Timeliness
Best practice in the Essential Area of timeliness (Table 11) focussed on transparent communication both on journal websites and in correspondence with authors about expectations regarding potential timelines, including average decision times and information on acceptance rates. Reviewers should have the ability to let the journal know if they are unable to assist or if their report will be delayed. While automatic reminders and automatic updates can be helpful, if a manuscript is unreasonably delayed, a personal email explaining the circumstances to the author is essential. It is helpful for journal teams to monitor journal turnaround times on a regular basis to make any immediate or long-term adjustments as necessary to workflows. Additional tools may accelerate elements of the submission and peer review process, such as tools to detect textual overlap or to find potential peer reviewers.
Obstacles with respect to best practice in this area include limitations in technology. For example, while it is always possible to capture information that a reviewer has declined to review, it may not always be possible to capture the reason why the reviewer declined. Other obstacles related to a lack of awareness that particular tools exist or prioritising timeliness given the lack of apparent targets or reporting on journal metrics, or an unwillingness to share information on journal metrics outside of journal teams.
68% of journals do not share key editorial metrics with authors (Q49: R-score = 1), 52% do not describe the stages used in peer review (Q48: R-score = 1), and 56% do not inform authors when they might experience delays (Q50: R-score = 1). On the other hand, 53% have some practice about sharing timeliness goals across the journal teams (Q34: R-score = 2) and 17% have good practice (Q34: R-score = 3); 44% conduct regular reviews (Q35: R-score = 2) and 23% have good practice (Q35: R-score = 3).