Positive Development of the Processing Time – Time Span Between Acceptance and Publication of Papers in the IJSM from 2008 to 2010

When Thieme Publishers decided to replace the existing editorial body by new editors in 2006/2007, yet preserving some continuity by asking the former associate editor to become responsible editor, the new team of editors was challenged by a large backlog of manuscripts, which after acceptance were waiting to be copy-edited and to be published. This large number of pending manuscripts may have been the result of a discrepancy between the number of accepted manuscripts in 2006 and before and the number of published papers per year ([Table 1]). One strategic step to increase the number of papers per volume was Thieme's decision in 2006 to publish 12 issues instead of 10 per year.

Table 1 Status of Manuscripts 2005–2009. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 * These numbers only refer to the manuscripts submitted during the first three quarters of 2009 with a final decision submitted manuscripts 342 366 289 362 319* accepted manuscripts 136 160 86 124 84* acceptance rate [%] 40.0 44.1 30.4 33.7 26.3*

The almost coincident introduction of online submissions and of all related processes (reviews etc.) via Manuscript Central certainly has accelerated the compilation of all manuscripts from first submission to final decision, but there was still a great gap of time between acceptance and publication. As a consequence to overcome this hardly acceptable situation, the editors decided to update the formal system of acceptance criteria, which also improved the quality of the IJSM. This finally resulted in a significant drop of accepted papers from 2007 until now ([Table 1]). It appears that the acceptance rate has stabilized at around 30% of all submitted papers, even if the final data for 2009 are not yet available.

We were curious about the development of the processing time between acceptance and publication and therefore undertook a comparative evaluation over the last three years. As a random sample, the papers published in the January (No.1) issues of 2008, 2009, and 2010 were looked up to ascertain the month of acceptance, of eFirst publication, and of publication in printed version (issue 1 of each respective year). For 2008, 15 papers were included [2] [5] [11] [18] [20] [21] [24] [26] [27] [29] [30] [33] [34] [37] [38]; 11 papers were published in the no. 1 issue of 2009 [1] [3] [6] [7] [8] [9] [12] [13] [19] [28] [35]; the respective issue in 2010 included 12 papers [4] [10] [14] [15] [16] [17] [22] [23] [25] [31] [32] [36]. For the calculation of the mean values ([Table 2] ), paper [18] was excluded, because that covered a topic of high and actual interest deserving rapid and priority publication (accepted 11/2007 and published 1/2008, see [Fig. 1]).

Fig. 1 Month of acceptance and of eFirst publication for the papers (n=15) published in printed version in the January issue of 2008.

Table 2 Average period [months] from acceptance of manuscripts to publication eFirst or to print publication (cf. Figs. 1, 2, 3). printed in No.1 issue of 2008 2009 2010 acceptance – eFirst 11.9 2.5 3.8 acceptance – print 15.6 7.6 4.7

While the average paper printed in 1/2008 had to wait virtually one year after acceptance to be published online and more than 15 months to appear in print, these periods of time could be shortened considerably for the papers published in print in 1/2009 and 1/2010 ([Table 2]). The somewhat longer period from acceptance to print publication in 2008 can probably be explained by the fact that a backlog of manuscripts was still waiting for printing, but the data for 2010 speak in favour of a considerably shortened time from acceptance to both, eFirst (4.7mo) and print (3.8mo) publication. The success of the editors’ policy in this respect is visually depicted in [Figs. 1], [2], [3], it becomes apparent that there is even a recent tendency for the publication in print to almost coincide with eFirst publication.

Fig. 2 Month of acceptance and of eFirst publication for the papers (n=11) published in printed version in the January issue of 2009.

Fig. 3 Month of acceptance and of eFirst publication for the papers (n=12) published in printed version in the January issue of 2010.

How could publishing process be accelerated even more? After acceptance, each manuscript goes through copy editing for language polishing, correction of some spelling or formatting errors, that hardly takes a month. Upon completion of the manuscript in print setting, the authors receive the galley proofs for last corrections and final approval. In our experience, these corrections sometimes delay the final publication, because some authors do not give this work sufficient priority. Rapid publication of manuscripts is desirable for both the authors’ and the journal's reputation. Continuing this practice ensures the rapid distribution of new scientific findings.

