# Review times in peer review: quantitative analysis of editorial workflows

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01134 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1508.01134/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 5 Aug 2015.

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Which Review Aspect Has a Greater Impact on the Duration of Open Peer Review in Multiple Rounds? -- Evidence from Nature Communications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.21904/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We examine selected aspects of peer review and suggest possible improvements. To this end, we analyse a dataset containing information about 300 papers submitted to the Biochemistry and Biotechnology section of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. After separating the peer review process into stages that each review has to go through, we use a weighted directed graph to describe it in a probabilistic manner and test the impact of some modifications of the editorial policy on the efficiency of the whole process.