↓ Skip to main content

Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows

Overview of attention for article published in Scientometrics, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows
Published in
Scientometrics, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11192-016-1871-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maciej J. Mrowinski, Agata Fronczak, Piotr Fronczak, Olgica Nedic, Marcel Ausloos

Abstract

In this paper, we undertake a data-driven theoretical investigation of editorial workflows. We analyse a dataset containing information about 58 papers submitted to the Biochemistry and Biotechnology section of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. We separate the peer review process into stages that each paper has to go through and introduce the notion of completion rate - the probability that an invitation sent to a potential reviewer will result in a finished review. Using empirical transition probabilities and probability distributions of the duration of each stage we create a directed weighted network, the analysis of which allows us to obtain the theoretical probability distributions of review time for different classes of reviewers. These theoretical distributions underlie our numerical simulations of different editorial strategies. Through these simulations, we test the impact of some modifications of the editorial policy on the efficiency of the whole review process. We discover that the distribution of review time is similar for all classes of reviewers, and that the completion rate of reviewers known personally by the editor is very high, which means that they are much more likely to answer the invitation and finish the review than other reviewers. Thus, the completion rate is the key factor that determines the efficiency of each editorial policy. Our results may be of great importance for editors and act as a guide in determining the optimal number of reviewers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 3 8%
Portugal 1 3%
Unknown 34 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 24%
Other 5 13%
Librarian 4 11%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 8 21%
Computer Science 6 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Physics and Astronomy 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 9 24%
Unknown 7 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2016.
All research outputs
#2,109,225
of 23,891,012 outputs
Outputs from Scientometrics
#441
of 2,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,047
of 405,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientometrics
#9
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,891,012 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 405,587 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.