals,particularlythosewhichwerecreatedasOAjournalsratherthanwereconvertedfromsubscriptionappeartobeabletopublisharticlesconsiderablymorequicklythansubscriptionjournals.Thisinpartmayreflectthefacttheyareelectroniconlyandtendtopublisharticlesastheyarereadyratherthanbundlingthemintoissues.GiventhesmallnumbersandthefacttheOAjournalsarenotevenlydistributedacrossdisciplinesthesefindingshouldbeinterpretedwithagreatdealofcaution.Theanalysisofvarianceindicatesmostofthevariationinpublicationtimesisatthelevelofindividualjournalsandarticles.Forthetimefromsubmissionto

1Thecomponentsforthefixedfactors,discipline,journalsizelevelandtheirinteractionarenottruevariancecomponents.Sincetheyarefixedeffectstheyarenotstatisticalexpectationsbutquadraticformsthatareaveragessimilarinnaturetoavariancecomponent.(Brennan,2001)Sincethedistinctionisirrelevantforthepurposesofthisstudy,wewillrefertothesequadraticformsasvariancecomponentsinthediscussionoftheresults.

12

acceptance,thebulkisamongarticles.Thisisnotsurprising.Therearemanyidiosyncraticfactorsthatinfluencethelengthofindividualarticlereviews.Editorsmoreoftenthannotacceptmanuscriptspendingrevisionsandauthorsvarygreatlyinhowquicklytheycompletetherevisions.Hencethelengthofthereviewprocessforaparticulararticlemayreflecttheactionsoftheauthorratherthantheeditororreviewers.Alltheseandotherfactorsresultinsignificantdifferencesinreviewtimesamongsubmissionsforaspecificjournal.Therewasalsoconsiderablymorevariationamongjournalswithinadisciplineandsizegroupthanamongdisciplinesandsizegroups.Thisindicatestherearerealdifferencesinthisimportantaspectofpublishingthatarenotexplainedbyeithertheanomaliesofindividualreviewsorthecultureofreviewofdifferentfields.Somejournalsjustappeartobefasterinconductingthereviewprocess.Thislikelyinpartreflectsthelevelandnumberofcyclesofrevisionstypicallyrequiredbytheeditor.Italsomayreflecthowquicklymanuscriptsgooutforreviewandwhatexpectationtheeditororeditorialteamhasforhowlongareviewershouldtakeinreviewingamanuscript.Forthetimefromacceptancetopublicationthevastmajorityofthevariationisamongjournals.Again,thisdoesnotseemsurprising.Thebacklogsinprocessingmanuscriptsthroughtypesettingandcopyediting,frequencyofpublicationandthebacklogduetopagelimitsiftheyexistwouldalllargelyimpactonpublicationtimesatthejournallevel.

5. Conclusions Webelievethistobethefirstbroadstudyofpublishingdelays,coveringallfieldsofscience.Ourstudyalsodiffersfromallearlierstudiesbyouruseofarandomsamplecoveringjournalsofallqualitylevels.Previousstudies,haveusuallyusedsmallconveniencesamplesoftypicallytopjournalsintheirfields,whichintroducesastrongbiastowardsjournalsthatmayincludelongreviewprocesses.Ourresultsare,nevertheless,notinconflictwiththeearlierstudies,butinstead,addtothem.Themethodologywasverylaborintensiveanditwouldbeveryusefulforfuturestudiesifpublishersincludedthedateofsubmissionandacceptanceasastandardpartoftheirarticleinformation.Thiswouldprovidealeveloftransparencyforpotentialauthorsastothedelaystheycouldexpectinreviewandpublicationprocesseswhenconsideringwheretosubmittheirmanuscripts.Itwouldalsoprovideastrongincentiveforjournalstospeeduptheseprocesses.Theaimofourstudywastoprovideoveralldataonreviewandpublishingtimesacrossvariousfieldsofscience.Wedidnotattempttodeterminehowdelayshaveevolvedovertime.Someoftheearlierstudieshavedonethis,butwemadeaconsciouschoicetoconcentrateonthedifferencesbetweendisciplines,duetotheresourceintensivenessofourmethod.Alongitudinalstudywouldbeagoodtopicforafollow‐upstudy,andshouldideallygobackaround25years,tothetimebeforeemail,websubmissionsystemsandelectronicpublishing.That

