Review times in peer review: quantitative analysis of editorial workflows

We examine selected aspects of peer review and suggest possible improvements. To this end, we analyse a dataset containing information about 300 papers submitted to the Biochemistry and Biotechnology section of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. After separating the peer review process into stages that each review has to go through, we use a weighted directed graph to describe it in a probabilistic manner and test the impact of some modifications of the editorial policy on the efficiency of the whole process

Asymmetry of social interactions and its role in link predictability: the case of coauthorship networks

The paper provides important insights into understanding the factors that influence tie strength in social networks. Using local network measures that take into account asymmetry of social interactions we show that the observed tie strength is a kind of compromise, which depends on the relative strength of the tie as seen from its both ends. This statement is supported by the Granovetter-like, strongly positive weight-topology correlations, in the form of a power-law relationship between the asymmetric tie strength and asymmetric neighbourhood overlap, observed in three different real coauthorship networks and in a synthetic model of scientific collaboration. This observation is juxtaposed against the current misconception that coauthorship networks, being the proxy of scientific collaboration networks, contradict the Granovetter's strength of weak ties hypothesis, and the reasons for this misconception are explained. Finally, by testing various link similarity scores, it is shown that taking into account the asymmetry of social ties can remarkably increase the efficiency of link prediction methods. The perspective outlined also allows us to comment on the surprisingly high performance of the resource allocation index -- one of the most recognizable and effective local similarity scores -- which can be rationalized by the strong triadic closure property, assuming that the property takes into account the asymmetry of social ties

The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study

In this paper, we provide insight into the editorial process as seen from the perspective of journal editors. We study a dataset obtained from the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, which contains information about submitted and rejected manuscripts, in order to find differences between local (Serbian) and external (non-Serbian) submissions. We show that external submissions (mainly from India, Iran and China) constitute the majority of all submissions, while local submissions are in the minority. Most of submissions are rejected for technical reasons (e.g. wrong manuscript formatting or problems with images) and many users resubmit the same paper without making necessary corrections. Manuscripts with just one author are less likely to pass the technical check, which can be attributed to missing metadata. Articles from local authors are better prepared and require fewer resubmissions on average before they are accepted for peer review. The peer review process for local submissions takes less time than for external papers and local submissions are more likely to be accepted for publication. Also, while there are more men than women among external users, this trend is reversed for local users. In the combined group of local and external users, articles submitted by women are more likely to be published than articles submitted by men

Evolved editorial strategy.

<p>BATCH SIZE, the size of the batch; ACTIVE REVIEWERS, the number of active review threads (reviewers for whom the review process has not ended yet); NEEDED REVIEWS, the number of reviews required per article; RECEIVED REVIEWS, the number of reviews received thus far; SUB, subtraction; DIV, division; MUL, multiplication; ADD, addition; MOD, modulo.</p

Decision diagram of the review process.

<p>a: Transition probabilities, showing the percent of review threads that passed through the edge. b: An example of a review thread, showing a path through the decision diagram, coupled with the duration of each phase.</p

Efficiency of strategies.

<p>Strategies were evaluated by simulating the review process of a large number of articles (using the same procedure that was employed in the fitness function) and while the process itself is stochastic, deviations from these efficiency curves are negligible. (a) Review time as a function of the effective number of reviewers (the average number of reviewers needed to achieve a given review time). Each point on the plot corresponds to a single batch size—the first point on each curve represents the batch of two reviewers and for subsequent points the batch size increases by 1. (b) Comparison of the review time of various strategies for eight effective reviewers. (c) Review time as a function of the batch size. (d) The effective number of reviewers as a function of the batch size.</p

Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors?

With the volume of manuscripts submitted for publication growing every year, the deficiencies of peer review (e.g. long review times) are becoming more apparent. Editorial strategies, sets of guidelines designed to speed up the process and reduce editors' workloads, are treated as trade secrets by publishing houses and are not shared publicly. To improve the effectiveness of their strategies, editors in small publishing groups are faced with undertaking an iterative trial-and-error approach. We show that Cartesian Genetic Programming, a nature-inspired evolutionary algorithm, can dramatically improve editorial strategies. The artificially evolved strategy reduced the duration of the peer review process by 30%, without increasing the pool of reviewers (in comparison to a typical human-developed strategy). Evolutionary computation has typically been used in technological processes or biological ecosystems. Our results demonstrate that genetic programs can improve real-world social systems that are usually much harder to understand and control than physical systems

Day of the week effect in paper submission/acceptance/rejection to/in/by peer review journals. II. An ARCH econometric-like modeling

This paper aims at providing a statistical model for the preferred behavior of authors submitting a paper to a scientific journal. The electronic submission of (about 600) papers to the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society has been recorded for every day from Jan. 01, 2013 till Dec. 31, 2014, together with the acceptance or rejection paper fate. Seasonal effects and editor roles (through desk rejection and subfield editors) are examined. An ARCH-like econometric model is derived stressing the main determinants of the favorite day-of-week process