Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Accelerated Peer Review and Paper Processing Models in Academic Publishing

  • Published:
Publishing Research Quarterly Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 03 November 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

Some journals and publishers offer a free or paid rapid peer review service. In the latter case, such a service is offered at a premium, i.e., for an additional fee, and authors receive, in return, a privileged service, namely faster peer review. In the cut-throat world of survival in academia, the difference of a few weeks or months in terms of speed of peer review and publication may bring untold benefits to authors that manage to benefit from accelerated peer review. We examine the deontological aspects behind this two-tier peer review system, including some positive, but mainly negative, aspects. Some paid accelerated peer review services thrive. We examine the paid accelerated peer review services by Taylor & Francis, Future Medicine Ltd., Elsevier, and two stand-alone journals that are OASPA members. This suggests that there is a demand, and thus market, for faster peer review. However, this privilege risks creating a two-tiered system that may divide academics between those who can pay versus those who cannot. We recommend that those papers that have benefited from accelerated peer review clearly indicate this in the published papers, as either a disclaimer or within the acknowledgements, for maximum transparency of the peer review and publication process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Data availability

The last access date to all websites was 5 February 2022.

Change history

Notes

  1. COPE: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing; DOAJ: https://blog.doaj.org/2018/01/15/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing-version-3/; OASPA:https://wame.org/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing; WAME: https://wame.org/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing.

  2. https://oaspa.org/membership/members/.

  3. https://taylorandfrancis.com/partnership/commercial/accelerated-publication/.

  4. This information was not always public: https://twitter.com/tandfonline/status/953987607993692161; https://ease.org.uk/2018/01/tandfreviewerpayments/.

  5. The original URL for “Prioritized Service” (http://taylorandfrancis.com/partnership/commercial/prioritized-publication-options/) is now defunct and is automatically rerouted to the current URL for “Accelerated Publication”. However, some screenshots have been archived: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://taylorandfrancis.com/partnership/commercial/prioritized-publication-options/ (2016–2021).

  6. https://taylorandfrancis.com/partnership/commercial/accelerated-publication/.

  7. https://www.futuremedicine.com/authorguide/submittrackarticle (“Submitting & tracking your article”).

  8. https://publicationethics.org/members/future-science-oa (the publisher is listed as Future Science Ltd).

  9. https://oaspa.org/membership/members/.

  10. https://doaj.org/toc/2631-3316.

  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Medicine.

  12. https://www.futuremedicine.com/authorguide/peerreviewprocess.

  13. https://www.futuremedicine.com/authorguide/productionprocess.

  14. https://www.elsevier.com/search-results?query=Fast%20Track%20Articles.

  15. https://www.elsevier.com/journals/tectonophysics/0040-1951/guide-for-authors.

  16. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/solid-state-communications/fast-track-communications/fast-track-communications.

  17. https://twitter.com/elsevierphysics/status/1019879985933422592.

  18. https://www.elsevier.com/journals/solid-state-communications/0038-1098/guide-for-authors.

  19. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-economics.

  20. https://www.keaipublishing.com/en/.

  21. https://web.archive.org/web/20170630090147/https://www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/chronic-diseases-and-translational-medicine/cdtm-news/fasttrack-publication-service/.

  22. https://www.thelancet.com/peer-review.

  23. https://www.europeanurology.com/content/resources-for-authors#12000.

  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128245361/data-science-for-covid-19.

  25. https://lairlab.sdu.edu.tr/tr/haber/urgent-call-for-chapters-data-science-for-covid-19-elsevier-29987h.html.

  26. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/pages/General_Instructions#3.2.

  27. http://www.acta-acustica-united-with-acustica.com/fileadmin/Dateien/Instructions_for_Authors/AAuA_Instructions_for_Authors.pdf.

  28. https://acta-acustica.edpsciences.org/author-information/instructions-for-authors.

References

  1. Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A, Katavić V, Bornemann-Cimenti H. Establishing sensible and practical guidelines for desk rejections. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(4):1347–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9921-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. Excessively long editorial decisions and excessively long publication times by journals: Causes, risks, consequences, and proposed solutions. Publ Res Q. 2017;33(1):101–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9489-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kumar MN. Review of the ethics and etiquettes of time management of manuscript peer review. J Acad Ethics. 2014;12(4):333–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-014-9220-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Atjonen P. Ethics in peer review of academic journal articles as perceived by authors in the educational sciences. J Acad Ethics. 2018;16(4):359–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9308-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nguyen VM, Haddaway NR, Gutowsky LF, Wilson AD, Gallagher AJ, Donaldson MR, Hammerschlag N, Cooke SJ. How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(8):e0132557. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557; corrigendum: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139783

  6. Scanff A, Naudet F, Cristea IA, Moher D, Bishop DVM, Locher C. A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior. PLoS Biol. 2021;19(11):e3001133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Teixeira da Silva JA, Katavić V. Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry. Ethics & Bioethics. 2016;6(3–4):203–9. https://doi.org/10.1515/ebce-2016-0011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Nwagwu WE, Onyancha B. Back to the beginning – the journal is dead, long live science. J Acad Librariansh. 2015;41(5):669–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Larivière V, Haustein S, Mongeon P. The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(6): e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Grossmann A, Brembs B. Current market rates for scholarly publishing services. F1000Research. 2021. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27468.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bourne PE, Polka JK, Vale RD, Kiley R. Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission. PLoS Comput Biol. 2017;13(5): e1005473. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Teixeira da Silva JA. The preprint debate: what are the issues? Med J Armed Forces India. 2018;74(2):162–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2017.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Merton RK. The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science. 1968;159(3810):56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Teixeira da Silva JA. Three new suggested guidelines for increased transparency regarding open access article processing charges (APCs). Epistēmēs Metron Logos. 2020;4:4–7. https://doi.org/10.12681/eml.24208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Teixeira da Silva JA, Nazarovets S. Publication history: A double DOI-based method to store and/or monitor information about published and corrected academic literature. J Schol Publ. 2022;53(2):85–108. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.53.2.2017-0017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ghali WA, Cornuz J. Early uptake of research findings after fast-track publication. Lancet. 2000;355(9203):579–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)73234-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J, Tsigaris P, Al-Khatib A. Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: An assessment. J Acad Librariansh. 2019;45(6): 102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tennant JP, Ross-Hellauer T. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integrity Peer Rev. 2020;5:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Although this study and project was not funded, YY was Funded by JSPS KAKENHI (16H03079, 17H00875, 18K12015, 20H04581, and 21H03784). JTS is not funded.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Independent Researcher, 3011-2 Ikenobe, Kagawa, 761-0799, Japan

    Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

  2. Faculty of Arts and Science, Kyushu University, 744 Motooka, Nishi-ku, Fukuoka, 819-0395, Japan

    Yuki Yamada

Authors
  1. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuki Yamada
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to the intellectual discussion underlying this paper, literature exploration, writing, reviews, and editing, and accept responsibility for the content of this paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva or Yuki Yamada.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The first author was banned in 2015 from submitting to any Taylor & Francis journals in response to the author’s criticism of several of the publisher’s editorial and publishing processes, including the APR critiqued in this paper. That ban was not made public by Taylor & Francis. Other than this, the authors declare no conflicts of interest of relevance to this topic.

Ethical approval

The opinions expressed are exclusively of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the affiliated institutions, in the case of the second author.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Yamada, Y. Accelerated Peer Review and Paper Processing Models in Academic Publishing. Pub Res Q 38, 599–611 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09891-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09891-4

Keywords

Profiles

  1. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva View author profile