Fastest Accepted Paper?
This recent communication in Lab on a Chip might have set the record for fastest accepted paper in chemical history:
Millimeter-scale contact printing of aqueous solutions using a stamp made out of
paper and tape†
Chao-Min Cheng, Aaron D. Mazzeo,‡ Jinlong Gong,‡ Andres W. Martinez,‡ Scott T. Phillips,
Nina Jain and George M. Whitesides*
Received 22nd September 2010, Accepted 23rd September 2010
And at five pages, it might also hold the record for longest communication.
Any other examples for the record books?
November 3rd, 2010 at 11:30 PM
The defunct PNAS Track I (one) holds that record.
November 3rd, 2010 at 11:39 PM
That’s the track that entails finding your own referees, getting reports from them, then forwarding the reports to the journal, right? For some reason, PNAS claims that Track I can take longer:
November 3rd, 2010 at 11:40 PM
Nevermind, I guess they consider the review process to start once you’ve asked your friend to read your paper.
November 4th, 2010 at 5:29 AM
I have a hard time believing Tet Lett doesn’t approach or eclipse the speed record.
November 4th, 2010 at 6:10 AM
@Postdoc: sometimes their rubber stamp is at the cleaners.
November 4th, 2010 at 7:45 AM
I think the only paper which could one-up this one would be a paper that was accepted before it was submitted. Anyone know such a paper? (the peer-review version of “The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline”)
November 5th, 2010 at 12:10 AM
More interesting are the papers with the longest submission to acceptance dates. Some people might see this as a stain, but I like a war of attrition. That is Science.
November 5th, 2010 at 6:01 AM
sometimes their rubber stamp is at the cleaners.
I lol’d
November 5th, 2010 at 9:44 AM
Yeah, but long review times don’t help when no one you run it past knows how to analyze the methods that are the core of the paper, such as this. I know Science is generally good, but that paper was not. When papers like that are published, a war of attrition becomes the publishing version of a minbus accident, with both parties and lots of glass and metal spread out across the pages like red food coloring.
November 10th, 2010 at 11:59 PM
Science Magazine should be able to get sound scientific advice. This was a mistake by the editorial board, which I think they respectfully acknowledged.
November 18th, 2010 at 9:30 AM
paul, there is a faster one–same day acceptance. i believe this is the record:
ostuni et al. Langmuire, 2000, 16, 7811-7819.
Received June 21, 2000; In final form June 21, 2000
November 19th, 2010 at 3:02 AM
OK, that’s unbeatable. Here’s the DOI.
I’m going to start collecting questions for the people at ACS Publications. In this case, are readers to believe that the following events all took place in one day: (i) the submission was processed by the editorial office at Langmuir and sent to multiple referees, (ii) all of whom immediately read the nine-journal-page paper and suggested it be accepted without revision, and (iii) the editorial office processed those reports and accepted the paper on the spot? Maybe things were just that much more efficient back in the good old days.
November 19th, 2010 at 7:02 AM
Yes, but you do know the people involved. One of the authors had a paper in the group before I left that was on its twelfth or thirteenth draft, so if this paper was analogous, it would have had the hell (and everything else) revised out of it before it left the group. I can’t see the review process being same-day though unless the reviewers were in the building at the time, or unless they had drafts before the final submission.
November 20th, 2010 at 9:27 AM
must have been a decision by the editor. i am sure that the paper has been heavily cited and the technology essentially launched a company, so it was a reasonable decision looking back.
i agree with hap that the paper was probably the sort of thing that had been scrutinized. having had papers ricochete back-and-forth in review there may be moments when it seems unfair, but such is life.