The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process.
BackgroundPublishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications.MethodsHere we examine an element of the editorial process ateLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions toeLifesince June 2012, of which 2,747 were sent for peer review. This subset of 2747 papers was then analysed in detail.ResultsThe Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and five days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). Moreover, editors acting as reviewers had no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates.ConclusionsAn important aspect ofeLife's peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.
Fondazione Edmund Mach, San Michele, Italy.
Marco
M
Giordan
King's College London, London, UK; Faculty of Information Technology and Bionics, Peter Pazmany Catholic University, Budapest, H-1083, Hungary.
Attila
A
Csikasz-Nagy
eLife Sciences Publications Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Andrew M
AM
Collings
Fondazione Edmund Mach, San Michele, Italy.
Federico
F
Vaggi
decision times; eLife; peer review