We hope that scientists considering IJSM for publication appreciate the new rigor placed on manuscript evaluation and how the alteration by the editors works to their benefit. Time to publication is now shortened from more than a year to blank which we feel is a positive aspect of the journal.

References

• 1 Altareki N, Drust B, Atkinson G, Cable T, Gregson W. Effects of environmental heat stress (35° C) with simulated air movement on the thermoregulatory responses during a 4-km cycling time trial.  Int J Sports Med. 2009;  30 9-15
• 2 Arlettaz A, Portier H, Lecoq AM, Labsy Z, de Ceaurriz J, Collomp K. Effects of acute prednisolone intake on substrate utilization during submaximal exercise.  Int J Sports Med. 2008;  29 21-26
• 3 Blessinger J, Sawyer B, Davis C, Irving BA, Weltman A, Gaesser G. Reliability of the VmaxST portable metabolic measurement system.  Int J Sports Med. 2009;  30 22-26
• 4 Bottaro M, Ernesto C, Celes R, Farinatti PTV, Brown LE, Oliveira RJ. Effects of age and rest interval on strength recovery.  Int J Sports Med. 2010;  31 22-25
• 5 Cooke K, Davey P. Predictors of oxygen uptake and performance during tennis.  Int J Sports Med. 2008;  29 34-39
• 6 Costa PB, Ryan ED, Herda TJ, DeFreitas JM, Beck TW, Cramer JT. Effects of stretching on peak torque and the H:Q ratio.  Int J Sports Med. 2009;  30 60-65
• 7 Ebben WP, Feldmann CR, Dayne A, Mitsehe D, Alexander P, Knetzger KJ. Muscle activation during lower body resistance training.  Int J Sports Med. 2009;  30 1-8
• 8 Filaire E, Rouveix M, Duclos M. Training and 24-h urinary catecholamine excretion.  Int J Sports Med. 2009;  30 33-39
• 9 Förster R, Penka G, Bösl T, Schöffl VR. Climber's back – form and mobility of the thoracolumbar spine leading to postural adaptations in male high ability rock climbers.  Int J Sports Med. 2009;  30 53-59
• 10 Fouré A, Nordez A, Cornu C. In vivo assessment of both active and passive parts of the plantarflexors series elastic component stiffness using the alpha method: a reliability study.  Int J Sports Med. 2010;  31 51-57
• 11 Giaccaglia V, Nicklas B, Kritchevsky S, Mychalecky J, Messier S, Bleecker E, Pahor M. Interaction between angiotensin converting enzyme insertion/deletion genotype and exercise training on knee extensor strength in older individuals.  Int J Sports Med. 2008;  29 40-44
• 12 Gómez-Gallego F, Santiago C, González-Freire M, Muniesa CA, Fernández del Valle M, Perez M, Foster C, Lucia A. Endurance performance: genes or gene combinations?.  Int J Sports Med. 2009;  30 66-72
• 13 Guglielmo LGA, Greco CC, Denadai BS. Effects of strength training on running economy.  Int J Sports Med. 2009;  30 27-32
• 14 Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Fox JL, Shaw KL, Quillen WS, Mengelkoch LJ. Metabolic demands of rock climbing in transfemoral amputees.  Int J Sports Med. 2010;  31 38-43
• 15 Hoffman MD. Performance trends in 161-km ultramarathons.  Int J Sports Med. 2010;  31 31-37
• 16 Kayser BD, Godfrey JK, Cunningham RM, Pierce RA, Jaque SV, Sumida KD. Equal BMD after daily or tri-weekly exercise in growing rats.  Int J Sports Med. 2010;  31 44-50
• 17 Kim CH, Cho JY, Jeon JY, Koh YG, Kim YM, Kim HJ, Park M, Um HS, Kim C. ACEDD genotype is unfavorable to Korean short-term muscle power athletes.  Int J Sports Med. 2010;  31 65-71
• 18 Kohler M, Ayotte C, Desharnais P, Flenker U, Lüdke S, Thevis M, Völker-Schänzer E, Schänzer W. Discrimination of recombinant and endogenous urinary erythropoietin by calculating relative mobility values from SDS gels.  Int J Sports Med. 2008;  29 1-6
