Analysis of the interval between submission and publication in genetics journals

Rafael Leal Zimmer; Aline Castello Branco Mancuso; Ursula Matte; Patricia Ashton-Prolla

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284866

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 12, 2022
20 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, Editor Transfer Alert This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present. PONE-D-22-25394Analysis of the interval between submission and publication in genetics journalsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zimmer, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 03 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "No" At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf 4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear authors, Thanks for letting me read and review your article. Although your article has many exciting features, it demands the publication of some necessary corrections. First, and referring to the literature review and problem-oriented introduction, there needs to be more problematization about productivity, availability of reviewers, and other connected factors that should be presented in this section of your paper. For example, some work had been reflected in the productivity of the peer review process. Articles like "Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015). Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in research, 22(1), 22-40." could serve to produce a more detailed and theory-driven literature review for your analysis and later discussion. Later on, when the paper goes to the results and discussion, the article uses several studies to compare the timing from submission to publication. These studies deserve their own space in a literature or problem-oriented literature section. To use such work in your results and discussion appears not grounded in the line of argument of your article. Finally, when the paper goes into the crucial discussion about the article by continents, authors refrain from getting involved with essential discussions in knowledge production that happened in the last years—for example, center-periphery in knowledge production and global knowledge circulation phenomena. If the paper wants to discuss such topics, it is necessary to review the literature about it and confront it in this section of the article. Finally, you mention, "Our results may contribute in the development of strategies to expedite the process of scientific publishing in the field, and to promote equity in knowledge production and dissemination for researchers from all continents." Developing strategies to promote equity in knowledge production is an important issue that connects with your results that you could have expanded in a better sense. Therefore, such strategy developments deserve at least a few paragraphs in your conclusions and policy recommendations. All in all, your paper presents a critical analysis that demands more engagement with the literature and, consequently, to improve your article's discussion and conclusions. Reviewer #2: The present research intends to show an important part of scientific productivity such as publication time. In order for the work not to be considered as a simple and not very detailed description, it should have an adequate statistical rigor, showing the work of cleaning the databases, what criteria are considered for the elimination of missing or lost data, protocols of the tradition and current paradigms of scientometrics and an exhaustive review of the literature to consider which are the statistical methodologies most used for this purpose. In that sense, this article precisely misses these points. Despite its weakness, it is recommended to enhance its analysis with more advanced statistics for its analysis. There are countless laws from scientometrics that could help to pose more challenging questions with deeper and richer analysis. The analysis of quartiles is interesting but only as a descriptor factor; however, the real problem is in the limited challenge of the research Reviewer #3: This is a well written and innovative paper. The authors developed a very original idea and use a interesting methodology to study it. The conclusions are relevant and this paper may be very sueful to PlosOne readers. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Juan Felipe Espinosa-Cristia Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284866.r001
Revision 1
18 Feb 2023 Author Response Reviewer #1: Dear authors, Thanks for letting me read and review your article. Although your article has many exciting features, it demands the publication of some necessary corrections. First, and referring to the literature review and problem-oriented introduction, there needs to be more problematization about productivity, availability of reviewers, and other connected factors that should be presented in this section of your paper. For example, some work had been reflected in the productivity of the peer review process. Articles like "Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015). Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in research, 22(1), 22-40." could serve to produce a more detailed and theory-driven literature review for your analysis and later discussion. Response: Thank you very much for this comment. We have adjusted the introduction and discussion according to your suggestions. Later on, when the paper goes to the results and discussion, the article uses several studies to compare the timing from submission to publication. These studies deserve their own space in a literature or problem-oriented literature section. To use such work in your results and discussion appears not grounded in the line of argument of your article. Response: Thank you very much for this comment. We have removed the studies/references from the results section and adjusted the discussion as mentioned previously. Finally, when the paper goes into the crucial discussion about the article by continents, authors refrain from getting involved with essential discussions in knowledge production that happened in the last years—for example, center-periphery in knowledge production and global knowledge circulation phenomena. If the paper wants to discuss such topics, it is necessary to review the literature about it and confront it in this section of the article. Response: Thank you for your suggestion, however we feel that this is beyond the scope of the present article. The main objective is to first describe the distribution of production in the continents for each quartile and bring attention to the problem. On the other hand, a more profound study of the determinants of such results is certainly warranted and should include the aspects mentioned in your comment, such as the recently observed center-periphery phenomenon as well as other current scenarios such as, for instance, evident differences between covid vs. non-covid related publications . We have mentioned this aspect among the limitations of the study. Finally, you mention, "Our results may contribute in the development of strategies to expedite the process of scientific publishing in the field, and to promote equity in knowledge production and dissemination for researchers from all continents." Developing strategies to promote equity in knowledge production is an important issue that connects with your results that you could have expanded in a better sense. Therefore, such strategy developments deserve at least a few paragraphs in your conclusions and policy recommendations. All in all, your paper presents a critical analysis that demands more engagement with the literature and, consequently, to improve your article's discussion and conclusions. Response: Thank you very much for this comment. We have adjusted the conclusions according to your suggestions. Reviewer #2: The present research intends to show an important part of scientific productivity such as publication time. In order for the work not to be considered as a simple and not very detailed description, it should have an adequate statistical rigor, showing the work of cleaning the databases, what criteria are considered for the elimination of missing or lost data, protocols of the tradition and current paradigms of scientometrics and an exhaustive review of the literature to consider which are the statistical methodologies most used for this purpose. In that sense, this article precisely misses these points. Despite its weakness, it is recommended to enhance its analysis with more advanced statistics for its analysis. There are countless laws from scientometrics that could help to pose more challenging questions with deeper and richer analysis. The analysis of quartiles is interesting but only as a descriptor factor; however, the real problem is in the limited challenge of the research Response: Thank you very much for your comments. Regarding cleaning of databases, it was performed in two steps. First, journals that do not provide submission (S), acceptance (A), and publication (P) dates were excluded from the sample, with a new one drawn from the original pool. For manuscripts not presenting all dates, the interval was calculated only for the available dates (e.g. SP only). Therefore, we have slightly different numbers in each interval, as presented in the footnote of table 3. We added a comment on the study proposed by Shelton (2020) relating Lotka's Law and Bradford's Law to national funding, and suggested that the time frame chosen for analysis (e.g. 1 year after funding) may bias the results towards higher impact journals, in which some countries are under-represented. Reviewer #3: This is a well written and innovative paper. The authors developed a very original idea and use a interesting methodology to study it. The conclusions are relevant and this paper may be very useful to PlosOne readers. Response: Thank you very much for your comments. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284866.r002
11 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, Editor Analysis of the interval between submission and publication in genetics journals PONE-D-22-25394R1 Dear Dr. Zimmer, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thanks again for let me read your reviewed version of the article. I do think that you had covered the full comments and suggestions that I made before. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Juan Felipe Espinosa Cristia, PhD. Reviewer #2: Yes: Nicolás Contreras-Barraza ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284866.r003
Formally Accepted
26 Apr 2023 Acceptance Letter - Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, Editor PONE-D-22-25394R1 Analysis of the interval between submission and publication in genetics journals Dear Dr. Zimmer: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Alejandro Vega-Muñoz Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284866.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .