Publication delay in pharmacy practice journals: a comparative analysis

Mendes, António; Tonin, Fernanda; Pontarolo, Roberto; Fernandez-Llimos, Fernando

http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/34423

Use this identifier to reference this record.

Name:	Description:	Size:	Format:
MendesToninPantLlimos.pdf		376.5 KB	Adobe PDF	Download

Send Feedback

Authors

Mendes, António

Tonin, Fernanda

Pontarolo, Roberto

Fernandez-Llimos, Fernando

Abstract(s)

Introduction: Articles published in scientific journals are a valuable source of information and the main system to communicate research results. Authors frequently complain about the long duration of the editorial process, which includes time of external peer-review, layout formatting, and metadata indexing. Differences in the duration of these processes between areas have not been sufficiently explored. Aim: To evaluate the duration of the publication process in pharmacy practice journals compared with other scientific disciplines. Methods: From 67 pharmacy practice journals previously identified, 33 indexed in PubMed were selected for data collection. Metadata of all articles published between 2009-2018 were extracted from PubMed. To create a comparison group of randomly selected articles, the first PMIDs of each year between 2009-2018 were identified. Four lag times for the different steps of the publication and indexing process were calculated: Total publication lag (days between ‘submission date’ and ‘online publication date’), acceptance lag (days between ‘submission date’ and ‘acceptance date’), lead lag (days between ‘acceptance date’ and ‘online publication date’), and indexing lag (days between ‘online publication date’ and ‘Entry date’). Impact Factor (IF) and CiteScore data were also collected. Statistical analyzes were performed in SPSS v20 and RStudio v1.2. Results: The 33 pharmacy practice journals published a total of 26,256 articles. CiteScore of 25 journals was calculated with mean of 1.34 (SD 0.90); only 8 journals have IF (mean 2.135; SD 0.681). In the comparison group, 5,622 different journals published 23,888 articles with a median of 2 articles per journal (IQR 1-5). CiteScore was calculated for 4,879 of these journals, with mean of 2.61 (SD 2.64); 3,853 journals have IF (mean 3.337; SD 0.811). Comparison journals presented higher report rates for all the editorial process dates than pharmacy practice journals: submission OR=0.9 (IC95% 0.76-0.82), acceptance OR=0.86 (0.83-089), and Online publication OR=0.001 (0.0006-0.002). Acceptance lag was not different between pharmacy practice and comparison group (93 vs. 97 days), while small differences existed in lead lag (15 vs. 25 days; Cohen`s d=0.279). However, a greater difference was found in indexing lag (12 vs. 4 days; Cohen`s d=0.703). The analyses of pharmacy practice journals showed important variability in acceptance lag (range 13 to 290 days). Open access pharmacy practice journals presented a lower acceptance lag than subscription ones (74 vs. 126 days). Acceptance lag showed no association with CiteScore in both group of journals (p>0.05). The IF presented a significant inverse association, but with no effect size, with the acceptance lag, in both groups (p<0.001). Discussion: Although the average acceptance lag of pharmacy practice journals was similar to a generic comparison group, huge variability exists between these journals. While authors may consider the smaller acceptance lag as a good characteristic, literature suggests risks associated to fraudulent peer-review. Conclusions: About 95 days since submission are required to have an article accepted, whether in pharmacy practice or in comparison groups of biomedical journals.