The high resource impact of reformatting requirements for scientific papers

Abstract

BackgroundMost research manuscripts are not accepted for publication on first submission. A major part of the resubmission process is reformatting to another journal’s specific requirements, a process separate from revising the scientific content. There has been little research to understand the magnitude of the burden imposed by the current resubmission process.MethodsWe analyzed original research article submission requirements from twelve randomly selected journals in each of eight scientific and clinical focus areas from the InCites Journal Citation Reports database. From the 96 journals selected, we randomly identified three recently published manuscripts and sent surveys to those first and/or corresponding authors (288 total) to solicit information on time spent reformatting resubmissions and opinions on the process.FindingsThere was significant variation in manuscript submission requirements for journals within the same scientific focus and only 4% of journals offered a fully format-free initial submission. Of 203 authors responding (71.5% response rate), only 11.8% expressed satisfaction with the resubmission process and 91% desired reforming the current system. Time spent on reformatting delays most publications by at least two weeks and by over three months in about 20% of manuscripts. The effort to comply with submission requirements has significant global economic burden, estimated at over $1.1 billion dollars annually when accounting for a research team’s time.InterpretationWe demonstrate that there is significant resource utilization associated with resubmitting manuscripts, heretofore not properly quantified. The vast majority of authors are not satisfied with the current process. Addressing these issues by reconciling reformatting requirements among journals or adopting a universal format-free initial submission policy would help resolve a major subject for the scientific research community and provide more efficient dissemination of findings.

A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review

“…While improvements in the manuscript between submissions means that the reviewing process is not entirely redundant, typically at least some of the assessment being done is duplication. Based on survey data [ 23 ], we conservatively estimated that, on average, a manuscript is submitted to two journals before acceptance (including the accepting journal). In other words, each accepted article has one rejection and resubmission behind it.…”

Honest signaling in academic publishing

“…Scientists often complain about apparent inefficiencies in academic publishing, such as long review times, arbitrary formatting requirements, high financial costs to publication (e.g., Springer Nature’s recent "guided open access" scheme charging €2,190 for editorial assessment and peer-review of manuscripts [ 56 ]) and seemingly-outdated norms (e.g., writing cover letters) [ 7 , 8 , 57 – 59 ]. As a result, academic journals lower submission costs by offering rapid turnaround times (e.g., Nature , Science [ 60 , 61 ]), allowing authors to pay for expedited peer-review (e.g., Scientific Reports [ 62 ]), offering “short report” formats [ 63 , 64 ], or recommending against writing cover letters [ 65 ].…”

Honest signaling in academic publishing

“…Scientists often complain about apparent inefficiencies in academic publishing, such as long review times, arbitrary formatting requirements, high financial costs to publication (e.g., Springer Nature's recent "guided open access" scheme charging €2,190 for editorial assessment and peer-review of manuscripts [56]) and seemingly-outdated norms (e.g., writing cover letters) [7,8,[57][58][59]. As a result, academic journals lower submission costs by offering rapid turnaround times (e.g., Nature, Science [60,61]), allowing authors to pay for expedited peerreview (e.g., Scientific Reports [62]), offering "short report" formats [63,64], or recommending against writing cover letters [65].…”