HomeInternational Journal of Academic and Practical Researchvol. 3 no. 1 (2024)

A Brief Review Report on the Processing Time of Scopus-Indexed Journals fromSubmission to Publication

Carl Emmanuel S. Schmitt | Almighty C. Tabuena | Oscar Lauber | Yvon Mae H. Tabuena

Discipline: information services

 

Abstract:

The processing time of Scopus-indexed journals, from submission to publication, is influenced by various factors, including journal policies, submission volume, reviewer availability, editorial workload, revision processes, and publication queues. Studies indicate significant variability in processing times across different journals, with averages ranging from 3 to 6 months, though some outliers can extend up to 12 months. Journal-specific policies and editorial practices play a crucial role, with more rigorous peer-review processes generally resulting in longer processing times. Efficient editorial workflows and adequate support are essential for minimizing delays. High submission volumes can lead to increased processing times due to the greater workload for editorial teams and limited reviewer availability, especially for specialized topics. Reviewer responsiveness also impacts the timeline, as delays in securing and completing reviews can prolong the process. Additionally, the time taken by authors to revise and resubmit manuscripts contributes to overall processing time. Clear, constructive feedback from reviewers and proactive communication between authors and editors can streamline this phase. Once accepted, the placement of a manuscript in the publication queue affects the time to appear in an issue, with some journals experiencing delays due to long queues or prioritization of certain content. Understanding these factors helps authors manage expectations and make informed decisions about where to submit their manuscripts, optimizing their chances of timely publication while maintaining research quality.



References:

  1. Daniel, K. L., McConnell, M., Schuchardt, A., & Peffer, M. E. (2022). Challenges facing interdisciplinary researchers: Findings from a professional development workshop. Plos one, 17(4), e0267234.
  2. Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Cheung, C. M., Conboy, K., Duan, Y., Dubey, R., ... & Viglia, G. (2022). How to develop a quality research article and avoid a journal desk rejection. International Journal of Information Management, 62, 102426.
  3. Fisher, M. J., & Bloomfield, J. (2019). Understanding the research process. Journal of the Australasian Rehabilitation Nurses Association, 22(1), 22-27.
  4. Guthrie, J., Parker, L. D., & Gray, R. (2004). Requirements and understandings for publishing academic research: an insider view. In The real life guide to accounting research (pp. 411-432). Elsevier.
  5. Moos, D. D., & Hawkins, P. (2009, April). Barriers and strategies to the revision process from an editor’s perspective. In Nursing Forum (Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 79-92). Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing Inc.
  6. Nguyen, V. M., Haddaway, N. R., Gutowsky, L. F., Wilson, A. D., Gallagher, A. J., Donaldson, M. R., ... & Cooke, S. J. (2015). How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals. PloS one, 10(8), e0132557.
  7. Srinivasan, S., & Morgenstern, J. (2021). Auctions and Peer Prediction for Academic Peer Review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.00923.
  8. Tort, A. B., Targino, Z. H., & Amaral, O. B. (2012). Rising publication delays inflate journal impact factors. PLoS One, 7(12), e53374.