Biology Open 2023 – a year in review

My goal as Editor-in-Chief is to improve the author experience at Biology Open (BiO). I want scientists to submit their manuscripts to BiO because the author experience is exceptional: rapid peer review, rigorous peer review, and unambiguous and transparent criteria that we use to accept or reject manuscripts for publication.

At the end of 2023, we broadcast clear and transparent criteria that we use to accept or reject manuscripts for publication (Gorelick, 2023). In this Editorial, I will review our performance for the year 2023. What did we publish? How good was the author experience? And what are we going to do in the future to improve matters?

BiO publishes peer-reviewed original research in all areas of the biological and biomedical sciences. BiO does not consider articles in pure physics, chemistry, engineering, earth sciences, clinical studies, surgical procedures, public health, and homeopathy, complementary or alternative medicine. What we published is shown in the word cloud in Fig. 1. In 2023, ‘CRISPR’, ‘cell’, ‘locomotion’ and ‘allometry’ were popular key words in our papers.

In 2023, we published 100 Research or Methods & Techniques articles and 15 review-type articles (Meeting Reviews, Future Leader Reviews, and A Year at the Forefront Reviews). We received 308 research manuscripts and, to date, have accepted 92. There are pending articles, for which a final decision is still to be made. These are manuscripts submitted at the end of 2023 that are still under review or in revision while we wait for authors to address reviewer comments. Excluding these from the total number gives an acceptance rate of 34%. Of the manuscripts sent out for peer review, the acceptance rate was 70%.

How many manuscripts did we review? Of the 308 primary research manuscripts submitted, 142 (46%) were rejected by editors without peer review, and 144 (47%) were sent for peer review. Because BiO considers manuscripts with reviews from other journals, 22 manuscripts (7%) were accepted without further peer review.

Of the 308 research manuscripts submitted to BiO, 174 (56%) were direct submissions to BiO, with a 21% acceptance rate. The remaining 134 manuscripts (44%) were transferred to BiO after being rejected from one of our sister journals (Development, Journal of Cell Science, Journal of Experimental Biology and Disease Models & Mechanisms). Of those, 51 (38%) have been accepted to date. Of the 134 transferred manuscripts, 53 had previously been reviewed and 81 were transferred without review. Articles transferred with reviews were 50% more likely to be accepted by BiO.

How long did it take us to perform peer review? The average time between submission and final decision was 70±54 days, with a median of 59 days. This statistic includes the time it takes authors to respond to reviewer comments, something that is very variable and for which we at the journal have no control. Let's focus on the parts of the review process that we do control.

Once a manuscript was submitted, it took on average 10±11 days for a BiO editor to decide to reject the manuscript – this time ranged from a minimum of 0 days (rejected on the same day as submission) to a maximum of 63 days, with a median of 7 days.

If a manuscript was submitted and sent for peer review, how long did that take? The time from submission to a decision following peer review was 34±26 days, with a range of 0 days (for 2 manuscripts that were received with extensive previous reviews and accepted the same day) to 126 days (we have no excuse for that egregiously long duration). The median time from submission to post-review decision was 33 days. About a quarter of submitted manuscripts took less than 15 days, and a quarter took more than 45 days.

How would I assess our performance? It's difficult to compare our results with other journals, because unfortunately not many other journals are transparent about these statistics. In absolute terms, I think we have room for improvement. It should not take a week to editorially reject a manuscript, and it should not take a month to perform peer review. In 2024, we'll be experimenting with a new initiative to reduce the time from manuscript submission to decision with reviews to 10 (working) days. This will be a challenge and I thank all members of the BiO editor team, old and new, for their support and commitment to BiO. Improving the turnaround time for submitted manuscripts, without diminishing the quality of peer review, will provide a better experience for authors. I hypothesize that improving the author experience will make us more attractive to authors. How attractive, and to which authors, is an empirical question. I look forward to this experiment!

Last but certainly not least, I want to thank the scientists who took the time to review manuscripts for BiO. These dedicated souls are listed in the supplementary information. They read manuscripts, wrote up their thoughts, and in many cases performed a second round of review on the revised manuscript – all for free. On behalf of myself and the editors and staff of BiO, I can't thank you enough for contributing your time and your talent. Choosing journals for which to perform peer review is a political decision (see Briscoe and Brown, 2024). By choosing to review for BiO, you are supporting a non-profit, scientist-led journal and demonstrating a commitment to rigorous peer review. Our not-for-profit publisher, The Company of Biologists, supports the scientific community through meeting grants, Travelling Fellowships and grants to scientific societies. You are donating your time and talent for free. Know that it supports a charitable cause with a positive impact. You have many choices of journals for which to review, we thank you for choosing BiO and The Company of Biologists.