Aim. To determine the characteristics of megajournal authors, the nature of the manuscripts they are submitting to these journals, factors influencing their decision to publish in a megajournal, sources of funding for article processing charges (APCs) or other fees and their likelihood of submitting to a megajournal in the future.Methods. Web-based survey of 2,128 authors who recently published in BMJ Open, PeerJ, PLOS ONE or SAGE Open.Results. The response rate ranged from 26% for BMJ Open to 47% for SAGE Open. The authors were international, largely academics who had recently published in both subscription and Open Access (OA) journals. Across journals about 25% of the articles were preliminary findings and just under half were resubmissions of manuscripts rejected by other journals. Editors from other BMJ journals and perhaps to a lesser extent SAGE and PLOS journals appear to be encouraging authors to submit manuscripts that were rejected by the editor’s journals to a megajournal published by the same publisher. Quality of the journal and speed of the review process were important factors across all four journals. Impact factor was important for PLOS ONE authors but less so for BMJ Open authors, which also has an impact factor. The review criteria and the fact the journal was OA were other significant factors particularly important for PeerJ authors. The reputation of the publisher was an important factor for SAGE Open and BMJ Open. About half of PLOS ONE and around a third of BMJ Open and PeerJ authors used grant funding for publishing charges while only about 10% of SAGE Open used grant funding for publication charges. Around 60% of SAGE Open and 32% of PeerJ authors self-funded their publication fees however the fees are modest for these journals. The majority of authors from all 4 journals were pleased with their experience and indicated they were likely to submit to the same or similar journal in the future.Conclusions. Megajournals are drawing an international group of authors who tend to be experienced academics. They are choosing to publish in megajournals for a variety of reasons but most seem to value the quality of the journal and the speed of the review/publication process. Having a broad scope was not a key factor for most authors though being OA was important for PeerJ and SAGE Open authors. Most authors appeared pleased with the experience and indicated they are likely to submit future manuscripts to the same or similar megajournal which seems to suggest these journals will continue to grow in popularity. With the launch of PLOS ONE in 2007 and its phenomenal growth over the last 7 years, megajournals have become a major venue for disseminating scientific research. These journals are open access (OA), have broad scopes; a review process focusing exclusively on whether the methodology is sound and an accelerated publication process. There are now over 20 such journals including recently announced megajournals from the Royal Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Educational Research Association. While the growth of PLOS ONE has moderated, the growth of megajournal publishing as a whole continues to be exponential and in total these journals are now publishing approximately 4,000 articles a month  or an esAlthough author surveys have been conducted by megajournal publishers , to my kThe Scientific, Technical and Medical (STM) publishing market alone is approaching 10 billion USD with about 73% of the 11,550 English language journals from non-profit publishers . If authThe growth of the APC funded OA market itself is becoming disruptive to the publishing industry. The shift from funding publication via subscriptions to APCs used by the majority of megajournals shifts from readers or their proxy being the purchaser of publishing services to authors, their institutions and/or their funders being the purchaser. The factors that influence authors’ choice of a journal and the sources of funding they have available for paying publishing charges becomes much more critical when publishing is funded through publishing fees. How authors feel about this issue has broad implications for maintaining a transparent, cost effective and competitive market for APC funded publication . UnderstI conducted a web-based survey of corresponding authors who recently published articles in four megajournals. These included PLOS ONE, BMJ Open, SAGE Open and PeerJ. I chose PLOS ONE and BMJ Open because they were established biomedical journals in operation long enough to receive an impact factor. SAGE Open is the only established megajournal in the social sciences and offered interesting cross-discipline comparison with the mostly biomedical journals that were launched after the success of PLOS ONE. PeerJ is a very innovative biomedical megajournal with a unique membership funding model and also offered an interesting comparison with the other three journals. The goals of the survey were describing the authors choosing to publish in these four megajournals; determining the factors influencing their decision to publish in the journal they chose and the means by which they funded the APC or in the case of PeerJ, the membership fee. I was also interested in whether their article was a resubmission after being rejected by another journal and whether these articles described preliminary research that and was the basis of what the authors planned to publish in more complete form in another venue. In other words were these journals containing largely preliminary work or manuscripts authors had difficulty publishing elsewhere. Authors were also asked the likelihood of submitting a manuscript to that journal or another similar megajournal. I would have like to ask a broader set of questions but felt it was important to keep the survey short in the interest of increasing response rates from the busy researchers publishing in these journals. As noted this new form of scientific publishing has grown quickly and new megajournals are rapidly being launched. Understanding the type of material that is being published, the motivations for authors choosing to publish in these journals and how they are funding author fees is essential for understanding the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system. This information is useful for funding agencies, scholarly societies and libraries in adjusting to the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing ecosystem.I sampled authors who published in BMJ Open and SAGE Open during 2013. The journals had published around 800 and 300 articles respectively during 2013. Using software I developed, I “scraped” the corresponding author’s name, email and the title of the article off the publisher’s web site. The software was run in mid-December 2013 and I attempted to scrape all the published articles starting in January 2013 up until the time the data were collected. PLOS ONE published over 30,000 articles during 2013, far more than would be reasonable to sample. I originally sampled about 1,000 authors whose articles were published during the first 2 weeks of December 2013 scraping the author contact information from the PLOS ONE web site using similar software to that used for BMC Open and SAGE Open. These were used to pilot the survey, software and email contact procedures. Due to changes in the survey based on the pilot results and an error in the software that failed to record one of the questions; these data were not used in the study. I sampled approximately 1,000 PLOS ONE authors whose articles were published in the last two weeks of January 2014. PeerJ provided me with equivalent author information for all the authors publishing in PeerJ from its launch in February 2013 through February 2014.The email lists were stripped of duplicates and a few of the data records had names and other information garbled by inconsistencies in the character set during the scraping process. Where it was not possible to reconstruct the information, these authors were not used in the study. A total of 935, 728, 231 and 234 authors were surveyed from PLOS ONE, BMJ Open, SAGE Open and PeerJ respectively resulting in a grand total of 2,128 authors surveyed.I followed guidelines outlined by http://openaccesspublishing.org/survey/Example_Survey.html.A slightly different version of the survey was used for the authors publishing in PeerJ to reflect the membership funding model as opposed to the APC funding model used by the other 3 journals. An example of the PeerJ survey can be viewed at:http://openaccesspublishing.org/survey/Example_PJsurvey.html.p < 0.01 it is noted in the table legends.Where appropriate, chi-square tests were performed to assess the probability the