13

wouldontheotherhandalsoimplychallengesinfindingthedatawiththearticles.Itwouldbeveryusefultomakeamoredetailedstudyofwhydelaysdiffersomuchbetweendisciplines,Ourimpressionisthatthecleardifferencesamongfieldshaveevolvedoverdecadesthroughthedevelopmentofintra‐disciplinarysocialnormsforwhatisexpectedfromascholarlyjournalinthefield.Thisincludeswhatisanacceptabledelayforinformingauthorsofreviewresultsandacceptanceorrejectiondecisionsaswellastheprocessingandqueuingtimeonceamanuscriptisaccepted.ThisisinlinewiththeconclusionsofforinstanceEllison(2000).Thesedifferencesinreviewandpublicationtimesmayalsoreflectthenatureofthedisciplines.Forexampleinrapidlydevelopingfieldswhereseparategroupsofresearchersmayberacingtoachieveaparticularbreakthrough,thespeedofthepublicationprocesscandeterminewhichgroupgainscreditforthebreakthroughaspublicationhasbecomethedefactodeterminerofwhogetsthecreditforamajorfinding.Otherinterestingtopicsforfurtherstudieswouldbethedifferencesbetweenjournalswithinadisciplineandarticleswithinjournals.Forsomeindividualarticlesthedelaytimescanbeexcessivelylong.Thedelayscanbeduetotheauthorstakingexcessivelylongtimesmakingrevisionsaftertheoriginalreviewcycle.Theycanalsobeduetoexcessivelylongreviewperiodsordelaysinthepublicationprocess.Asfoundinthisstudy,mostofthevariationinsubmissiontoacceptancetimesisamongindividualmanuscriptswithinajournalwhilemostofthevariationinacceptancetopublicationtimeisamongjournalswithinadiscipline/sizegroup.Sincepublicationdelaysarebothdetrimentaltothecareersofindividualscholarsandretardtherateatwhichscientificfieldsadvance,understandingandattemptingtominimizeunnecessarydelaysinthepeer‐reviewandpublicationprocessisineveryone’sbestinterest.OneofthereasonsforthepopularityofOAjournals,inadditiontothewiderdissemination,isthebeliefthattheyhavemuchfastersubmissiontopublicationtimes.ThisperceptionisoftenhighlightedinthepromotionalmaterialforfullyelectronicOAjournals.ItappearsfromourverylimitedsampleofOAjournalsthatjournalswhichareonlydisseminatedindigitalformandpublisharticlesindividuallyastheyarereadytendtohaveconsiderablyshortersubmissiontopublicationperiodswithmostofthedifferenceduetoshorteracceptancetopublicationtimes.Afollow‐upstudycomparingsubscriptionjournalswithOA‐journalswouldneedtofurthersplitupOA‐journalsintoanumberofsubgroups,suchasmegajournals(PloSONEandcloses),journalsfromso‐calledpredatoryjournalswithspamacademicswithemailspromisingveryrapidpublicationandhighqualityOAjournals.Somecriticsofthecurrentsystemhavediscussedthealmostdefactostandardjournalpolicyofnotallowingauthorsthepossibilityofsubmittingtheirmanuscriptstootherjournalsinparallel(Torgersonetal2005),aslongasthearticlehasnotbeendefinitelyrejected(Piron2001).Thispolicycanresultinlongdelaysinthepublicationprocessofarticlesrejectedinthefirst‐choicejournalpotentiallyrenderingtheresultsoftheresearchoutdatedandoflittleuse

14

bythetimeitisfinallypublished.Thepolicyisoftenjustifiedbysayingthatitwouldbeveryinefficientandunfairtoeditorsandrefereesifthesamearticleswouldberefereedinseveraljournalsatthesametime.Ontheotherhandexactlythesamethinghappenswhenarticlesafterrejectionorauthorwithdrawalareresubmittedtootherjournalsandnewreviewersgetinvolved.Interestinglythereisonejournalcategorywherethisruleisnotenforced,lawjournalspublishedbyleadingUSuniversities,whichallowauthorstosubmittocompetingjournalssimultaneously.Althoughnoempiricalstudiescouldbefoundofthepublishingdelayintheselawjournals,severalauthorsforexample(Posner,2008)havepointedoutthatthedelaysaremuchshorterthaninotherfields.Ifpublishersaregoingtosticktothedemandthatauthorsrefrainfrommultiplesimultaneoussubmissionsofamanuscriptthenitseemstous,thattheyhaveanobligationtomakethepublicationprocessasfastandefficientaspossible.Electronicpublicationoffersarealpotentialforspeedingupthescholarlyjournalpublishingprocess,butinordertoachievethisjournalshavetostoppublishingaparallelpaperversionandneedtoconverttopublishingarticlesinanissue‐lessmodeastheybecomeavailable.Thisisexactlywhatmostbornelectronicjournalsdo,andastheirshareofpublishingincreases,averagepublishingdelayswilltendtodecrease.