• 19 Kong PW. Gastrocnemius injury during running: a case report.  Int J Sports Med. 2009;  30 46-52
• 20 LeCheminant JD, Jacobsen DJ, Bailey BW, Mayo MS, Hill JO, Smith BK, Donnelly JE. Effects of long-term aerobic exercise on EPOC.  Int J Sports Med. 2008;  29 53-58
• 21 Lippi G, Montagnana M, Salvagno GL, Franchini M, Guidi GC. Glycaemic control in athletes.  Int J Sports Med. 2008;  29 7-10
• 22 Loenneke JP, Wilson GJ, Wilson JM. A mechanistic approach to blood flow occlusion.  Int J Sports Med. 2010;  31 1-4
• 23 Lum D, Landers G, Peeling P. Effects of a recovery swim on subsequent running performance.  Int J Sports Med. 2010;  31 26-30
• 24 Meana M, Alegre LM, Elvira JLL, Aguado X. Kinematics of ankle taping after a training session.  Int J Sports Med. 2008;  29 70-76
• 25 Mendonca GV, Pereira FD, Morata PP, Fernhall B. Walking economy of adults with Down syndrome.  Int J Sports Med. 2010;  31 10-15
• 26 Michael JWP, Kuhn S, Yildirim B, Eysel P, König DP. Dynamic ultrasound for the golfer shoulder.  Int J Sports Med. 2008;  29 77-80
• 27 Miyata M, Kasai H, Kawai K, Yamada N, Tokudome M, Ichikawa H, Goto C, Tokudome Y, Kuriki K, Hoshino H, Shibata K, Suzuki S, Kobayashi M, Goto H, Ikeda M, Otsuka T, Tokudome S. Changes of urinary 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine levels during a two-day ultramarathon race period in Japanese non-professional runners.  Int J Sports Med. 2008;  29 27-33
• 28 Nicks CR, Morgan DW, Fuller DK, Caputo JL. The influence of respiratory muscle training upon intermittent exercise performance.  Int J Sports Med. 2009;  30 16-21
• 29 Pouilly JP, Busso T. Accumulated oxygen deficit during ramp exercise.  Int J Sports Med. 2008;  29 16-20
• 30 Rousanoglou EN, Boudolos KD. Angle specificity of the knee extensor age-related profile in young female athletes.  Int J Sports Med. 2008;  29 66-69
• 31 Sanchis-Gomar F, Martinez-Bello VE, Nascimento AL, Perez-Quilis C, Garcia-Gimenez JL, Vina J, Gomez-Cabrera MC. Desmopressin and hemodilution: implications in doping.  Int J Sports Med. 2010;  31 5-9
• 32 Scharhag J, Thünenkötter T, Urhausen A, Schneider G, Kindermann W. Echocardiography of the right ventricle in athlete's heart and hearts of normal size compared to magnetic resonance imaging: Which measurements should be applied in athletes?.  Int J Sports Med. 2010;  31 58-64
• 33 Smits-Engelsman B, Smits R, Oomen J, Duysens J. Strength training does not affect the accuracy of force gradation in an isometric force task in young men.  Int J Sports Med. 2008;  29 59-65
• 34 Spataro A, Pelliccia A, Rizzo M, Biffi A, Masazza G, Pigozzi F. The natural course of bicuspid aortic valve in athletes.  Int J Sports Med. 2008;  29 81-85
• 35 Stratton E, O'Brien BJ, Harvey J, Blitvich J, McNicol AJ, Janissen D, Paton C, Knez W. Treadmill velocity best predicts 5000-m run performance.  Int J Sports Med. 2009;  30 40-45
• 36 Vantorre J, Seifert L, Fernandes RJ, Boas JPV, Chollet D. Kinematical profiling of the front crawl start.  Int J Sports Med. 2010;  31 16-21
• 37 Vogiatzis I, Tzineris D, Athanasopoulos D, Georgiadou O, Geladas N. Quadriceps oxygenation during isometric exercise in sailing.  Int J Sports Med. 2008;  29 11-15
• 38 Welsh TT, Alemany JA, Montain SJ, Frykman PN, Tuckow AP, Young AJ, Nindl BC. Effects of intensified military field training on jumping performance.  Int J Sports Med. 2008;  29 45-52

Correspondence