Factors impacting time to acceptance and publication for peer-reviewed publications.

OBJECTIVE: Timely publication of data is important for the medical community and provides a valuable contribution to data disclosure. The objective of this study was to identify and evaluate times to acceptance and publication for peer-reviewed manuscripts, reviews, and letters to the editor. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Key publication metrics for published manuscripts, reviews, and letters to the editor were identified by eight Amgen publications professionals. Data for publications submitted between 1 January 2013 and 1 November 2015 were extracted from a proprietary internal publication-tracking database. Variables included department initiating the study, publication type, number of submissions per publication, and the total number of weeks from first submission to acceptance, online publication, and final publication. RESULTS: A total of 337 publications were identified, of which 300 (89%) were manuscripts. Time from submission to acceptance and publication was generally similar between clinical and real-world evidence (e.g. observational and health economics studies) publications. Median (range) time from first submission to acceptance was 23.4 (0.2-226.2) weeks. Median (range) time from first submission to online (early-release) publication was 29.7 (2.4-162.6) weeks. Median (range) time from first submission to final (print) publication was 36.2 (2.8-230.8) weeks. Time from first submission to acceptance, online publication, and final publication increased accordingly with number of submissions required for acceptance, with similar times noted between each subsequent submission. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of a single-company publication database showed that the median time for manuscripts to be fully published after initial submission was 36.2 weeks, and time to publication increased accordingly with the number of submissions. Causes for multiple submissions and time from clinical trial completion to first submission were not assessed; these were limitations of the study. Nonetheless, publication planners should consider these results when evaluating timelines and identifying potential journals early in the publication planning process.

Systematic review of reports describing potential impact of the Sunshine Act on peer-reviewed medical publications.

OBJECTIVE: The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, enacted in 2010, is intended to increase the transparency of relationships between US physicians and teaching hospitals and manufacturers of drugs, biologics, and medical devices. We examined current opinion regarding the impact of the Sunshine Act on peer-reviewed medical publications. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched indexed databases (NLM/PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus) and nonindexed sources (lay and medical press, medical websites, congress abstracts) for articles published between January 2010 and June 2015 that contained terms indicative of content related to the Sunshine Act (e.g., 'Sunshine Act', 'open payment program'). Nine publication professionals then systematically reviewed identified articles for publications-related content. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quantification and characterization of publications that focused on the Sunshine Act and its implications for medical publishing. RESULTS: Among 1200 indexed publications, 113 had content on the Sunshine Act. Thirty-one discussed its implications for publications; nine distinguished between financial and nonfinancial transfers of value. Of the 117 nonindexed publications with content on the Sunshine Act, 16 discussed implications for publications, and seven distinguished between financial and nonfinancial transfers of value. Reporting of such transfers of value was viewed as a potential barrier to participation in publications with industry support. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited literature on the impact of the Sunshine Act on peer-reviewed publications and limited physician awareness that publication support may be reported as a transfer of value.