Answer Explanations

• 26–50%

  user-344135
  Delays in getting peer reviews have delayed publication of manuscripts. 
• 76–99%

  user-305063
  It’s frustrating to push to develop a manuscript only to have it languish in review with a journal.  Additionally, my annual performance review includes number of publications, so it helps to have efficient reviews.
• 76–99%

  user-837802
  Time is important for professional commitments in scientific writing.
• 76–99%

  user-432588
  El tiempo de revisión es un factor crítico en la gran mayoría de los artículos que público, ya que muchos hallazgos de investigación tienen implicaciones directas para la práctica clínica, las políticas de salud pública y la toma de decisiones a nivel poblacional. En campos como la epidemiología y la medicina preventiva, los retrasos en la revisión por pares pueden posponer la difusión de evidencia que podría fundamentar estrategias de cribado, evaluación de riesgos, acciones regulatorias o guías clínicas.
  
  

  Cuando la investigación aborda los posibles riesgos para la salud, la carga de morbilidad o la eficacia de las intervenciones, la publicación oportuna es esencial para garantizar que la evidencia pueda aplicarse a la práctica sin demoras innecesarias. Los procesos de revisión prolongados pueden retrasar la integración de los resultados relevantes en los debates sobre salud pública y el desarrollo de políticas.
  
  

  Por estas razones, en aproximadamente el 76-99% de los casos, el tiempo de revisión es un determinante crítico del impacto práctico y el valor social de la investigación.
  
  
• 1–25%

  user-445218
  Relatively few papers have information that is needed to address and urgent comtemporary need.
• 51–75%

  user-489806
  I view a required 7 or 10 day turnaround to be expedited. 14 days does not appear to me to be time-sensitive.
• 76–99%

  user-813332
  I have only ever had one (of 141) publications accepted without reviewers suggesting alterations.  Usually, they want more added, but that often means going over the journal's word limits. Sometimes the reviewer's comments indicate their lack of knowledge of the area. This can help to make the article more understandable for the general reader, but it can also require several paragraphs.
• 0%

  user-269790
  My published papers do not carry time-sensitive data or information.
• 100%

  user-626631
  Review time line conveys lot many messages to the authors about the journal standards and a reward for authors work.
• 100%

  user-621724
  For my Article "Smart Security Solution for Women and Children Safety using Wearable IOT at Wireless Personal Communication (Subscription Model)Taken 1.5  Year for Review and Acceptance 2 Years (Submitted in Sept 2022 and Accepted in 12 Sept  2024) 
• 100%

  user-148583
  Timeliness is crucial for all research.
  
  
• 1–25%

  user-786434
  Rapid peer review is important, but quality and fairness are the most important conditions
• 26–50%

  user-890708
  审稿的时间比较长，这样有利于确保文章的质量。
• 76–99%

  user-666124
  We are required to publish an amount of papers per year
• 100%

  user-169864
  Novelty is paramount in a competitive field.
• 51–75%

  user-407672
   I selected 51–75% because review time is frequently a relevant consideration in my publication decisions, particularly when working under grant deadlines, reporting requirements, or career evaluation timelines. Timely peer review helps with planning and project continuity. However, it is not the sole determining factor. Journal scope, scientific rigor, target audience, and overall editorial quality remain fundamental in my decision-making process. Speed is important, but not at the expense of quality and alignment. 
• 51–75%

  user-97011
  I believe the review time takes long
• 26–50%

  user-77256
  Some findings like new species description, studies having immediate large scale societal implications need to be made public at the earliest
• 51–75%

  user-566347
  Rapid review is important for timely publication and motivates authors to submit their work. 
• 51–75%

  user-846675
  Some of my papers are the foundations for future funding applications and upcoming papers. Both require previous output to be peer reviewed and can cause issues when they delay for years.
• 51–75%

  user-388260
  Review timelines are often critical in 51–75% of my publications, particularly for time-sensitive genetic discoveries in neuromuscular and neurodegenerative disorders, where rapid dissemination impacts clinical applications and follow-up studies. This aligns with my experience submitting to journals like Current Genetic Medicine Reports and Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism, balancing rigorous peer review with urgent research relevance.