differences in the percentages in the authors’ responses among the journals were due to chance. Where the probability the differences were due to chance were less than The survey protocol was deemed exempt by the Michigan State University Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board, IRB Number: x14-029e; i045267.Authors were given the opportunity to include written comments concerning their employment, choice of a journal and more general comments about their experience publishing in the megajournal they chose. The comments in a PDF format and a copy of the data in Excel format are available at:http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.962954.The software used to scrape the author names and email addresses and the email sent to the authors requesting their permission are also included at the URL above.About 35 of the authors’ emails were not valid. SAGE Open had the highest response rate at around 47%, followed by PeerJ at around 40% with substantially lower response rates for PLOS ONE and BMJ Open at 29% and 26% respectively. A total of 665 authors responded to the survey. These results are roughly consistent with a similar survey I conducted with a colleague that included OA journals charging APCs from a wide range of disciplines .Approximately 25% of the authors across all the journals and 40% of the authors of PeerJ and SAGE Open articles were from the USA. Researchers from United Kingdom and Australia published the highest percentage of articles in BMJ Open. Articles were most evenly distributed geographically in PLOS ONE but all four megajournals were very international with authors spanning the globe. A listing of the number of articles from each country for each of the four journals is contained in the supplemental materials.p < 0.01.Authors were asked about their previous publishing history both in terms of subscription and open access journals. Authors were also asked whether their manuscript described preliminary findings from a study from which they planned to publish more complete data at a later date and whether the paper was a resubmission of a manuscript they had attempted to publish in another journal. Authors were asked to rate the importance of each of 10 factors in their decision to submit their paper to the megajournal in which they published. They also were asked to select the most important factor and were given the option of describing other factors in a textbox. As noted above, a slightly different survey was sent to PeerJ authors given the difference in funding model and that the journal has not yet been given an impact factor. Two of the 10 factors listed for this question differed. Instead of impact factor, authors were asked to rate the importance of the website, which is fairly innovative and instead of the amount of the APC they were asked to rate the importance of PeerJ’s membership funding model. Importance was rated on a four point scale from not important to very important. Authors were also given the option of marking that the factor negatively influenced their decision to submit. The quality of the journals was a major consideration with over 20% of the authors that published in each journal rating it the most important consideration. The fact the journal was open access was the major consideration for PeerJ and SAGE Open authors but less of a consideration for PLOS ONE and BMJ Open authors. Just over 20% of the PLOS ONE authors rated the impact factor their most important consideration.The authors were asked to list their sources of support for covering the APC or the membership fee in the case of PeerJ. They were given the option of listing multiple sources. The results are presented in Approximately half the authors publishing in PLOS ONE were able to use grant funding while roughly 35% and 30% of PeerJ and BMJ Open respectively used grant funding. Only 11% of SAGE Open authors used grant funding for the APC which is likely a reflection of the scope of the journal. The journals varied considerably in terms of the percentage of authors who self-funded the cost of publication. Almost 63% of SAGE Open authors used personal funds to pay the APC. It should be noted that SAGE Open reduced their APC to 99 USD in January 2013 . Approxip < 0.01. It appears that at least the authors who completed the survey were satisfied enough with the experience of publishing in a megajournal to seriously consider submitting to a megajournal in the future.The authors were asked to rate on a five point scale how likely they would be to submit manuscripts to the same or similar megajournal in the future. Do you have any other thoughts about publishing your paper in [journal]?” The comments, organized by journal, are available in the survey data archive at the URL above.The authors were given the option to write in general comments concerning their experience with the following prompt. “Comments that were clearly not informative, such as “thanks” or “no” were removed and a blank line was placed between each authors’ comment. Otherwise the comments appear as received.The comments across the four journals were in general quite positive reflecting the authors’ indications they would likely publish in the journal they had or a similar megajournal. The comments for BMJ Open and, in particular, PeerJ were extremely positive.Eleven SAGE Open and 8 PLOS ONE authors complained about the length of the review process. In some cases based on the author’s comments the journals had difficulty finding reviewers and/or academic editors with the appropriate expertise to review the submission. Several SAGE Open authors indicated they had review times of over a year. There were no such comments for BMJ Open and PeerJ. It should also be noted several authors were complementary of the SAGE Open and PLOS ONE review process. The APC was referenced in 18 of the comments from BMJ Open expressing a range of views.Both the number of megajournals and the articles they publish are growing rapidly. As this new format of scholarly publishing becomes established there is a need to gain a better understanding of the authors who are publishing in these journals, what is motivating them to choose this format and how are they covering the costs of publication. I believe this is the first systematic study exploring these issues.This study has limitations that should be taken into account in interpreting the results. Chief among these is the potential of response bias. It is not clear how representative the respondents to the survey were of all authors publishing in these journals. Since the survey was designed to keep the responses anonymous, it is not possible to tell if the respondents differ in any systematic way from those who chose not to respond. In an attempt to increase the response rate, the survey was kept very short and hence the information that was captured is also fairly limited. In addition, scholarly articles, particularly in biomedicine tend to have several authors and it is not clear the views of the corresponding authors are representative of their coauthors. Only 4 journals were included in the study and may not represent megajournals in general. Also author opinions may evolve over time as this form of publishing become more established. Despite these and potentially other limitations the survey provides interesting information about authors’ thoughts and experiences publishing in these four megajournals.The journals appear to be attracting a very diverse group of researchers. Despite the fact BMJ Open and PLOS ONE have significant APCs, all four journals attract a very international set of authors. As one might expect the authors tend to be mainly academics. The authors as a whole appeared to be fairly experienced researchers who had a significant number of recent publications in both subscription and OA journals.Authors were also asked if their study was a preliminary study and if it was a resubmission of an article originally sent to another journal. It would seem authors wishing to publish preliminary data from an ongoing study might find the megajournal format attractive given the review criteria are limited to the soundness of the methodology. About a quarter of the authors in BMJ Open, PLOS ONE and SAGE Open indicated their manuscript did in fact describe preliminary results. Interestingly only about 10% of the authors publishing in PeerJ indicated this was the case. One might think PeerJ with its membership model and very rapid submission to first decision time would be attractive to authors publishing preliminary work but as yet, that does not seem to be a significant source of manuscripts for the journal.These journals do seem to attract a significant number