Paper detail

Analysis of temporal characteristics of the editorial processing in scientific periodicals

The first part of our work is connected with the analysis of typical random variables for the specific human-initiated process. We study the data characterizing editorial work with received manuscripts in several scientific journals. In such a way we found the waiting time distributions that could be called the typical for an ordinary peer-review scientific journal. In the second part of this study a model of editorial processing of received manuscripts is developed. Within the model, different scenarios of the manuscript editorial processing are examined. Combining the results of the quantitative experiment and model simulations we arrive to the set of conclusions about time characteristics of editorial process in scientific journals and a peer-review contribution.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.