The Time from Submission to Publication in Primary Health Care Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research presented is of interest because it deals with how the time from submission to publication of researches of primary health care can significantly impact the speed of knowledge dissemination and how is influenced by multiple factors. These factors included journal's field of specialization, its impact factor, the annual publication frequency, open access availability, the presence of online publication options, and variations across different years.  Its main objective, is to comprehensively investigate the time required for research articles to progress from submission to publication in journals within the primary health care domain. Additionally to explore the factors influencing the duration of this process.

Although these aspects have been thoroughly investigated according to the literature and as detailed in the article's own introduction, interesting data about the field of primary health care knowledge can be extracted. The time of publication and therefore the distribution of knowledge is one of the aspects, albeit not the main one, that is taken into account when selecting a journal to submit research papers to.

The justification for the study is effectively articulated in the "introduction".

Similarly, the methodology employed, encompassing various facets such as Journal and Articles Collection, Data Extraction, and Statistical Analysis, is thoroughly elucidated and thus replicable. As primary limitations, the scant number of selected journals within the primary public health domain (only 12 definitives) can be considered. It is acknowledged that boundaries between specialties can be somewhat ambiguous, and thus, considering additional journals could have enriched the study's scope and potential transferability. Moreover, the study would greatly benefit from utilizing additional databases beyond Medline, such as Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane, and Scopus, as well as exploring alternative search engines apart from PubMed, such as ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and others.

Another significant aspect, and perhaps the most influential, is the selection of articles published solely in the year 2022. It is challenging to discern the evolution of the delay, as you indicate within the limitations. With only 12 journals, a more comprehensive approach spanning at least three or four years could have been pursued to observe the trend and ascertain whether the evaluated factors remain consistent over time.

The results, notwithstanding the small sample size (12 journals), and as acknowledged by the authors within the described limitations (sampling bias due to absence of dates, lack of analysis of specific attributes of articles over time), are effectively elucidated both in their textual explication and through the tables employed. The clarity with which each aspect addressed in the study is articulated is commendable.

Perhaps the discussion is the weakest aspect, but it is clear that the volume of studies on the specific subject (primary health care) is rather low. Nevertheless, the authors make an effort to present and discuss their results in comparison with other studies.

The limitations outlined are entirely predictable, encompassing both those associated with the instrument, as previously discussed, and the timeframe covered by the research (2022), undoubtedly complicating recall.

The conclusions reached by the authors are pertinent although, as they point out, given the size of the sample analysed, they cannot be generalised and further research is required.

The bibliographical references provided are considered sufficient, adequate and suitably updated.

MINOR POINTS:

To review orthotypographical errors, such as capitalization following a comma, acronyms that are not defined the first time they appear, even if they are obvious, such as IQR (Interquartile Range), SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded), etc.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study delves into the submission-to-publication timelines of primary health care journals, encompassing data from 1,198 articles across 12 distinct journals. The findings reveal an average submission-to-publication lag of 243.4 days, with notable variations among journals. Impact factor, open access status, and annual publication frequency are identified as potential factors influencing publication speed. The study suggests that while primary health care journals generally demonstrate reasonable timelines, there is room for improvement, and authors should carefully select journals based on individual needs.

One positive aspect of the study is its clear presentation of results, contextualization with previous research, and identification of areas for potential enhancement in the publication process. However, a potential improvement could involve considering the impact of the acceptance rate on publication speed or explicitly including this factor in the study's limitations. Given the availability of relevant data, exploring the impact of acceptance rates on the submission-to-publication process could offer valuable insights into the broader dynamics of academic publishing. Including this aspect in the limitations section would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the study's scope and potential avenues for future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I have read with great interest your investigation since its an important part of research and publication. A comparison pre and post pandemically is currently missing and I strongly believe its essential. The relevant addition will improve as well as the quality of paper. Thus, I am suggesting the addition of a section related to the effect of COVID 19 on the time required from submission to publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Once I reviewed the text presented by the authors, I observed that only the formal aspects such as describing acronyms, spelling errors, etc. have been changed. But everything related to the most important issues has been limited to adding them as limitations of the study, which does not provide any improvement or increase its interest in the scientific field. It is a basic applied aesthetic that could be easily updated after including the considerations proposed in the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your insightful review and comments to our manuscript (publications-2899779) entitled “The time from submission to publication in primary health care journals: a cross-sectional study”. We are grateful for the nice and detailed review from you. We have carefully revised our manuscript and responded to your comments. All changes with tracking-mark were also include for reference. We deeply appreciate your valuable comments, which stimulated a more thorough consideration of the paper and future studies as well.

We expanded the discussion on future research to suggest achievable pathways for exploring publication dynamics further, emphasizing focused case studies and small-scale, longitudinal research within this specialized field. This approach was intended to highlight practical steps for addressing the study's current limitations and to pave the way for in-depth future investigations.

While we understand these revisions may not fully address all your concerns, particularly regarding substantial new data or analyses, they were guided by the limitations of our dataset and the study's scope. We aimed to provide clearer context for our findings and to identify meaningful directions for future work within the constraints we face.

Thank you very much, and we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Yu-Chun Chen

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Taking into account that all the limitations of the study are included, it may be of some use to readers.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your observations regarding our study's limitations and their potential usefulness to readers.

We have thoroughly reviewed our manuscript in line with the editor's comments and have made several revisions to address the concerns raised.

Thank you once again for your constructive feedback, which has undoubtedly improved the quality of our manuscript.

Yu Chun Chen