Institution and gender-related differences in publication speed before and during COVID-19

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic elicited a substantial hike in journal submissions and a global push to get medical evidence quickly through the review process. Editorial decisions and peer-assessments were made under intensified time constraints, which may have amplified social disparities in the outcomes of peer-reviewing, especially for COVID-19 related research. This study quantifies the differential impact of the pandemic on the duration of the peer-review process for women and men and for scientists at different strata of the institutional-prestige hierarchy. Using mixed-effects regression models with observations clustered at the journal level, we analysed newly available data on the submission and acceptance dates of 78,085 medical research articles published in 2019 and 2020. We found that institution-related disparities in the average time from manuscript submission to acceptance increased marginally in 2020, although half of the observed change was driven by speedy reviews of COVID-19 research. For COVID-19 papers, we found more substantial institution-related disparities in review times in favour of authors from highly-ranked institutions. Descriptive survival plots also indicated that scientists with prestigious affiliations benefitted more from fast-track peer reviewing than did colleagues from less reputed institutions. This difference was more pronounced for journals with a single-blind review procedure compared to journals with a double-blind review procedure. Gender-related changes in the duration of the peer-review process were small and inconsistent, although we observed a minor difference in the average review time of COVID-19 papers first authored by women and men.

Gender and racial differences in first and senior authorship of high-impact critical care randomized controlled trial studies from 2000 to 2022

“…Moreover, first-time female authors tend to publish in low-impact journals, which may be another reason for their underrepresentation in high-impact journals [ 16 , 33 , 34 ]. However, female primary leadership in RCTs has been reduced to half over the last several years, suggesting an imbalance in access and funding [ 32 ].…”

“…Because our analysis was not limited to the United States and we sampled studies from all countries, our findings must also be considered in the context of countries with predominantly non-White populations, poorer gender representation in the research workforce, and with institutions considered less prestigious than in high-income countries. Scientists from prestigious organizations benefit the most from a fast-track peer-reviewed process, especially with single-blinded review procedures in place [ 33 ]. Moreover, some studies have documented global disparities in underrepresentation, with fewer journal submissions coming from low- and middle-income countries and the most underrepresentation of authorship occurring in low-income countries [ 33 , 41 ].…”

“…Scientists from prestigious organizations benefit the most from a fast-track peer-reviewed process, especially with single-blinded review procedures in place [ 33 ]. Moreover, some studies have documented global disparities in underrepresentation, with fewer journal submissions coming from low- and middle-income countries and the most underrepresentation of authorship occurring in low-income countries [ 33 , 41 ].…”

Unrestricted Versus Regulated Open Data Governance: A Bibliometric Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleotide Sequence Databases

“…To explore collaborative research patterns across each data repository, our study draws on an analysis of collaboration in published articles and other bibliometric indicators. Bibliometrics as a meta-science methodology has been widely used to study the impact of COVID-19 on the research landscapes (Acciai et al 2022;Benach et al 2022;Chahrour et al 2020;Mohabab et al 2020;Sofi-Mahmudi et al 2023;Wang and Tian 2021;Yinka Akintunde et al 2021;Zhang et al 2022;Zhong and Lin 2022). Although bibliometrics was established in the 1950's, bibliometrics is increasing in usage across academic disciplines, and has become a central methodology to explore trends in international and national collaboration, thematic clustering of keywords and topics, and structural patterns of networks dynamics (Donthu et al 2021;Subramanyam 1983).…”

Unrestricted Versus Regulated Open Data Governance: A Bibliometric Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleotide Sequence Databases

“…To explore collaborative research patterns across each data repository, our study draws on an analysis of collaboration in published articles and other bibliometric indicators. Bibliometrics as a meta-science methodology has been widely used to study the impact of COVID-19 on the research landscapes (Chahrour et al, 2020; Mohabab et al, 2020; Yinka Akintunde et al, 2021; Wang and Tian 2021; Acciai et al, 2022; Benach et al, 2022; Zhang et al, 2022; Zhong et al, 2022; Sofi-Mahmudi et al,. 2023).…”