Acknowledgements: WeareverygratefultoCharlottaBjörk,AleksiAaltonenandPatrikWellingforhelpingoutwiththetediousworkofgatheringthedata.

References: Amat,C.B.(2008)Editorialandpublicationdelayofpaperssubmittedto14selectedFoodResearchjournals.Influenceofonlineposting,Scientometrics74,3,379Azar,OferH.,Rejectionsandtheimportanceoffirstresponsetimes,InternationalJournalofSocialEconomicsVol.31No.3,2004pp.259‐274Björk,B‐C.andTurk,Z.(2006).TheElectronicJournalofInformationTechnologyinConstruction(ITcon):anopenaccessjournalusinganun‐paid,volunteer‐basedorganization.InformationResearch,11(3)paper255,Availableathttp://InformationR.net/ir/11‐3/paper255.html]

15

Björk,B‐C.(2011)InnovationsinScholarlyPublishing–AmultipleCaseStudyofOpenAccessJournals,JournalofMedicalInternetResearch,13(4):e115Retrievedfromhttp://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e115/,doi:10.2196/jmir.1802Brennan,R.L.(2001)GeneralizabilityTheoryStatisticsforSocialScienceandPublicPolicy(series)2001SpringerNewYork.CarrollR.(2001)ReviewTimesinStatisticalJournals:TiltingattheWindmills?Biometrics,Vol57,1‐6.CoeR.K.,WeinstockI.(1967):“EditorialPoliciesoftheMajorEconomicsJournals,”QuarterlyReviewofEconomicsandBusiness7,37‐43.I.Diospatonyi,†G.Horvai,†andT.Braun*,‡PublicationSpeedinAnalyticalChemistryJournals,J.Chem.Inf.Comput.Sci.2001,41,1452‐1456Dong,Peng,Loh,Marie,Mondry,AdrianPublicationlaginbiomedicaljournalsvariesduetotheperiodical'spublishingmodel,Scientometrics,2006,69(2),271‐286Ellison,G.(2002)TheslowdownoftheEconomicsPublishingProcess,JournalofPoliticalEconomy,110,947‐993Hartmann,D.L.“AreAMSJournalsTooSlowtoBeUseful?AnOpenLettertoAMSMembers,”http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/AMS_Publ_Paper.970610.psJournalM3tricsResearchAnalyticsRedefined.(2013).http://www.journalmetrics.com/Khosrowjerdi,M.,Zeraatkarb,N.,Varac,N.(2011)PublicationDelayinIranianScholarlyJournals,SerialsReview37(4)262–266.Kling,R.,Swygart‐Hobaugh,A.J.(2002).TheInternetandthevelocityofscholarlyjournalpublishing.WorkingPaperNo.WP‐02‐12,RobKlingCenterforSocialInformatics,SchoolofLibraryandInformationScience,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,IN.https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/148Laakso,M.,Björk,B‐C.(2012).Anatomyofopenaccesspublishing:astudyoflongitudinaldevelopmentandinternalstructure.BMCMedicine,10:124.doi:10.1186/1741‐7015‐10‐124LuwelM.,MoedH.F.(1998)PublicationDelaysintheScienceFieldsandTheirRelationshiptotheAgeingofScientificLiterature,”Scientometrics41(1–2)29–40.Nature.Overview:Nature'speerreviewtrial(2006)|doi:10.1038/nature05535.