  
  

  
  
  
• 76–99%

  user-390769
  For a large proportion of the articles I publish, review time is a critical factor, particularly due to the need to meet institutional research targets, project deadlines, and reporting requirements associated with funded research.
• 1–25%

  user-115148
  NO
• 51–75%

  user-450723
  I don't completely understand the wording of the question.  But I think the question is asking how much does the factor of review time weigh into my decision to submit to a particular journal.  If so, my answer stands. Impact factor is more important than time.
• 51–75%

  user-732397
  There are times when students have their own deadlines (medical school applications, graduate school applications, etc), or I have a grant deadline coming up and would love to include the work as published background or supporting material. 
• 51–75%

  user-186224
  About 25% papers are loose collaborative and thus not very urgent
• 76–99%

  user-51850
  If I have to wait for a long period of time to have the first feedback from the reviewers I prefer to select other journal. Some times the work is part of students work and they have a limited time to publish their work. 
• 76–99%

  user-958242
  Time factor is important in peer review process.Tough competition between journals who are indexed offering peer review on fast track gives edge one journal over another.Authors are always impatient to know the results of their hardwork.Almost every journal is paid , why authors should wait for long lag for decision despite ready to pay and if journal is offering rapiod review.
  Sometimes , for insituitional protocol with time constraint , rapid review is needed.Morever , no one prefers to wait long for decision of their papers citing long peer review period
  
  
  
• 76–99%

  user-681633
  Because most of the research is already done with advanced and pushing it further is the target. Once I get the results, publishing it ASAP is the key to beat others.
• 76–99%

  user-274910
  In my experience as an active researcher and author, the peer review process is almost always a major bottleneck in getting work published and shared. Typical review times for most journals I submit to range from 3-6 months for the first decision, and often longer (up to 9-12+ months in some cases, including revisions). This extended timeline is critical for 75-99% of my papers because:
  It directly delays the impact of my findings—especially in fast-moving fields where new data or methods can become outdated quickly.
  Publication speed influences grant renewals, job applications, tenure/promotion evaluations, and overall career progression. Long waits have repeatedly cost opportunities (e.g., missing funding cycles or being scooped by faster-publishing competitors).
  Even when results are strong, unpredictable multi-month delays disrupt research planning, team momentum, and follow-up studies.
  While some journals offer faster tracks, most standard venues still take far longer than ideal (optimal would be 4-8 weeks for initial review, based on community surveys and my own preferences).
  Reducing review time would dramatically improve productivity and fairness in science for me and many colleagues.
• 100%

  user-542491
  Very important
• 76–99%

  user-708389
  The interest in the part fades away if review time is prolonged 
• 100%

  user-561710
  It shouldn't be unpaid! not with the journal's massive publication fees nowadays.
• 1–25%

  user-657031
  I am under no pressure to publish other than my own.
• 1–25%

  user-2402
  It takes years to develop a publication, what's another month.
• 1–25%

  user-328368
  The time sensitive publications are typically used to support regulatory submissions.
• 100%

  user-842136
  The research can get old or similar research can get published with long review time (>5 months), some researchers need quick publications for promotion as well
• 51–75%

  user-131633
  Even if we know the subject, science advances every day.
• 51–75%

  user-444538
  Review time is a critical factor for many of my papers because several projects are linked to time‑sensitive outputs, such as ongoing research grants, apprenticeships, industrial collaborations, and student‑related submissions. Delays in peer review can affect project timelines, reporting requirements, and dissemination of results, so faster editorial processes are often important in selecting where to publish.
• 100%

  user-32677
  The entire review process takes upto an year currently. Researchers not only run the risk of someone beating them to the chase but are also unable to meet their academic requirements. Students often choose low rated journals just to get papers published before deadline, leading to low quality papers being circulated in the literature pool.
• 1–25%

  user-261420
  Most of my papers are not time-sensitive and are reviewed within a month, which si fine with my current academic constraints
• 51–75%

  user-125084
  In my publication experience, the peer-review process plays an important role in improving the quality and clarity of most manuscripts. Reviewer comments often lead to revisions such as additional analyses, improved interpretation of results, clearer methodological descriptions, and stronger discussion of the findings. 
  
  
• 76–99%

  user-28508
  Based on my experience with limited research and publication funding, journals that do not charge publication fees take an average of 3 months to evaluate a manuscript.
• 100%

  user-749781
  because I HAVE A DEADLINE
• 76–99%

  user-325101
  Zaman kısıtlamaları nedeniyle çok fazla zaman kaybediliyor.
• 51–75%

  user-166535
  Yes time is critical 
• 0%

  user-327055
  I would prefer a detailed constructive review of the manuscripts. 
• 76–99%

  user-437303
  Most research seems to demand “being first”. 
• 76–99%

  user-483779
  Review time is important because if reviewer takes long time it may have adverse affect on the authors. For example, a student might be waiting submit his/her thesis to get the degree or something else. There must be some stipulated time for reviewer too. 
  