of resubmissions. As noted two thirds of the BMJ Open authors indicated their article was a resubmission of a manuscript rejected by another journal. There were spontaneous comments from 11 authors indicating they were encouraged to resubmit to BMJ Open after rejection by another BMJ journal. As noted above, BMJ does have a policy that upon request of the author, manuscripts not accepted by other BMJ journals will automatically be considered by BMJ Open. It appears this policy may account for many of the BMJ Open publications.Just under half of the authors from PLOS ONE and SAGE Open indicated their publications were resubmissions. One author from each of these journals also spontaneously stated they were encouraged by the editor of another journal from the same publisher to submit to their megajournal after rejection. PeerJ had the lowest percentage of authors indicating their articles were resubmissions at 37%. While it may be an unrelated fact, PeerJ is not part of a larger publishing house. Since it is common for journals to have rejection rates well above 50%, it is not surprising many of the articles published in megajournals are resubmissions of manuscripts previously sent to another journal. It appears that to some extent publishers, most notably BMJ, are steering authors whose research may be sound but not of interest to their more selective journals to resubmit their manuscripts to their megajournal.The quality of the journal and the speed of the review/publication process were the two factors rated highly across all four journals in the authors’ decision to publish in the megajournal. The APC was a negative factor for a portion of the authors, particularly PLOS ONE and BMJ Open which have considerably higher fees. Being open access was one of the more important factors for PeerJ authors as well as SAGE Open authors but less so for the authors of the other two journals.The impact factor was an important positive consideration for PLOS ONE and BMJ Open, the two journals that currently have an impact factor. As one might expect, grants were the largest source of funding for APCs among the biomedical journals. It was far less common for SAGE Open authors where the vast majority of authors used personal funds. SAGE recently reduced the SAGE One APC to 99 USD, perhaps influenced by the fact their authors are largely self-funding publication and would naturally be very sensitive to the price of an APC. While considerably lower, around a third of the PeerJ authors paid their membership fee out of personal funds. Although a biomedical journal, PeerJ’s membership fee is fairly low and may attract authors who are publishing unfunded research and might otherwise submit to a journal that does not require a publication fee. A large percentage of PLOS ONE and even more significantly BMJ Open authors used departmental/institutional discretionary funding or institutional funding based on a policy of funding APCs. About 25% of the SAGE Open authors also were able to fund publication with these sources. PeerJ has implemented institutional memberships with a number of universities and other organizations but very few of the authors who responded to the survey indicated they were able to take advantage of these agreements. PeerJ has had in place a fee waiver during a significant portion of the period data were collected. A little over a quarter of the authors were able to take advantage of publishing their manuscript without having to obtain a paid membership.Authors are funding the cost of publishing in a variety of ways. As one might expect, covering a fee of around 1,350 USD or for some megajournals even higher is an issue for authors without grants or some form of institutional funding. Where it is possible to maintain APCs or membership fees in the range of 100 USD, it appears many authors are willing to pay the fees themselves. Given the relatively modest sample size I did not try to break down the data by country. While a fee of 100 USD might be affordable for researchers in the US or Western Europe, that may not be the case in other parts of the world.Clearly the cost of publications fees is an issue for researchers in the social sciences and this pressure appears to have resulted in substantially lower publications fees for SAGE One. It seems that although a high APC was an issue for some of the respondents who published in PLOS ONE and BMJ Open these journals are attracting a large number of submissions and the pressure to keep publication fees low does not appear to be as great as in the social sciences one would assume because of the availability of funding either through granting agencies or the authors’ institution.The authors overwhelmingly indicated they would likely publish again in the same or another similar megajournal. Most of the comments were written were also positive. PeerJ authors seemed to be particularly satisfied with their publishing experience. As a new journal, the staff may be particularly sensitive to providing good service to the authors. As noted above, a few of the PLOS ONE and SAGE Open authors complained about exceptionally long review times. It appears that these journals occasionally experience difficulty locating appropriate review editors and/or reviewers. While this can be a challenge for any journal editor, having a very broad scope would likely increase the difficulty of finding qualified experts for peer review. Given the tremendous volume of PLOS ONE submissions it would not be surprising if they occasionally have difficulty finding appropriate review teams. Some authors were clearly frustrated with the length of the review process. It seems most authors were reasonably satisfied given their willingness to submit to the journals or at least the journal format in the future.What seems clear is the reputation of the journal and the quality of the service they provide are major factors in the choice of where these researchers published. For some megajournals and likely to a greater extent in some fields the impact factor as a proxy for quality is extremely important. Although journals have always competed for the best manuscripts, the APC funding model or a membership model such as used by PeerJ increases the importance of journals attracting submissions. Authors rather than readers or libraries as their proxy have become the customers with this business model. In this sense, one might expect an increasing focus by publishers on enhancing the services provided to authors such as fast efficient review and user friendly submission systems.The impact on author fees appears to be more complex. In fields where funding for publishing is more readily available the pressure on publishers to lower APCs may be less or nearly nonexistent for journals with high impact factors and excellent reputations for quality. In fields such as social science where authors often self-fund publishing charges, price is an important factor in the decision where to publish and there appears to be real competitive pressure to keep author fees low. Grantors, universities and other agencies that provide funding for their researchers’ publishing fees will need to find ways to balance subsidizing their researchers’ publication fees while encouraging them to consider price as well as quality or impact in the choice of journals in which to publish. If not, there will likely be considerable inflation in publishing fees for the more prestigious journals in fields such as biomedicine where research funding is readily available.Megajournals are becoming an established part of scientific publishing. The results of this survey seem to suggest that a broad range of authors are choosing to publish in this format and in general are satisfied with their experience.10.7717/peerj.365/supp-1Supplemental Information 1Click here for additional data file.10.7717/peerj.365/supp-2Supplemental Information 2Click here for additional data file.


