Over the last week, there has been much debate about the Accelerated Publication service offered by Taylor & Francis. This statement is to clarify some of the comments that have been made about this service, and correct any misunderstandings.
Taylor & Francis has offered Accelerated Publication for a small list of Biomedical Journals for over 15 years.
There are no current plans to introduce this service to any other journals.
The service is used primarily for research funded by pharma companies to manage the communication pipeline for drug and therapy development. Often the work that is being conducted by these researchers needs to be delivered in a set timeframe. Sometimes this is also commercially sensitive in relation to patent applications and product development. This means that other options of rapid dissemination (including pre-prints and open peer-review) are not suitable for the publication needs of these researchers.
The service allows for expedited peer-review for a fee, as well as an enhanced level of management by our own dedicated in-house expert teams. Reviewers are paid an honorarium to review within a fixed time period.
Except for the speed of publication, all elements of the review are conducted in the same way as a non-fee route.
The journals are all highly respected in their fields. They adhere to the high standards required to comply with ICMJE, COPE and GPP-3 guidelines. We see similar rejection rates to articles that follow the standard route for these titles and this service does not increase likelihood of publication.
Some of those involved in discussions about this service have asked why we do not pay all reviewers. This has been balanced by other concerns that paying reviewers may lead to a lowering of quality and standards. The debate around this is nuanced, and also intricately linked to how we make peer-review work for everyone. Taylor & Francis commits to convening evidence-based discussion around this.
Please refer any further comments or questions to email@example.com.