16

Piron,Robert(2001)TheyHavetheWorldonaQueue,Challenge,200144(5)95‐101.Posner,Richard(2006)LawReviews,WashburnLawReview,46(1)http://washburnlaw.edu/wlj/46‐1/articles/posner‐richard.pdfRaney,K.(1998).Intoaglassdarkly.JournalofElectronicPublishing,4(2).Retrieved3March,2006fromhttp://www.press.umich.edu/jep/04‐02/raney.htmlSCIMago.(2013).SJR–SCImagoJournal&CountryRank.Retrievedfromhttp://www.scimagojr.comSolomon,D.J.,Björk,B‐C.(2012)PublicationFeesinOpenAccessPublishing:SourcesofFundingandFactorsInfluencingChoiceofJournal,JournaloftheAmericanSocietyforInformationScienceandTechnology,63(1):98–107,2012,DOI:10.1002/asi.21660Solomon,David,Laakso,Mikael,Björk,Bo‐Christer,2013,Alongitudinalcomparisonofcitationratesandgrowthamongopenaccessandsubscriptionjournals,JournalofInformetrics,Vol7,No3,642‐650.Suber,P.(2012).OpenAccess.MITPress.230p.TorgersonD.J.,AdamsonJ.,CockayneS,DumvilleJ.,PetherickBritishE.(2005)Submissiontomultiplejournals:amethodofreducingtimetopublication?BMJ,330,305–307.TrivediP.K.,(1993)AnAnalysisofPublicationLagsinEconometrics,”JournalofAppliedEconometrics893–100.VanOrsdel,L.andBorn,K.(2002)PeriodicalsPriceSurvey2002:DoingtheDigitalFlip.LibraryJournal,http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA206383.html.)Ware,M.,Mabe,M.(2012)TheSTMReport:AnoverviewofScientificandScholarlyJournalPublishing,InternationalAssociationofScientific,TechnicalandMedicalPublishers,TheHague,Netherlands,http://www.stm‐assoc.org/2012_12_11_STM_Report_2012.pdfYohe,G.W.,(1980)CurrentPublicationLagsinEconomicsJournals,"JournalofEconomicLiterature18,1050‐55YuG.,YuD.R.,,LiY.J.(2004)TheuniversalexpressionofperiodicalaveragepublicationdelayatsteadystateScientometrics60(2)121–129.

17

Figure1:AveragePublicationTimesinMonthsbyDisciplineFigureisbasedon15journalsperdiscipline,5foreachsizegroup,20articlesperjournalresultinginatotalof300articlesperdiscipline.

18

Figure2:AveragePublicationTimesinMonthsbyJournalSizeGroupFigureisbasedon45journalspersizegroup,15foreachdiscipline,20articlesperjournalresultinginatotalof900articlespersizegroup.

19

Table1.Previousstudiesconcerningpublicationdelaysinscholarlyjournals.Study

Includedjournals

Periodstudied

Discipline Delay(months)AverageRange

Yohe1980

25journals 1980 Economics 18.9

4.9–28.7

Trivedi1993 7journals

1986‐1990 Econometrics 22.8 19.7–31.4

Carroll2001

6journals 1994,1999 Statistics 22.3 15.0‐26.0

KlingandSwygart‐Hobaugh2002

3socialsciencejournals

1970/1980,2000

Econ.,management

23.8 17.0–29.4

KlingandSwygart‐Hobaugh2002

3naturalsciencejournals

1970/1980,2000

Physics,Chemistry

5.8 4.0–7.4

Hartmann1997

Onejournal 1970,1997 AtmosphericSciences

15.4

LuwelandMoed1998

15journals 1992 Physicalsciences,Eng.

9.4

2.5‐17.0

Diospatonyietal2001

10journals 1985‐1999 Analyticalchemistry

7.1 3.5–12.5

Raney1998

Onejournal 1997 Geoscience 21.8 11.5‐36.5

Yuetal2004

7journals 2002 Mainlyengineering

15.1 5.5–20.0

Amat2008 14journals 2004 Agriculture 11.8 6.2–17.2

Dongetal2006 28commercial,SocietyandOA

2004 Biomedicine 6.3 3.0‐11.0

BjörkandTurk2006

OneOAandtwoconventional

2005 CivilEngineering

14.5

6.7–18.9

Khosrowjerdietal2011

26Iranianjournals 2009 Cross‐disciplinary

17.3

5.8–34.6

20

Table2 TimeSubmissiontoPublicationTotals

Months Submitted to

Accepted

Months Accepted to Published

Months Submitted to

Published

Mean 6.41 5.78 12.18

Std. Deviation 5.35 4.21 7.17

Std. Error of Mean* 0.10 0.08 0.14

Statisticsbasedon135Journals/2,700Articles*TheStandarderrorsofthemeansareapproximateduetothelackofindependencebetweenarticlesinthesamejournal.

21

Table3 TimeSubmissiontoPublicationforOAJournals

Created Open Access

Months Submitted to

Accepted

Months Accepted to Published

Months Submitted to

Published

Yes

Mean 4.17 1.80 5.97

Std. Deviation 3.08 1.56 3.77

Std. Error of Mean 0.26 0.13 0.32

Number 7 Journals / 140 Articles

No Mean 5.12 4.76 9.88

Std. Deviation 4.37 5.17 7.90

Std. Error of Mean 0.28 0.33 0.51

Number 12 Journals / 240 Articles 

Thestandarderrorsofthemeanareapproximateduetolackofindependenceamongarticlesinthesamejournal.