Delays in peer reviewed publication may have consequences for both assessment of scientific prowess in academia as well as communication of important information to the knowledge receptor community. We present an analysis on the perspectives of authors publishing in conservation biology journals regarding their opinions on the importance of speed in peer-review as well as how to improve review times. Authors were invited to take part in an online questionnaire, of which the data was subjected to both qualitative  and quantitative analyses . We received 637 responses to 6,547 e-mail invitations sent. Peer-review speed was generally perceived as slow, with authors experiencing a typical turnaround time of 14 weeks while their perceived optimal review time was six weeks. Male and younger respondents seem to have higher expectations of review speed than females and older respondents. The majority of participants attributed lengthy review times to reviewer and editor fatigue, while editor persistence and journal prestige were believed to speed up the review process. Negative consequences of lengthy review times were perceived to be greater for early career researchers and to have impact on author morale (e.g. motivation or frustration). Competition among colleagues was also of concern to respondents. Incentivizing peer-review was among the top suggested alterations to the system along with training graduate students in peer-review, increased editorial persistence, and changes to the norms of peer-review such as opening the peer-review process to the public. It is clear that authors surveyed in this study viewed the peer-review system as under stress and we encourage scientists and publishers to push the envelope for new peer-review models. Peer reviewed publications remain the cornerstone of the scientific world , 2 despiDespite the switch from surface mail to online communication channels and article submission , 11, revHere, we present an analysis on perspectives about the speed and importance of review times among a subset of authors of papers within the realm of “conservation biology.” Conservation biology is a field with particular urgency for evidence to inform decisions , but hasWe extracted the e-mail addresses of authors that published in the field of “conservation biology” from citation records within the Web of Science online database. A search was undertaken on 9 April, 2014 using Web of Science . We used the following search string, and limited the search to 2013 : “conservation AND *diversity”. Search results were refined to include entries for the following Web of Science subject categories alone: environmental sciences ecology, biodiversity conservation, zoology, plant sciences, marine freshwater biology, agriculture, forestry, entomology, fisheries. A total of 6,142 results were obtained, where 4,606 individual e-mail addresses were extracted. E-mails were sent to this mailing list inviting authors to participate in an anonymous online questionnaire hosted on Fluid Surveys; however, of these e-mails, 312 addresses were inactive. Individuals with e-mails that bounced back indicating a change of e-mail were sent an invitation to the new e-mail address indicated. We sent an additional invitation on 22 May, 2014 using a mailing list produced from an additional extraction of 2,679 e-mail addresses obtained from another search using the above string and subject categories but restricted to 2012, with 426 addresses that were non-functional or no longer active. Reminders were sent to all e-mail addresses between 18–20 June, 2014, and closed access to the online questionnaire on 3 July, 2014.The entire questionnaire was composed of 38 open- and closed-ended questions, of which a subset of the questions relevant to review times was used for this study. We asked respondents to focus their experiences in the last five years, given the major phase shift in review protocols in earlier years associated with the move to electronic-based communication , 18. HowFor open-ended responses, we categorized the data by common themes that emerged among responses  using QGeneralized linear models were used to identify how demographic information , career status , and experience regarding review times , “short” (SHORT), or “long” (LONG) review period) explained respondents’ expectations  for the length of time that constitutes an optimal (Model 1), short (Model 2) and long review time (Model 3). Response variables (modeled as # of weeks) were assumed to follow a Poisson or negative binomial distribution  with normally distributed errors. The best model to explain respondent opinion was selected using backwards model selection , 21. DetWe received 673 responses out of all the invited participants , of which 461 completed the questionnaire to the end, with the possibility of skipping some questions . The majority of respondents (N = 640) worked in countries of high-income economies (78%), followed by upper-middle-income economies (17%), lower-middle-income (4%), and less than 2% for low-income economies. The top countries participating in this study included the United States (17%), the United Kingdom (10%), Australia (8%) and Brazil (7%). The majority of respondents (N = 611) were from academia (77% of which 15% were graduate students), governmental or state agencies (11%), non-government or non-profit organizations (10%), and the private sector (2%) which can include consulting and non-academic research institutes among others. The participant characterization suggests that the author perspectives in this article are largely biased towards industrialized nations and academia, which reflects the characteristics we would expect from the research community.A larger proportion of participants published their first paper within the last decade , which indicates a bias toward authors that are potentially in their mid-careers. About half of the respondents have published > 20 publications (with 21% of 623 respondents publishing >50), and only 10% have published <10. Half of the participants publish < 3 papers per year, 35% publish 4–6, 10% publish 7–10, and only 3% of participants publish >10 papers per year. Furthermore, nearly half of the respondents act as journal referees 1–5 times per year (48% of N = 450). Twenty percent of respondents are highly active referees (reviewing manuscripts >10 times per year), 25% being referees 6–10 times, and < 10% reviewing manuscripts only once a year. Overall, the majority of respondents have been publishing for at least 10 years and at least half of them are highly experienced with the peer-review process as both authors and referees. As such, the perspectives gathered in our questionnaire come from highly experienced authors that are actively publishing and therefore familiar with the peer-review system.shortest or quickest review time was reported to be 5.1 ± 6.0 weeks  is 6.4 ± 4 weeks. An optimal range for peer review durations were 1–20 weeks with majority falling within eight weeks or under (86% of 366 responses).We asked participating authors about their experience with peer-review durations , and 368 respondents gave useable/ complete answers. The average (mean ± SD) .0 weeks , while t.8 weeks —nearly dThe fact that respondent opinions and actual experiences of short or long review durations are not aligned, and that their experiences of review durations are lengthier , indicate that the overall perception of the peer-review system is slow. Results reported here may provide indicators for conservation biology related journals to gauge their performance on review time and improve author experiences and satisfaction. In a broad review (over 4000 respondents from across disciplines), Mulligan et al.  noted thhigher review quality and another 8% believed fast reviews have lower review quality (10% had no opinion). Therefore, faster review times should presumably be beneficial to the authors, the journals and the relevant field given the belief that review speed does not affect quality, although this has not been tested empirically. We discuss mechanisms to improve review times based on this information later in this article.Respondents did not perceive “fast” or “slow” reviews to influence review quality (75% of 547 useable responses), with the exception of 8% of respondents who believed that fast reviews have L- Ratio Test = 5.9, df = 1, P = 0.015). According to both male and female respondents, the optimal length of time for a review should always be shorter than what they have experienced as “typical” , SHORT*Gender , SHORT*Age . For respondents over 41 years old, experience and opinion are more closely related than compared to younger respondents who suggest a short review is ≤ 10 weeks, regardless of experience  and Gender . Here, respondents always expected “long” review periods to be many weeks less than what was experienced as a “long” review  waited on average 12.9 ± 7.5 weeks before making first contact with the editor or journal regarding the status of the manuscript “in review”. Of those who make first contact with an editor or journal, most will make additional attempts (77% of 479 responses) if time progresses without a response or decision. Of 479 completed responses, only 9% will never attempt to contact the editor or journal suggesting that the author population in this study is quite proactive in voicing their concerns, but keeping in mind that authors who are proactive are likely to agree to partake in the