A comparative study on the turnaround time of article processing in dermatology journals: A need for improvement of this aspect in Indian journals.

INTRODUCTION: Submission and publishing of research articles in scientific journals is a multistep process that should be efficient and swift. OBJECTIVE: To compare the editorial, peer review and publication time between Indian dermatology journals and international dermatology journals. METHODS: Three Indian (Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology; Indian Journal of Dermatology and Indian Dermatology Online Journal) and three international (International Journal of Dermatology; the Australasian Journal of Dermatology and Dermatology [Karger]) dermatology journals were identified for this study. Information pertaining to time to acceptance, time to publication and the total time to publication were extracted for original articles, case reports and letters to the editor published in issues from January 2017 to December 2017. RESULTS: The mean total time to publication in the order for Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Indian Dermatology Online Journal, Indian Journal of Dermatology, International Journal of Dermatology, Dermatology and Australasian Journal of Dermatology were 12.61, 12.50, 9.14, 7.92, 7.13 and 6.52 months respectively. While time to acceptance and time to publication were the longest in Indian Journal of Dermatology (7.01 months) and Indian Dermatology Online Journal (8.99 months), respectively, Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology was found to have the maximum overall total time for publication i.e. 12.61 months. The differences among the journals were found to be significant for all three time measures (P < 0.0001, ANOVA). On comparison of Indian and international journals, all three time measures were found to be higher in Indian journals (5.81 vs 4.96 months, 6.75 vs 3.59 months and 11.53 vs 7.51 months, respectively) with the differences being significant (P < 0.0001, independent samples t-test). LIMITATION: This data does not represent the performance status of rejected manuscripts, the information of which was not available in the public domain. CONCLUSION: An effective editorial screening, fast-tracked editorial and peer review process and regulation on turnover time of submissions by Indian dermatology journals are imperative in improving the impact of research publication.

Analysis of submissions, editorial and peer-review process, and outcome of manuscripts submitted to the Indian Journal of Dermatology Venereology and Leprology over a 6-month period.

BACKGROUND: Despite an interest in the editorial process at biomedical journals, not much information is available on this topic. AIMS: To study the characteristics of the submissions to the Indian Journal of Dermatology Venereology and Leprology (IJDVL) and analyze the editorial and peer-review process and factors influencing the final outcome. METHODS: Retrospective review of the manuscripts submitted to the IJDVL from January 1, 2016, to June 30, 2016. RESULTS: The IJDVL received 639 manuscripts during the study period, most being Case reports (35%), Research articles (30%), and Letters to editor (20%). The proportion of submissions from Indian (53%) and foreign (47%) authors was comparable. About 55% (n = 353/639) of the submissions were editorially rejected. Some of the common reasons for editorial rejection included "sub-optimal images," "no novelty," "incomplete information or results," and "incorrect diagnosis or interpretation of results." The acceptance rate during this period was 19%. The median number of days to reach the final decision was 14 days for editorial rejection, 146 days for acceptance, and 85 days for rejection after external peer-review. The acceptance rates were higher for submissions from Indian authors [odds ratio (OR) 1.96], those submitted as Letters (OR 2.06), or in the area of tropical infections (OR 2.17). Submissions as research articles (expB = 1.23), those from Indian authors (expB = 1.15), final decision being acceptance (expB = 1.56), and those requiring preliminary author revisions (expB = 3.34), external re-reviews (expB = 2.22), and repeated author re-revisions (expB = 2.34) were associated with longer times to reach final decision. LIMITATIONS: A relatively short study period of 6 months. CONCLUSION: The IJDVL attracts submissions both from India and abroad. Articles submitted in the Letters category or related to tropical infections were most likely to be accepted. There is scope for improving the time taken for editorial processing of manuscripts.

Medical literature search dot com.

The Internet provides a quick access to a plethora of the medical literature, in the form of journals, databases, dictionaries, textbooks, indexes, and e-journals, thereby allowing access to more varied, individualized, and systematic educational opportunities. Web search engine is a tool designed to search for information on the World Wide Web, which may be in the form of web pages, images, information, and other types of files. Search engines for internet-based search of medical literature include Google, Google scholar, Yahoo search engine, etc., and databases include MEDLINE, PubMed, MEDLARS, etc. Commercial web resources (Medscape, MedConnect, MedicineNet) add to the list of resource databases providing some of their content for open access. Several web-libraries (Medical matrix, Emory libraries) have been developed as meta-sites, providing useful links to health resources globally. Availability of specific dermatology-related websites (DermIs, DermNet, and Genamics Jornalseek) is useful addition to the ever growing list of web-based resources. A researcher must keep in mind the strengths and limitations of a particular search engine/database while searching for a particular type of data. Knowledge about types of literature and levels of detail available, user interface, ease of access, reputable content, and period of time covered allow their optimal use and maximal utility in the field of medicine.

Online reprint request: search, access, read, and update.

Online reprint request (ORR) is the standard protocol to obtain the reprints (e-print/hard copy) using the internet (author's e-mail address) when the required literature is not available. The problem of higher cost of surface mail for the author and the reader, as well as the time taken to receive postal reprints, is overcome by ORR. This technique has its limitation in message failure, expiration of mail (e-mail decay), or journal not providing author's e-mail address. This article analyzes the available practical solution to overcome these barriers. This process facilitates the exchange of scientific information. In e-mail decay, reprint request can be sent in the following order: a) search and send to author's latest e-mail address, b) co-author's latest or affiliated institution's e-mail address, c) postal reprint request providing the requestor's e-mail address. This protocol can be practiced when library facilities or required literature is not available. Literature can be pooled and used for residency teaching programs, like group discussions, journal clubs, and e-learning exercises (teleeducation), to update the recent advances for practice and research.