COVID-19 has changed many aspects of the publishing industry and caused numerous issues and disruptions to arise in the last year. One of the biggest issues has been mounting delays in the peer review and publishing process. With many authors and researchers struggling to access their research facilities, the time needed to complete revisions and reviews have increased leading to delays all throughout the publishing process for many journals. The fact that this slow down came at a time when research on certain topics relating to the pandemic was at a premium only led to further issues with many journals looking at ways to fast-track the processing of their articles.
In 2020, many journals instituted policies to accelerate the publication of articles with COVID-19 research. A study from June of 2020 showed that articles with COVID-19 as their primary subject had a median time from submission to acceptance of just 6 days compared to 84 days for non-COVID-19 papers. While fast-tracking certainly makes sense for manuscripts focused on fighting the pandemic, what of the non-COVID-19 submissions? Many of these articles are being delayed, which can cause larger problems for authors who might have promotion, tenure, grant proposals, and department budgets that are dependent on publishing timelines.
The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) has shown a willingness to embrace this accelerated peer review process by providing $450 fast-track fee that guarantees peer review comments for authors within three weeks of submission. This fee also guarantees publication of the article within four weeks if the article is accepted. The journal also provides free fast-tracking for all COVID-19 articles as long as the pandemic remains in a “critical phase.” Fast-tracking policies like these aren’t new and have always been controversial.
In 2015, Scientific Reports ran a month-long fast-track trial program with a $750 fee that guaranteed a decision within three weeks of submission. According to the journal’s parent organization, the fast-track program was launched in response to complaints from 70% of the journal’s authors who found their articles were getting bottlenecked during the review process. However, the launch of the fast-track program was negatively received by many scientists. One editor from Scientific Reports resigned from the board in protest, arguing that the program would create a “two-tier system” that would only benefit the rich. This is only compounded by the fact that many journals already require publication or page fees at acceptance.
For publishers and societies that have struggled with similar “bottlenecking,” Technica Editorial Services has extensive experience providing support to help reduce this issue without introducing fast-tracked peer review processes. For a full list of our services, visit our website.
There has been little conclusive evidence showing the effect that fast-tracked peer review has on the quality of published articles. However, we have already covered how some predatory publishers have used the promise of faster results to publish articles of dubious quality. Therefore, concern seems warranted.
What do you think about fast-track peer review policies? Has your journal instituted a policy for fast-tracking COVID-19-related articles? What has been the results? Let us know in the comments below.