questionnaire. Nevertheless, this finding is important for editors who may feel confused as to the sort of delays in time before authors begin contacting them. Approximately 12% of participants (N = 469) believed that contacting the editor or journal would jeopardize the decision for acceptance, 6% thought it would benefit the decision, while majority did not believe there was any influence.Only 14% of respondents (N = 480) have threatened to withdraw their manuscript from a journal, and 15% (of the 480 respondents) have actually withdrawn a submitted manuscript when the review process was unsatisfactorily long, which was indicated to be on average 30 ± 31 weeks  when such actions were deemed necessary. This review duration for a potential withdrawal of a manuscript is over double the average time that respondents perceive as slow, indicating that most authors had been quite patient with the peer review process. Despite their apparent patience, respondents generally believe that long reviews should be shorter than what they have experienced , indicatThe majority of participants (72% of 480 responses) did not believe that a long or a short review period would mean that the manuscript was likely to be accepted or rejected. Contrastingly, 14% of respondents believed that a “short” review period would likely lead to a rejection of the manuscript and only 6% believed it would likely be accepted, leaving 8% without opinion. In general, authors did not seem to believe there was any bias toward acceptance or rejection of their manuscript if they contacted the editor or whether the review period was quick or long.slowing review speed, followed by editor fatigue, and somewhat the length of the manuscript as well as number of reviewers (Of the completed responses (N = 471), over half of the respondents (56%) believed that the reviewers are accountable for the review duration, while 33% held the editors accountable, and 6% attributed delays to the journal staff. The remainder of respondents (5%) believed it was a combination of all the players. Likert type questions revealed that in general, reviewer fatigue  was ranked as the most influential factor in eviewers . One resWhile editors try to find suitable reviewers in practice there is a relatively small pool of reviewers who can be relied on to do useful reviews. I am an associate editor on 5 journals and am convinced that there is substantial reviewer fatigue out there as the number of publications has grown annually as have the number of journals.This may correspond with the increased number of publications and publication outlets that contemporary scientists have to contend with. Similarly, in 2007, it was reported that over 1000 new papers appear daily in the scientific and medical literature alone, and this number is likely increasing rapidly . Kumar  listed fspeeding up the review process, as well as maximum allocated review times for each journal, and the journal prestige or impact factor  said it would depend on the journal impact factor or prestige. As expected for the other end, if the review period was short, respondents (69% of N = 471) said they are more likely to submit to that journal again, with some respondents (17%) considering journal impact factor or prestige and 12% of participants were neither more or less likely to submit to that journal again. We also found that review duration is an important factor when respondents (N = 470) consider which journal to submit their research to (43% said yes and 46% said sometimes), while < 10% of participants said they never consider review duration when submitting a manuscript. Therefore, review time is an important consideration for journals to maintain reputation, as majority of respondents have given thought to review times when deciding what journal to submit to. Although, there are some indications of trade-offs between review duration and impact factor as approximately 1 of 5 respondents consider journal prestige and impact factor as an influential part of deciding to which journal they should submit.After a long review period, most respondents (74% of 472 responses) said they are In general, respondents (N = 465) discuss the speed of review with their colleagues, of which 54% (of 465) discuss it monthly, 30% once a year, 12% weekly, 1% daily and 4% never discuss review speed. Interestingly, there was an even split among all respondents (N = 466) with authors (49%) that have “blacklisted” a journal for its lengthy review times  and those who have not (48%). These findings send multiple messages to journal editors: 1) review time is an important factor for authors in consideration of publication outlets, and 2) review time is actively being discussed by half of the respondents, which can hinder or endorse a particular journal’s reputation. Publication of research can ultimately affect society at large if the manuscript has significant scientific and policy implications. Therefore, editors/journals/publishers have a responsibility to disseminate credible scientific information in a timely manner and must play an active role through setting standards and facilitating the peer-review process .Just over half of the respondents (55% of 466 respondents) feel that a lengthy peer-review process affects their career, while 30% did not believe it did. Open-ended responses suggested that lengthier peer-review durations generally have negative impacts on “early career researchers” and “young scientists” (mentioned by 65 of 212 responses) because of the “publish or perish” system, which affects opportunities for jobs and career advancement. One respondent wrote:As an early career researcher trying to build a list of publications, it is important to have papers reviewed quickly. The longer the time lag between a research project and accepted publication the more difficult it is to apply for new grants or job opportunities.Furthermore, some respondents mentioned the delay in graduation or acceptance in graduate school for students due to lengthy peer-review processes:I received the first response about my first article only after 54 weeks. At that time I was not able to start my PhD because the institution only accepted candidates with at least one accepted article.Even after successful completion of my Ph.D. research topic, I was unable to submit my thesis because it’s a rule that at the day of Ph.D. thesis submission, must have a minimum one peer reviewed publication.The comments of these early-career respondents are perhaps reflected in the predictions from Model 2, where despite the length of time they have experienced as a “short” review, respondents consistently expect review periods to be much shorter . It seemFor respondents with tenure or later in their career, a slow review process can impact applications for grants/funding (approximately. 28% of responses) and promotions (approximately 19% of responses):Publications are important for ranking of scientists and institution achievements so long reviews and long editorial process could violate this process.Furthermore, concerns about competition among research groups (5% of responses), subjective treatment, malpractice of certain reviewers and editors, conflicts of interest, and the potential for being “scooped”  were voiced. Intentional delay of review was also listed as 1 of 5 reasons for peer-review delay by Kumar , emphasiIf people play the game well and get their “friends” to review their papers. I am sure in many cases that speeds up the process more so when people cite their friends (the reviewers) in these papers.If a person has an "in" with the journal. In other words, subjectivity and preferential treatment increase speed.Several respondents (<8%) urged that if a manuscript is to be rejected, journals should do so in a timely manner so the researcher can resubmit to another journal sooner. Others voiced concerns that a delay of a manuscript could hinder subsequent work that is built on the manuscript in review, and some mentioned challenges in remembering specifics of the study or content of the manuscript when review times are particularly long.It was also revealed that lengthy peer reviews can affect motivation, causing conflict as well as frustration (8% of responses):The frustration associated with a lengthy process discourages the writer. Incentives for conducting research are diminished when rewards are not forthcoming. Less incentive means less motivation which both translate into less productivity. Less productivity means less likelihood for promotions. This in turn sets up a vicious cycle very similar to the one related to applying unsuccessfully for grants.A long peer review process reduces drastically your efficiency of publishing