  
• 100%

  user-476854
  The researcher eagerly awaits a response to find out if his/her article has been accepted or not, as it is important to him/her for promotion or financial gain.
• 26–50%

  user-863425
  Competitive priority: Novel findings where being first is important (e.g., new drug discovery, cutting-edge tech) make review time critical 
• 1–25%

  user-595708
  It's very rare for time to be a critical factor
• 26–50%

  user-387469
  It's good to know in short tme if your paper is rejected or not
  
  
• 76–99%

  user-633032
  I value journals that not need more than two months to have the first revision of the article
• 76–99%

  user-153764
  prompt reviewer response is courtesy for both authors and journal editors
• 51–75%

  user-786336
  For the majority of my work, particularly studies involving clinical outcomes or active outbreaks, the findings have immediate practical applications. A prolonged review process can delay the implementation of updated protocols or safety measures, making the data less relevant by the time it reaches the community
• 100%

  user-854520
  Time is an important consideration in the peer-review process. However, the appropriate duration largely depends on the technical complexity of the manuscript and the reviewer’s ability to conduct a thorough and meaningful evaluation. Achieving a balance between timeliness and the depth of review is therefore essential. Most editors and journals expect peer reviews to be completed within a reasonable timeframe and often play a role in guiding the pace of the process. In essence, journals seek high-quality expert reviews delivered as efficiently as possible, but the exact timeframe ultimately depends on the journal’s policies and the level of editorial oversight.
  
  
• 1–25%

  user-78358
  Very few papers require a specific timeline, however some grants have a specific timeline
• 100%

  user-50392
  Review time is critical, as there are also reviewer queries to be answered, and the back and forth correspondence can take a long time.
• 51–75%

  user-196036
  The faster the peer review process, the higher the percentage of research papers published in a short period.
• 1–25%

  user-464898
  Only papers needed to fulfill promotion/tenure requirements.
  
  Most of the other ones are not times sensitive.
• 51–75%

  user-326452
  Some of the papers i published, i wanted to include them in my CV to submit to job opportunities that requires a minimum number of published papers to apply to, and the delay in publishing my papers due to long review process caused me the chance to apply to these job opportunities.
• 1–25%

  user-348510
  I usually need to use my paper for acknowledging fundings.
• 51–75%

  user-190288
  I am a full professor so time not as critical as when I was younger. It is simply annoying when something takes one to two years to publish. I like MDPI model because it moves quickly. 
• 51–75%

  user-472081
  Most. But not everything needs haste
• 1–25%

  user-551383
  I would not define my research time-sensitive. However, time's always precious when research's involved, and months-long waitings can be disruptive when timely research (even though not time-sensitive) needs to be published.
• 1–25%

  user-382281
  The research results are innovative and groundbreaking. The peer review period for the paper should not be too long, as it is very important for the publication of the paper. 
• 100%

  user-580426
  Why Reviewing Time Matters
  
  

  Importance of Timely Peer Review

  
  Dissemination of Knowledge
  
  

  Lengthy review times can significantly delay the publication of new findings. This delay not only hampers the advancement of scientific knowledge but also slows the process by which research is applied in real-world scenarios. Efficient and prompt review processes are crucial for ensuring that valuable insights reach the academic and professional communities in a timely manner.
  
  

  
  Career Advancement
  
  

  For early-career researchers, having their work reviewed and published quickly is essential. These individuals often face pressures such as job applications, grant proposals, and tenure evaluations. The academic environment operates under the "publish or perish" principle, making rapid turnaround times vital for their professional growth.
  
  

  
  Journal Reputation
  
  

  The reputation of a journal is closely tied to its review process. Authors are substantially less likely—by as much as 74 percent—to resubmit their work to a journal if the initial review takes too long. Journals known for faster review times generally receive more positive evaluations from contributors, reinforcing their standing in the academic community.
  
  

  
  Preventing "Scooping"
  
  

  Shorter review periods help minimise the risk that competing researchers may publish similar findings first. By reducing this risk, timely reviews protect the originality and impact of the submitted work.
  
  

  
  Author Morale
  
  

  Extended waiting periods during the review process can lead to frustration and decreased motivation among authors. This may result in a "vicious cycle" wherein prolonged delays further reduce productivity and enthusiasm for future research endeavours.
  
  
• 100%

  user-34741
  The time it takes a reviewer to submit their comments is very critical in progressive publication. This is because authors sometimes get rejected while a research paper has been with the reviewers for more than 30 days, sometimes even 60-90 days. Therefore, the journals need to make timely follow-ups with their reviewers. Journals need to consider paying reviewers for their time and intellect.