Timeliness
Best practice in the Essential Area of timeliness (Table 11) focussed on
transparent communication both on journal websites and in correspondence
with authors about expectations regarding potential timelines, including
average decision times and information on acceptance rates. Reviewers
should have the ability to let the journal know if they are unable to
assist or if their report will be delayed. While automatic reminders and
automatic updates can be helpful, if a manuscript is unreasonably
delayed, a personal email explaining the circumstances to the author is
essential. It is helpful for journal teams to monitor journal turnaround
times on a regular basis to make any immediate or long-term adjustments
as necessary to workflows. Additional tools may accelerate elements of
the submission and peer review process, such as tools to detect textual
overlap or to find potential peer reviewers.
Obstacles with respect to best practice in this area include limitations
in technology. For example, while it is always possible to capture
information that a reviewer has declined to review, it may not always be
possible to capture the reason why the reviewer declined. Other
obstacles related to a lack of awareness that particular tools exist or
prioritising timeliness given the lack of apparent targets or reporting
on journal metrics, or an unwillingness to share information on journal
metrics outside of journal teams.
68% of journals do not share key editorial metrics with authors (Q49:
R-score = 1), 52% do not describe the stages used in peer review (Q48:
R-score = 1), and 56% do not inform authors when they might experience
delays (Q50: R-score = 1). On the other hand, 53% have some practice
about sharing timeliness goals across the journal teams (Q34: R-score =
2) and 17% have good practice (Q34: R-score = 3); 44% conduct regular
reviews (Q35: R-score = 2) and 23% have good practice (Q35: R-score =
3).