papers, because you need to go back to your previous work and you cannot focus on your current work. Sometimes you need to spend quite a bit of time figuring out how to answer reviewer’s concerns because it was too long ago that you submitted your manuscript.It is very frustrating, and sometimes embarrassing, to have papers endlessly "in review”." I had a paper where the subject editor sat on the paper for 5 months without sending it for review; after 3 contacts they finally sent it for review and it has been another month and we have not heard back. This was a key paper needed to build a grant proposal, and my collaborators consistently asked if it was published yet—the grant was ultimately submitted before the paper was accepted.These consequences are not often discussed, but are often interlinked with consequences of a researcher’s career and aspirations. Although for the majority of the time, long review durations may not have dramatic consequences; however, lengthy review durations that occur at the wrong place at the wrong time may potentially lead to a cascade of consequences.A number of respondents (<10%) provided interesting alternative responses that are worth mentioning such as (but not limited to) consequences on research quality because of the race to publish, competition among colleagues, greater opportunity cost when taking the time to submit a “quality” manuscript, and limiting peer-review process only to academic research because researchers in other sectors are not rewarded with number of publications and productivity:Research quality suffers—as opportunities to publish high quality research can be lost when other groups publish  research first. The focus then becomes speed and simplicity of research rather than quality.Because of career pressure, especially for younger scientists, or the need to complete a degree program, choices are often made (I witness them here) to submit smaller, simpler studies to journals with a quick turnaround, or with a presumed higher acceptance rate for a particular work, rather than invest more time in extending analysis and/or facing rejection or extensive revisionsWhen asked if respondents thought the review process should be altered to change the review time, 61% (of 463) responded yes, 12% responded no, and the remainder had neutral opinions. Of 462 respondents, 43% believed that the review process should be improved while only 8% said no. When asked how the review process should be improved, 211 participants provided open-ended responses ; “have a 1 in 2 out policy… each paper you submit as a lead author means you have to review 2 for that journal before you can publish again in that journal”; providing discounts on the reviewer’s own submissions or items from the scientific publishing house ; and home institutions should have reward systems for researchers who regularly review papers.Editors should remove slow reviewers from their lists. There should be a central bank where good reviewers receive benefits such as fast track review of their material if submitted to the same company . A reduction in publication costs for good reviewers Engagement for reviewing should be better acknowledged as a performance indicator; some exemplary review processes should be made public so that authors and reviewers can learn from them. Reviewers should be able to see the other reviewer's comments after the editor's decision.For instance, the journal Molecular Ecology is publishing the list of the best reviewers every years based on the quality and speed of the review. This is one example of a reward that the reviewers can put in their CV to show their importance in the field.BMJ, Richard Smith [BMJ , whereas the cost of papers that made it to review was closer to £1000 and without considering opportunity costs . A recent survey reported two-thirds of academics agreed that $100–200 would motivate them for reviewing while one-third refused to accept monetary compensation [Our findings suggest there is some weighted call for reviewer incentives and reward systems. It is challenging to get accurate data on the cost of peer review, and in economic terms, the ‘opportunity cost’ to reviewers. The editor of rd Smith , estimatensation . Kumar [ensation  reports ensation , while iensation  reportedReward system and incentives for reviewers have been proposed in the literature , where tIt may just be a matter of time for the “top reviewers” or time spent on reviews to become “prestigious” and valued in more tangible ways . Peerage for Science is a novel approach to externalized peer-review, through which manuscripts are submitted for peer-review by members of a community of researchers in a transparent and non-blinded way, after which journals can then be contacted with an amended draft . This syApproximately one third of responses (N = 211) suggested stricter deadlines and policies, shorter allocated time to review a manuscript, and procedures to ensure adherence to strict deadlines should be established to improve review duration:Current review process should follow the model of the PLOS . Reviewers are constrained to address specific scientific elements: The question, the method, the results and the discussion that these are scientifically acceptable. This should encourage young researchers to publish without the need to include big names/ popular personalities in research to have the paper through journal review.Again improvements in peer review turnaround and quality are something that the journal editors are able to control by setting out standards and policies that facilitate the peer review process. A recent review of time management for manuscript peer-review acknowledged several suggestions to improve the review process and time, but that it is the responsibility of editors, publishers and academic sponsors of the journals to implement these improvements .Related to these more stringent deadlines and policies is the suggestion that editors should put more pressure on reviewers, and follow up with deadlines (30 responses), while others suggested better journal management (13 responses):Some Journals restart the time counting during a revision process, for example, asking to re-submit as a new manuscript in order to reduce the revision time, instead of keeping track of the time during the whole revision process and to be more realistic about the time that a revision takes. I believe that is a way of cheating or deceiving the system.As illustrated by the quote above, many journals ask to re-submit as a “new submission” rather than a “resubmission”, and sends to new referees instead of the previous ones to review the revisions, which increases the length of peer review time. Fox and Petchey  suggesteIncluding graduate students or early career researchers as reviewers may increase the “supply” for the increasing demand. Some may argue that graduate students lack experience and knowledge to appropriately assess a manuscript. Formal training has been suggested to improve quality of reviews and increase the network of reviewers. Furthermore, recommendations by senior researchers of names of reliable and qualified graduate students or early career researchers as potential reviewers may help with the deficit . Indeed,A number of respondents (12%) wanted to see more drastic changes in the norms of publishing. For example, permanent and paid group of reviewers, standardizing all journals, permitting to submit manuscripts to more than one journal, including more early career researchers as reviewers, following model journals that do it well , having a database of reviewers, or have sub-reviewers .discussions format that is open to public review prior to final publication of an amended version. Other journals (e.g. PLOSone) and platforms (www.PubPeer.com) offer the opportunity for continued review following publication. The argument for a radical change in the norms is not uncommon and may be required in today’s peer-review system which will soon be in crisis [“PubCreds” currency, has been proposed as a system where reviewers “pay” for their submission using PubCreds they have earned by performing reviews . Althougn crisis , althougdo not believe publishing in a top-tier journal justifies a rapid or delayed review time, while 37% believe it does (remainder had no opinion). Of those who believed publishing in a top-tier journal justifies longer or shorter review time, 64% believe it explains rapid reviews, 14% believe it justifies a delayed review, and 20% believe it justifies both rapid and delay (<5% believe neither). On the other hand, it was interesting to note that a higher number of respondents (75% of 367) believe that publishing in a low-tier journal does not justify a