How Many Manuscripts Should I Peer Review Per Year?

Overview

Journal Pharm Pract (Granada)

Date 2020 Mar 13

PMID 32161628

Citations 12

Authors

Fernando Fernandez-Llimos

Teresa M Salgado

Fernanda S Tonin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Peer review provides the foundation for the scholarly publishing system. The conventional peer review system consists of using authors of articles as reviewers for other colleagues' manuscripts in a collaborative-basis system. However, authors complain about a theoretical overwhelming number of invitations to peer review. It seems that authors feel that they are invited to review many more manuscripts than they should when taking into account their participation in the scholarly publishing system. The high number of scientific journals and the existence of predatory journals were reported as potential causes of this excessive number of reviews required. In this editorial, we demonstrate that the number of reviewers required to publish a given number of articles depends exclusively on the journals' rejection rate and the number of reviewers intended per manuscript. Several initiatives to overcome the peer review crises are suggested.

Citing Articles

[Improving the Quality of Publications in and Advancing the Paradigms of Clinical and Social Pharmacy Practice Research: The Granada Statements].

Fernandez-Llimos F, Desselle S, Stewart D, Garcia-Cardenas V, Babar Z, Bond C Farm Comunitarios. 2024; 15(3):31-38.

PMID: 39157694 PMC: 11326675. DOI: 10.33620/FC.2173-9218.(2023).23.

Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.

L Seghier M F1000Res. 2024; 13:439.

PMID: 38962691 PMC: 11221348. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.148985.1.

Major mistakes in scientific medical writing based on manuscripts' reviews.

Melki S, Ben Hassine D, Chebil D, Zanina Y, Ben Saad H, Ben Abdelaziz A Tunis Med. 2024; 102(1):13-18.

PMID: 38545724 PMC: 11261498. DOI: 10.62438/tunismed.v102i1.4715.

Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: the Granada Statements.

Fernandez-Llimos F, Desselle S, Stewart D, Garcia-Cardenas V, Babar Z, Bond C Int J Clin Pharm. 2023; 45(2):285-292.

PMID: 36920737 PMC: 10147809. DOI: 10.1007/s11096-023-01550-8.

Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: the Granada Statements.

Fernandez-Llimos F, Desselle S, Stewart D, Garcia-Cardenas V, Babar Z, Bond C Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2023; 31(5):483-488.

PMID: 36914239 PMC: 11347197. DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2023-003748.

References

Fernandez-Llimos F . Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2018; 16(1):1236. PMC: 5881486. DOI: 10.18549/PharmPract.2018.01.1236. View

Donato H, Marinho R . Acta Médica Portuguesa and peer-review: quick and brutal!. Acta Med Port. 2012; 25(5):261-2. View

Kirkham J, Moher D . Who and why do researchers opt to publish in post-publication peer review platforms? - findings from a review and survey of F1000 Research. F1000Res. 2018; 7:920. PMC: 6053701. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.15436.1. View

Pierie J, Walvoort H, Overbeke A . Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet. 1996; 348(9040):1480-3. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)05016-7. View

Rohn J . Why I said no to peer review this summer. Nature. 2019; 572(7770):417. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-02470-2. View

Asaad M, Rajesh A, Banuelos J, Vyas K, Tran N . Time from submission to publication in plastic surgery journals: The story of accepted manuscripts. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019; 73(2):383-390. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2019.09.029. View

Shah A, Sherighar S, Bhat A . Publication speed and advanced online publication: Are biomedical Indian journals slow?. Perspect Clin Res. 2016; 7(1):40-4. PMC: 4763517. DOI: 10.4103/2229-3485.173775. View

Lee Y, Kim K, Lee Y . Publication Delay of Korean Medical Journals. J Korean Med Sci. 2017; 32(8):1235-1242. PMC: 5494320. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.8.1235. View

Chen H, Chen C, Jhanji V . Publication times, impact factors, and advance online publication in ophthalmology journals. Ophthalmology. 2013; 120(8):1697-701. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.044. View

10.

Wicherts J . Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals. PLoS One. 2016; 11(1):e0147913. PMC: 4732690. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147913. View

11.

Desselle S, Chen A, Amin M, Aslani P, Dawoud D, Miller M . Generosity, collegiality, and scientific accuracy when writing and reviewing original research. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019; 16(2):261-265. DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.04.054. View

12.

Fernandez-Llimos F . Peer review and publication delay. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2019; 17(1):1502. PMC: 6463409. DOI: 10.18549/PharmPract.2019.1.1502. View

13.

Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F . Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (2):MR000016. PMC: 8973931. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3. View

14.

Powell K . Does it take too long to publish research?. Nature. 2016; 530(7589):148-51. DOI: 10.1038/530148a. View

15.

Kovanis M, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Porcher R . Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication. Scientometrics. 2017; 113(1):651-671. PMC: 5629248. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2375-1. View

16.

Knoepfler P . Reviewing post-publication peer review. Trends Genet. 2015; 31(5):221-3. PMC: 4472664. DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2015.03.006. View

17.

Goodman S, Berlin J, Fletcher S, Fletcher R . Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1994; 121(1):11-21. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003. View

18.

. Transparency in peer review. Nat Hum Behav. 2019; 3(12):1237. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-019-0799-8. View