Covid-19 refereeing duration and impact in major medical journals

ABSTRACT

Two partly conflicting academic pressures from the seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic are the need for faster peer review of Covid-19 health-related research and greater scrutiny of its findings. This paper investigates whether decreases in peer review durations for Covid-19 articles were universal across 97 major medical journals, as well as Nature, Science, and Cell. The results suggest that on average, Covid-19 articles submitted during 2020 were reviewed 1.7-2.1 times faster than non-Covid-19 articles submitted during 2017-2020. Nevertheless, while the review speed of Covid-19 research was particularly fast during the first 5 months (1.9-3.4 times faster) of the pandemic (January-May 2020), this speed advantage was no longer evident for articles submitted in November-December 2020. Faster peer review was also associated with higher citation impact for Covid-19 articles in the same journals, suggesting it did not usually compromise the scholarly impact of important Covid-19 research. Overall, then, it seems that core medical and general journals responded quickly but carefully to the pandemic, although the situation returned closer to normal within a year.