rapid or delayed review time. Overall, journal prestige and impact factor seem to be an important indicator for many authors, although their ability to turnaround peer-review in a timelier manner may reflect their perceived prestige and the higher quality manuscripts that make it through primary editorial screening. One respondent noted:The majority of respondents do not review a manuscript quicker for higher tier journals (71% of 445 respondents). When respondents were asked about their perception on the justification of journal prestige on turnaround time, 50% of 369 responses There is likely a link between review duration and impact factors, as impact factors are based on citations during the first two years after publication. If those citing papers take longer to go through the review, they won't count towards the journal's impact factor.strongly agree. Another third (31%) of respondents were neutral about this statement, whereas 16% disagree and 7% strongly disagree. This finding is interesting because it provides insight on authors’ perspectives and expectations of OA journals, where authors have higher expectations from OA journals even though peer-review standards should be disconnected from cost and from who pays. This is most likely the result of a shift in the customer base. In subscription-based publishing the customer is the librarian and their measure of product quality was assessed primarily through metrics such as Impact Factor. In OA publishing, the customer becomes the submitting researcher, and quality is assessed through publishing service and, incorrectly perhaps, standards of editorial review. It has yet to be proven that publishers will see substantial increases in profits following a switch to OA, and if profit margins are not significantly increased then expectations of improved service are unwarranted.We were interested in participants’ perspectives of the review process for open access (OA) journals, particularly because authors pay a fee to publish in such journals. About a third (32% of 461) agreed that OA journals should have higher quality of “customer service”, such as faster review and publication times, with an additional 13% of respondents who Although the topic of open access journals was not the primary focus of our study, we believe that it is an increasing relevant topic as there are debates about the quality of OA journals, but on the other hand, open access may be viewed as mandatory, particularly where research is funded with public money. Future research including perspectives and understanding value of OA journals within the conservation science community should be considered.Our findings show that the peer-review process within conservation biology is perceived by authors to be slow (14 weeks), and turnaround times that are over double the length of what they perceive as “optimal” (6 weeks). In particular, males seem to expect shorter review times than females, whereas female expectations were found to be more closely related to what they have actually experienced in typical review times. Similarly, older participants (> 40 years) have expectations of review times that are more closely aligned with their experience, while younger authors developed their opinion of a short review time to be <10 weeks despite their experiences. Overall, the primary reasons that participants attribute to the lengthy peer-review process is the “stress” on the peer review system, mainly reviewer and editor fatigue. Meanwhile, editor persistence and journal prestige/impact factor were believed to speed up the review process. The institutional incentive for productivity has its fallacies. The demand from increased publications strains the peer-review system and the “publish or perish” environment can also potentially create a strong demand for publications outlets and increased expectations for quick turnaround times.It appears that early career researchers are more vulnerable to slow peer review durations in a “publish or perish” system as it relates to graduation employment opportunities and other career advancements. Closely related to impacts on careers are consequences of lengthy peer review duration on an author’s “morale” . Some respondents commented that lengthy review durations may result in lack of motivation, forgotten details about the manuscript thus leading to reduced efficiency in productivity and potentially a lower quality manuscript. Competition among colleagues was thought by few respondents to encourage publication of shorter and simpler studies in order to gain a quicker turnaround review time, rather than investing more time in complex and extensive analyses or revisions. These concerns have merit as they do exist and may have implications on quality of research and publications.Although the objective of our research was not to assess the quality of the peer-review system, we believe all aspects of the process are interlinked and both peer review quality and speed are not mutually exclusive and must be discussed simultaneously. The majority (61%) of respondents believe that the review process should be altered with a number of suggestions such as a referee reward system, defined deadlines and policies, editorial persistence, better journal management, changing the norms of the peer-review process and others. Currently, researchers are rewarded based on productivity, which may result in a system breakdown by increasing demand from a short supply of reviewers and subsequently degrading quality of publications associated with the race to publish . We suggwww.peerj.com) offers a novel approach that combines open access and a pre-print system that enables articles to be made available online more rapidly than traditional scholarly publishing. ScienceOpen (www.scienceopen.com) immediately publishes the manuscripts in Open Access and accepts continuous open review in a transparent Post-Publication Peer Review process. Such approaches will require time to determine their value to the scientific community, but as scholarly publishing continues to rapidly evolve, experimental approaches to enhancing the communication of peer-reviewed research are warranted. We encourage other scientists and publishers to build on these approaches and continue to push the envelope for new publishing approaches.Open access and opening the peer review process is on the forefront of publishing innovation. For example, PeerJ Click here for additional data file.S2 File(DOCX)Click here for additional data file.S3 File(XLSX)Click here for additional data file.


The single figure publication is a novel, efficient format by which to communicate scholarly advances. It will serve as a forerunner of the nano-publication, a modular unit of information critical for machine-driven data aggregation and knowledge integration. While the traditional journal article will continue - at least in the near term - to represent the primary public record of new research results, its format in some ways hinders the dissemination of knowledge. First, in representing the outcome of studies done over years of work, the journal article fails to rapidly communicate the results of the various pieces of the larger study, in so doing delaying an opportunity for the research community to benefit from novel findings from individual experiments that may impact ongoing studies. Second, tailored for human comprehension, the journal article is designed to aggregate units of knowledge in a format that is not easily machine-readable; in so doing, it fails to allow for ready integration of information within or across disciplines. Thus, the journal article, while serving a valuable purpose, is not the only means by which to communicate research advances, nor does it optimally serve the research community as currently structured.Information is the principal product of research. It comes in a variety of types, as defined by the research discipline and tools used. Information can be used in many different ways - from informing fundamental work to translating basic advances into applications. There is growing sentiment in the scientific community that the current paradigm of scholarly communication is outdated and inefficientAn optimal format for scholarly communication would ensure that the information is: 1) valid, as assessed using one or more processes to ensure that what is being communicated has been objectively vetted; 2) complete, such that all of the methods and, if applicable, reagents are defined and made available; 3) rapidly shared, admitting of no delays not inherent in the technology used to share; 4) easily challenged, by those whose research findings are in disagreement; 5) readily interrogated using novel