It is a great question to kick around, may I offer some off the cuff ideas?

Every paper published by a reputable publisher has the received, revised, accepted, first online and issue pub date so the data are all there for anyone to use. The problem I foresee is getting the data into a manageable format so that it can provide wholesome results.

The reported measures would have to be robust. Simple averages may not be appropriate, often times different article types have different peer review proceedures so these data will be skewed by journal composition. Secondly the volume of the pool of experts is likely to vary from field to field therefore availability will have an impact on the speed. Finally, fast decisions and quick publication times may not equal good reviewing and great production.

I would advise all authors to survey the dates published in articles within their target journals to evaluate its appropriateness in terms of speed.

It is a great question to kick around, may I offer some off the cuff ideas?

Every paper published by a reputable publisher has the received, revised, accepted, first online and issue pub date so the data are all there for anyone to use. The problem I foresee is getting the data into a manageable format so that it can provide wholesome results.

The reported measures would have to be robust. Simple averages may not be appropriate, often times different article types have different peer review proceedures so these data will be skewed by journal composition. Secondly the volume of the pool of experts is likely to vary from field to field therefore availability will have an impact on the speed. Finally, fast decisions and quick publication times may not equal good reviewing and great production.

I would advise all authors to survey the dates published in articles within their target journals to evaluate its appropriateness in terms of speed.

Great comments Paul, though there is one bit of data that isn't typically there, which is time to first decision; the time between the received and revised dates includes the time it takes the authors to make their revisions, which probably shouldn't be a factor in evaluating the journal's speed.

I agree with your caveats, but am often faced with a decision between journals with similar reputations (impact factors, etc.) and probably similar pools of reviewers, but that might differ substantially in their editorial/publishing speed. You're right that it's possible to get a rough idea by looking at a few recently published articles in each journal and comparing the times, but this could certainly be made easier and more robust with properly collected and processed data.

I totally agree Gerard, an official speed metric (if done right) might make publishers more answerable to the speed issue and hopefully nuture some transparent competition on that front. This would be good news for authors.

Exciting question, indeed. I expect differences in results for closed journals (fees paid by libraries) and 'good' OA journals (no fees or fees paid by authors). 'Good' means the same rigorous peer review as closed journals here. A valid speed metric and results gained through its application could justify/falsify the hypothesis.

Looks like Journal Guide are collecting data on time to first decision and total time to publication as part of the journal ratings that registered users can submit, but this data is not yet made available, as the site is in beta at present.

See also Journalysis and Cofactor's Journal Selector (forth-coming).

www.journalguide.com

http://www.journalysis.org/

http://cofactorscience.com/journal-selector

Here is another very useful resource, although unfortunately without access to information on time to first decision.

http://blog.dhimmel.com/plos-and-publishing-delays/

Dear Gerard R Ridgway,

Recently, I did a little research on Computer Science (including Computer Vision, Pattern Recognition or Image Processing) Journals List, Review Speed, Impact Factors, and Open Access Fee from Elsevier, Springer, and Hindawi. Please find them at the attached links.

Hope this would add to your crowdsource help. I really support your idea to have a crowdsource platform to evaluate those Journals.

Cheers.

https://www.academia.edu/16582895/Elsevier_Computer_Science_Journals_List_Review_Speed_Impact_Factors_and_Open_Access_Fee

https://www.academia.edu/16583166/Springer_Computer_Science_Journals_List_Review_Speed_Impact_Factors_and_Open_Access_Fee

https://www.academia.edu/16583258/Hindawi_Computer_Science_Journals_List_Review_Speed_Impact_Factors_and_Open_Access_Fee

You can try Elsevier Journal finder, if you are interested in elsevier journals

You can try 小木虫

yes

I stumbled upon this:

https://scirev.org/

https://www.elsevier.com/physical-sciences-and-engineering/environmental-science/journals/fast-publication-in-environmental-science