Research papers submitted to Australian Family Physician: Types and timelines

Rachel Green, Chris B Del Mar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND Articles published in the research section of Australian Family Physician (AFP) are subject to an editorial process comprising several stages.
METHOD Timelines tracking the movement of each research manuscript submitted to AFP from 2002-2004 through all stages of the editorial process were constructed. Of 179 papers, 130 had sufficiently progressed to be included in this study. Manuscripts were grouped by subject matter into eight categories.
RESULTS Waiting for authors' responses to editorial feedback (with reviewers' reports) was the greatest cause of delay to AFP editorial processes. Peer reviewers took 43 (SD: 102) days to return their report. Authors took 67 (SD: 76) days to resubmit their paper following initial feedback, and a further 48 (SD: 79) days after it had been edited. Mean accumulated time between receipt of a manuscript by AFP and sending it to peer review was 15 days. Once the editorial process was completed, articles were usually published within 3 months. Most research (64%) was on the topic of health services research rather than clinical research (36%). The most common research method was observational (78%) rather than experimental (22%).
DISCUSSION There is less clinical research submitted to AFP than expected for a clinical discipline. Authors and reviewers cause the most delay in manuscripts' passage through the editorial process.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)362-364
Number of pages3
JournalAustralian Family Physician
Volume35
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - May 2006

Fingerprint

Family Physicians
Manuscripts
Research
Peer Review
Health Services Research
TimeLine

Cite this

@article{846af474de7c4775a215966e0af8d4c1,
title = "Research papers submitted to Australian Family Physician: Types and timelines",
abstract = "BACKGROUND Articles published in the research section of Australian Family Physician (AFP) are subject to an editorial process comprising several stages.METHOD Timelines tracking the movement of each research manuscript submitted to AFP from 2002-2004 through all stages of the editorial process were constructed. Of 179 papers, 130 had sufficiently progressed to be included in this study. Manuscripts were grouped by subject matter into eight categories.RESULTS Waiting for authors' responses to editorial feedback (with reviewers' reports) was the greatest cause of delay to AFP editorial processes. Peer reviewers took 43 (SD: 102) days to return their report. Authors took 67 (SD: 76) days to resubmit their paper following initial feedback, and a further 48 (SD: 79) days after it had been edited. Mean accumulated time between receipt of a manuscript by AFP and sending it to peer review was 15 days. Once the editorial process was completed, articles were usually published within 3 months. Most research (64{\%}) was on the topic of health services research rather than clinical research (36{\%}). The most common research method was observational (78{\%}) rather than experimental (22{\%}).DISCUSSION There is less clinical research submitted to AFP than expected for a clinical discipline. Authors and reviewers cause the most delay in manuscripts' passage through the editorial process.",
author = "Rachel Green and {Del Mar}, {Chris B}",
year = "2006",
month = "5",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "362--364",
journal = "Australian Family Physician",
issn = "0300-8495",
publisher = "Royal Australian College of General Practitioners",
number = "5",

}

Research papers submitted to Australian Family Physician : Types and timelines. / Green, Rachel; Del Mar, Chris B.

In: Australian Family Physician, Vol. 35, No. 5, 05.2006, p. 362-364.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Research papers submitted to Australian Family Physician

T2 - Types and timelines

AU - Green, Rachel

AU - Del Mar, Chris B

PY - 2006/5

Y1 - 2006/5

N2 - BACKGROUND Articles published in the research section of Australian Family Physician (AFP) are subject to an editorial process comprising several stages.METHOD Timelines tracking the movement of each research manuscript submitted to AFP from 2002-2004 through all stages of the editorial process were constructed. Of 179 papers, 130 had sufficiently progressed to be included in this study. Manuscripts were grouped by subject matter into eight categories.RESULTS Waiting for authors' responses to editorial feedback (with reviewers' reports) was the greatest cause of delay to AFP editorial processes. Peer reviewers took 43 (SD: 102) days to return their report. Authors took 67 (SD: 76) days to resubmit their paper following initial feedback, and a further 48 (SD: 79) days after it had been edited. Mean accumulated time between receipt of a manuscript by AFP and sending it to peer review was 15 days. Once the editorial process was completed, articles were usually published within 3 months. Most research (64%) was on the topic of health services research rather than clinical research (36%). The most common research method was observational (78%) rather than experimental (22%).DISCUSSION There is less clinical research submitted to AFP than expected for a clinical discipline. Authors and reviewers cause the most delay in manuscripts' passage through the editorial process.

AB - BACKGROUND Articles published in the research section of Australian Family Physician (AFP) are subject to an editorial process comprising several stages.METHOD Timelines tracking the movement of each research manuscript submitted to AFP from 2002-2004 through all stages of the editorial process were constructed. Of 179 papers, 130 had sufficiently progressed to be included in this study. Manuscripts were grouped by subject matter into eight categories.RESULTS Waiting for authors' responses to editorial feedback (with reviewers' reports) was the greatest cause of delay to AFP editorial processes. Peer reviewers took 43 (SD: 102) days to return their report. Authors took 67 (SD: 76) days to resubmit their paper following initial feedback, and a further 48 (SD: 79) days after it had been edited. Mean accumulated time between receipt of a manuscript by AFP and sending it to peer review was 15 days. Once the editorial process was completed, articles were usually published within 3 months. Most research (64%) was on the topic of health services research rather than clinical research (36%). The most common research method was observational (78%) rather than experimental (22%).DISCUSSION There is less clinical research submitted to AFP than expected for a clinical discipline. Authors and reviewers cause the most delay in manuscripts' passage through the editorial process.

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 362

EP - 364

JO - Australian Family Physician

JF - Australian Family Physician

SN - 0300-8495

IS - 5

ER -