approaches to informatics that allows for integration across disciplines; 6) free of charge, or as free as possible; and 7) free of bias. The latter deserves amplification. Not only should the researcher be free of bias with respect to the findings communicated, so should the reviewer(s) who decides upon its publication. Indeed, it is important that publication of findings should to the greatest extent possible also be free of bias on the basis of reviewer estimates of ‘impact’. We may think we know what is important and what is not, and our experience may back up our view, but only the test of time can show which research findings were the most influential. Inhibiting the exchange of information of perceived ‘low impact’ is as objectionable as excessively emphasizing the publication of information of perceived ‘high impact’. Giving the research community all of the data in a form that can be readily communicated and validated empowers each of its participants to decide what findings are impactful.It is our view that emerging technologies can be used to enhance the effectiveness of scholarly communication. To increase the speed and efficiency of knowledge dissemination, the computational and informatics community has proposed the use of nano-publications - modular, nimble units of communication designed to be machine-readable. Nano-publications as currently defined by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), are validated, core scientific statements, with associated context. However, implementation and adoption of the nano-publication has thus far faced many challenges. Common strategies to generate nano-publications have focused on extracting them from the existing literature in a “top-down” fashion, by means of either manual curation or automated text mining. Neither method is sustainable, thus limiting the use of this top down approach. Using existing tools for text mining the large collection of data in a traditional journal article results in a data analysis burden that is unmanageable. Moreover, existing methods directed at the traditional article can result in predictions that are difficult to properly curate and validate.We offer the idea of the micro-publication unit, the single figure publication (SFP), to provide scholars with a real-world, manageable method to inform research. The SFP, consisting of a figure, the legend, the Material and Methods section, and an optional Results/Discussion section, reduces the unit of publication to a more tractable size. Importantly, it results in a markedly decreased time from data generation to publication. As such, SFPs represent a new means by which to communicate scientific research. As with the traditional journal article, the content of the SFPs is readily understandable by the scientist. Coupled with additional tools that aid in structuring content (e.g. describing in detail the methods using pre-defined steps from protocols), the SFP represents a “bottom-up” means by which scholars can structure the content of their findings in a modular and piece-wise fashion wedded to everyday laboratory life.A significant additional benefit is that the SFP represents an important bridge between the traditional journal article and the nano-publication. Nano-publications principally serve the need to integrate and aggregate data. Because the research community will increasingly desire to examine data in large volumes of a variety of types, nano-publications will become essential. However, nano-publications do not represent an optimal medium for human communication and consumption. These publications are structured to be read by machines, not people. For these reasons, nano-publications alone cannot serve to inform the scholarly community.Successfully implementing a new publication infrastructure – i.e. one that extends from the traditional publication and the SFP to the nano-publication - will require the development of tools and a coherent strategy to promote social change in the scientific community. Changing the social ecosystem of scholarly communication to implement the benefits of information technology has met hurdles and resistance. Scholars are wedded to the existing formats and the reward systems in academia depend on those delivery mechanisms. Investigators desire maximum visibility that is currently secured by publishing in journals with high impact factors. This practice is unlikely to change because our colleagues  judge the importance of work by the journals in which it is published. An investigator thus ignores the quest for publishing in such journals at her/his peril with respect to grant funding and promotion. At best our behavior respects the fact that we cannot read every paper published by our colleagues and thus rely on the expertise of peer reviewers and editors who understand research and deserve our respect and confidence. At worst, we delegate to others the responsibility of judging the creativity of our colleagues and the importance of their work.The SFP inherently provides for the complete, unbiased and rapid publication in a forum that encourages active questioning and subsequent validation and at a cost that is a tiny fraction of many other modes of publication. While the SFP thus addresses each of the objectives outlined above for exchanging information, it is unlikely to become a dominant mode for information exchange, at least in the near term. A number of factors contribute; at present, investigators publish the results of many experiments focused on one or more questions. The net result is a whole ‘story’ that provides a complete look at a topic. A collection of SFPs published in series and then pulled together in a comprehensive package, or album, that provides a more thorough analysis across individual experiments would accomplish the same end. But it is an open question as to whether or not publishers or researchers would choose this path. As one option, it would be possible for publishers to encourage authors whose full length journal articles are chosen for publication to also submit individual SFPs that make up the article. This would support the eventual creation of nano-publications of the work, providing benefit to the publisher, the authors and the community.Given the challenges to the SFP, where might it most readily make a contribution at this time? We envision a number of benefits. First, it can be a valuable medium for communicating information that is unlikely to find its way into a traditional publication. Most laboratories have conducted studies that, while interesting and worthy of communication, are incomplete and not likely to be accepted for publication. Rather than spending the time and resources needed to bring the work to completion, the SFP provides an excellent platform to communicate valid findings. A second niche for the SFP is as a medium for informing investigators about methods and reagents. As an example, those of us who purchase antibodies have spent precious resources on reagents that do not perform as indicated by the manufacturer. An SFP that publishes a laboratory’s experience would save money and effort. Ideally, it would encourage manufacturers to more carefully validate the performance of the reagents they sell. A third niche is very important, but nearly impossible to publish: negative studies. Just because data are published, even prominently, this does not mean that they are reproducible. The research community understands this but has relatively few options for addressing the issue effectively. Word of mouth is a poor substitute for clear exposition. Here again, the SFP could save time and energy that will otherwise be spent in trying unsuccessfully to validate findings.We view the SFP as a valuable and necessary part of the infrastructure required to achieve the goals of scholarly communication. While the traditional format of journal articles will continue to be used to tell the important ‘stories’ of scientific journeys, more nimble, modular units of communication are needed, starting with SFPs. The emergence of additional tools that help structure content while authoring SFPs will facilitate the creation of nano-publications, thus allowing us to put machines to work in the service of informing and enhancing our science.Accordingly, we encourage publishers to offer the SFP as an option for publication and look forward to the emergence of the SFP as increasing efforts to develop the tools required for researchers to turn ideas and results into structured concepts. Indeed, in part owing to the use of the SFP format, we imagine a future environment for publishing that is considerably more dynamic and delivers information and resulting insights far more effectively.