Manuscripts submitted to South African Family Practice by the School of Medicine, University of the Free State: journal response types and times

Joubert, Gina; T, Mulder; Steinberg, Wilhelm Johannes; Botes, Johan

doi:10.1080/20786190.2018.1522053

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These factors are too numerous to investigate in the sample we have, or the necessary information is not readily available. For only one journal was there a sufficient number of submissions to enable a journal specific analysis [ 20 ]. The formulation of journal responses was occasionally such that it was difficult to distinguish between a rejection and a request for resubmission.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Journal response types and times: the outcomes of manuscripts finalised for submission by the University of the Free State School of Medicine medical editor, South Africa

Joubert

Steinberg

et al. 2020

Pan Afr Med J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction health professionals are involved in research as researchers themselves and as supervisors to undergraduate and postgraduate students. Authors may have unrealistic expectations regarding journal submission and review processes. The study aimed to describe journal response types and times for manuscripts finalised for submission by the University of the Free State School of Medicine medical editor. Methods this descriptive cohort study with an analytical component included all manuscripts finalised for submission to accredited journals by the medical editor, 2014-2017. Excel spreadsheets capturing all stages of the manuscript process were used to confidentially note information regarding submission and subsequent journal responses. Results ninety-five manuscripts were submitted to 72 peer-reviewed accredited journals. The total number of submissions was 163. Only 46 (48.4%) manuscripts were accepted by the first journals submitted to. Rejected submissions (n=82) had a median journal response time of 15.5 days (range 0-381 days), with a third being sent for review. Nine manuscripts were accepted with no revisions needed. Accepted submissions (n=72) had a median of one round of revision (range 0-4 rounds), and a median time of 119.5 days (range 0-674 days) from submission to final acceptance. Conclusion within our setting, half of first submissions were unsuccessful, but rejection usually occurred rapidly. Acceptance for publication occurred at a median time of 4 months after one round of revision. If health professionals were made aware of expected outcomes and response times, it may prevent authors from falling victim to the publication practices of predatory journals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Journal response types and times: the outcomes of manuscripts finalised for submission by the University of the Free State School of Medicine medical editor, South Africa

Joubert

Steinberg

et al. 2020

Pan Afr Med J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Time from submission to publication varied widely for biomedical journals: a systematic review

Andersen

Fonnes

Rosenberg

2021

Current Medical Research and Opinion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigating Country-Specific Perceptions of Predatory Journals and Their Impact on Scholarly Integrity: A Systematic Review

Martinino,

Campagnoli,

Dallavalle

et al. 2024

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review aims to identify the countries most active in combatting predatory journals and their definitions of such practices. It also seeks to assess awareness within academic communities, examine the impact of predatory journals on research quality and integrity, and compile existing policies to mitigate their negative effects and strengthen global scholarly integrity. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases on February 7, 2024, in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The focus was solely on identifying studies that examined the unique experiences and interventions associated with predatory journals in distinct national contexts. The analysis included a presentation of quantitative results and a thematic examination of qualitative data. A total of 40 articles covering 19 countries were included. Twenty-four countries (60%) were in Asia, 11 (27.5%) in Africa, two (5%) in Europe, and one (2.5%) each in Australia, North America, and South America. Although not all articles cited Beall's list to identify predatory journals, the thematic analysis showed consistent topics across various definitions and Beall's themes. Our analysis identified factors affecting academic publishing perceptions globally, highlighting publication pressure, predatory practices, and policy impacts on ethics and standards. This systematic review examined the literature on predatory publishing and identified the leading countries in the fight against these predatory publications. This analysis underscores a complex interplay of factors affecting academic publishing globally, from the push towards predatory journals as a response to publishing pressures, to the critical role of government and institutional frameworks.

show abstract

Manuscripts submitted to South African Family Practice by the School of Medicine, University of the Free State: journal response types and times

Cited by 3 publications

References 1 publication

Journal response types and times: the outcomes of manuscripts finalised for submission by the University of the Free State School of Medicine medical editor, South Africa

Journal response types and times: the outcomes of manuscripts finalised for submission by the University of the Free State School of Medicine medical editor, South Africa

Time from submission to publication varied widely for biomedical journals: a systematic review

Investigating Country-Specific Perceptions of Predatory Journals and Their Impact on Scholarly Integrity: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About