22

Table 4  Estimated Variance Components   

Submit to Accept  Accept to Publish 

Variance  Percent  Variance  Percent

Discipline  3.44  12% Discipline  0.83  5%

Journal Size  0.52  2% Journal Size  0.31  2%

Journal  8.49  29% Journal  12.88  71%

Article  16.46  56% Article  4.20  23%

Size x Discipline  0.49  2% Size x Discipline  0.00  0%

Total  29.41  Total  18.23  

23

Publication Time in Months by Discipline 

Discipline Months

Submitted to Accepted

Months Accepted to Published

Months Received to Published

Chemistry Mean 4.73 4.18 8.91

Std. Deviation 5.46 3.60 7.30

Std. Error of Mean 0.32 0.21 0.42

Engineering Mean 5.00 4.30 9.30

Std. Deviation 3.68 3.06 5.29

Std. Error of Mean 0.21 0.18 0.31

Biomedicine Mean 4.65 4.82 9.47

Std. Deviation 3.47 4.11 5.18

Std. Error of Mean 0.20 0.24 0.30

Physics Mean 5.21 5.72 10.93

Std. Deviation 3.26 2.66 4.41

Std. Error of Mean 0.19 0.15 0.25

Earth Science Mean 5.74 5.96 11.70

Std. Deviation 4.80 4.66 7.24

Std. Error of Mean 0.28 0.27 0.42

Mathematics Mean 8.20 5.11 13.30

Std. Deviation 6.21 2.45 6.87

Std. Error of Mean 0.36 0.14 0.40

Social Science Mean 6.17 7.93 14.10

Std. Deviation 4.36 5.73 7.32

Std. Error of Mean 0.25 0.33 0.42

Arts and Letters Mean 7.21 7.00 14.21

Std. Deviation 5.26 5.38 7.71

Std. Error of Mean 0.30 0.31 0.44

Business/Economics Mean 10.75 6.96 17.70

Std. Deviation 7.15 3.19 7.52

Std. Error of Mean 0.41 0.18 0.43

All Journals Mean 6.41 5.78 12.18

Std. Deviation 5.35 4.21 7.17

Std. Error of Mean 0.10 0.08 0.14

 There are 15 journals, 5 per each size group and 20 articles per journal  

Standard error of the mean is approximate due to lack of independence among articles in a journal. 

24

  Number of Journals from Each Publisher Included in the Study  

Publisher Number Percent American Chemical Society 1 0.8%

American Dairy Science Association 1 0.8%

American Physiological Society 1 0.8%

American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. 1 0.8%

American Psychological Association 1 0.8%

American Society of Civil Engineers 1 0.8%

American Vacuum Society 1 0.8%

Arizona State University 1 0.8%

Australasian Association of Psychology and Philosophy 1 0.8%

Bentham Science Publishers 1 0.8%

BioMed Central 1 0.8%

Blackwell Publishing Inc. 3 2.3%

Butterworth Scientific Ltd. 1 0.8%

Cell Press 1 0.8%

Central Fisheries Research Institute 1 0.8%

Cognizant Communication Corp. 1 0.8%

Consejo Superior De Investigaciones Cientificas 2 1.5%

Copernicus Gesellschaften 1 0.8%

Electrochemical Society, Inc. 1 0.8%

Elsevier 61 46.6%

European Respiratory Society 1 0.8%

Geophysical Society of Finland 1 0.8%

Hindawi Publishing Corporation 1 0.8%

Institute for Ionics 1 0.8%

Institute of Physics Publishing 1 0.8%

Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali 1 0.8%

JAI Press 1 0.8%

Maik Nauka/Interperiodica Publishing 1 0.8%

Marcel Dekker Inc. 3 2.3%

Molecular Diversity Preservation International 1 0.8%

Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH 1 0.8%

Opragen Publications 1 0.8%

Oxford University Press 1 0.8%

Pan American Health Organization/Organizacion Panamericana de la Salud

1 0.8%

Prolegomena: Journal of Philosophy 1 0.8%

Public Library of Science 1 0.8%

Raptor Research Foundation, Inc. 1 0.8%

Royal Society of Chemistry 2 1.5%

Royal Society of London 1 0.8%

SAGE Publications 1 0.8%

Springer Pub. Co., 14 10.7%

Taylor & Francis 1 0.8%

25

Universidad de los Andes 1 0.8%

Universidad de Murcia 1 0.8%

Universidad Nacional de Colombia 1 0.8%

Universidade Estadual Paulista 1 0.8%

Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro 1 0.8%

University of the Aegean 1 0.8%

Versita (Central European Science Publishers) 1 0.8%

Wayne State University Press 1 0.8%

Wiley-Blackwell 2 1.5%

 Publisher names retrieved from SCImago Journal & Country Rank website. http://www.scimagojr.com/