Neil, Thanks for posting two recent publications on speed of review. My experience with the review process as an author goes back to 1978 (Nature 271). My experience as reviewer began 1988. For a decade I was responsible for the review process at a leading journal in marine science.
The PLOS one article was consistent with my experience. The Cooke at al article collided with my experience. Set against the 'need for speed' we have the equally alliterative 'haste makes waste.' As to science and 'need for speed' imagine yourself as science person on a panel, charged by US FDA, to put science to decision for fast tracking trials on a new drug. And you the science person put in room full of weeping parents, and their children in wheel chairs, all doomed to die before age 30, all parents firmly convinced the new drug is efficacious. At the same time, from experience you know that new drugs can have tragic side effects (e.g. thalidomide). [search google image search on thalidomide, if the term is outside your experience] I've writ it large to make the case. Some delay means the review process is working, compared to ROM (read only memory) publication in an ejournal that promises rapid publication once you pay the publication fee. Yours in science in the public interest, David S Quoting Neil Hammerschlag <[email protected]>: > Edwin et al > > Here are two recent papers that evaluate author perspectives on review times > and possible implications for conservation. > > > Haddaway NR, Gutowsky LFG, Wilson ADM, Gallagher AJ, Donaldson MR, > Hammerschlag N, Cooke SJ. (2015) How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer > Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology > Journals.<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132557> > PLoS ONE 10(8): e0132557. > > Cooke SJ, Nguyen VM, Wilson AD, Donaldson MR, Gallagher A, Hammerschlag N, > Haddaway NR. (2016) The need for speed in a crisis discipline: perspectives > on peer review duration and implications for conservation > science.<http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/assets/Cooke_et_al._2016.pdf> Endangered > Species Research 30: 11-19 > > Cheers > > Neil > > > > > > Neil Hammerschlag, Ph.D. <http://neilhammer.com/> > Research Assistant Professor > Rosenstiel Marine School (RSMAS) | Abess Center (CESP) > Predator Ecology Lab | Shark Research & Conservation Program (SRC) > University of Miami > > e: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > o: 305.421.4356<tel:305.421.4356> | c: 305.951.6577<tel:305.951.6577> | t: > @DrNeilHammer<https://twitter.com/#%21/DrNeilHammer> > > Lab Website: SharkTagging.com<http://sharktagging.com/> > > > > > On Apr 26, 2016, at 10:58 AM, Edwin Cruz-Rivera > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Dear All, > I am very curious about the life cycle of manuscripts in > online journals these days. I have been doing some numbers on PLOS One, which > advertises as the journal accelerating the publication of peer-reviewed > science. However, a quick look at the papers that have been published in the > past few months reveals most of these were accepted 5-9 months after > submission. What strikes me as odd is that PLOS One gives you two weeks to > review a manuscript, and they start pestering you with reminders even before > the review is late and may you not be late for 48 hours! So how does a > journal that expects such a fast turnaround from peer reviewers deal with > authors at such glacial pace? To begin with, it is not as if publication > comes cheap in this journal. Should 1250 USD not include a bit of expediency? > The numbers here seem odd. We have had a paper stuck in limbo since November > 2015 without a final answer yet, supposedly because they cannot find an > editor (out of > 6000) who can manage the revised version of the paper. > So the key question is, I suppose: Is this seemingly epic sluggishness the > norm in open access/online publication these days? > At this point, I am not really convinced PLOS One should be advertising as > the fast one or is it? > Any thoughts? > > Edwin > ================= > Dr. Edwin Cruz-Rivera > Visiting Associate Professor > Department of Biological Sciences > University of the Virgin Islands > #2 John Brewers Bay > St. Thomas 00802 > USVI > Tel: 1-340-693-1235 > Fax: 1-340-693-1385 > > "It is not the same to hear the devil as to see him coming your way" > (Puerto Rican proverb) > >
