Search

Purpose: There are concerns in the academic publishing community that it is becoming more difficult to secure reviews for scientific manuscripts. This study examines trends in editorial and peer review processes in an ophthalmological journal over the last decade. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of editorial data from the journal Acta Ophthalmologica containing all manuscript submissions between 2010 and 2020. Results: The number of yearly submissions grew between 2010 and 2019 from 1014 to 1623, and in 2020, the number of submissions increased to 2449. In total, the number of submissions increased by 142% between 2010 and 2020. Similarly, the proportion of desk‐rejected manuscripts increased from 48% to 67% during the period 2010–2020. The number of invitations needed to obtain one review showed an increase from 1.9 to 2.6 between 2010 and 2019, but remained stable between 2019 and 2020. However, the number of reviewers per reviewed manuscript, reviewed manuscripts per reviewer and time from invitation to completed review assignment remained almost constant between 2010 and 2020. Researchers based in North American were disproportionally often invited to review (18%) compared to their share of published articles (7%), and they also declined review invitation more frequently compared to scholars in other parts of the world. Conclusions: The study revealed an increase in submitted manuscripts to an ophthalmological journal over the last decade, with a further increase during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The number of reviewer invitations needed to obtain one review grew during the study period but remained constant between 2019 and 2020, despite a vast increase in submitted manuscripts. Hence, the burden for unique reviewers did not increase. Instead, the proportion of desk‐rejected manuscripts grew, and the reviewer pool expanded, which allowed the annual average number of reviews by individual reviewers to remain stable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Linked Editorials This Editorial is part of a series. To view the other Editorials in this series, visit: ; ; and [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ARRIVE guidelines have been implemented in BJP for 4 years with the aim of increasing transparency in reporting experiments involving animals. BJP has assessed our success in implementing them and concluded that we could do better. This editorial discusses the issues and explains how we are changing our requirements for authors to report their findings in experiments involving animals. This is one of a series of discussing updates to the BJP Linked Editorials This Editorial is part of a series. To view the other Editorials in this series, visit: ; ; and . Video To view the video on the ARRIVE guidelines, visit: [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the annual reports of the Econometric Society for 2012-2013. It also discusses data presented in tables which provide summary statistics on the editorial process in the form presented in previous editors' reports. It also shares the contributions of writers to the success of the journal and the format of the articles being submitted to the editorial board.

The article offers information on various aspects associated with the June 2013 issue of the online periodical "New Phytologist," including its content, editorial board and its scope. It further mentions that the periodical is published 16 times in a year and its price is exclusive of all taxes. It also mentions that the periodical is registered with the New Phytologist Trust.

The article offers information on topics related to the periodical issue including manuscripts, aims and scope, subscriptions, and delivery and legal title. It presents a table of contents on topics including 'Mutations in RELT cause autosomal recessive amelogenesis imperfecta.' It mentions editors including editor-in-chief Reiner A. Veitia, associate editors Ludwine Messiaen, Pablo Lapunzina, Elfride De Baere and Aad Tibben, founding editors and editorial board members.

The article offers information on the periodical including its editorial board members such as Paul McLoughlin, editor-in-chief, cover illustration and information on articles for authors.

The article presents editors' report about the "British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology" for 2015. Information included in the report include the number of articles published in the journal, the themes of the journal for the year, and the journal submissions from January 1, 2015. It also includes the changes in the periodical's editorial boards.