ET food stores weren't the killer app for the Web, but peer-reviewed scholarly journals might be.
Internationally, about 25,000 science, technical and medical journals are peer-reviewed, meaning they are vetted by two or three specialists, plus the journals' editors.
The authors and reviewers, who work as volunteers, can be anywhere in the world, and many journals' editors work off site. With such far-flung participants, the submission and assessment process for peer-reviewed articles has traditionally involved lengthy mail delays, high postage costs and cumbersome administration.
But over the last few years, about a dozen companies have developed Web-based peer-review programs that aim to reduce turnaround time, postage bills and workload by automating and tracking the process. Industry observers estimate that 30 percent of scholarly publishers — which include commercial houses, academic presses and nonprofit associations — have adopted the online systems. Software makers and publishers themselves say that nearly all will do so within the next several years.
Although electronic systems can be costly to install, and people sometimes resist learning to use them, publishers may have to adopt them to stay competitive. For most journals, rapid review is critical to attract leading authors who value being the first to publish research in their specialty. In addition, publishing the best papers helps journals secure a good reputation and ensure a large subscription base, which can also draw advertisers.
"Journals sink or swim based on whether they attract the top authors," said Rick Johnson, enterprise director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group in Washington. "Journals that don't embrace electronic tools to speed their processes will ultimately be at a competitive disadvantage."
Creators of the software say e-mail and sophisticated databases, accessible anywhere via the Web, can help publishers gain an edge without changing the nature of the peer-review system. "It's not revolutionary," said Julian McNamara, chief operating officer of B-Wild, which makes XpressTrack, a peer-review program. "It's just making use of the tools that are available. Nobody is being asked to review things any faster, we're just making distribution more efficient."
The Journal of the American College of Cardiology, in San Diego, began using an electronic peer-review system in January. Glenn Collins, the journal's managing editor, said he and his staff of four had shaved its submission and review cycle to five weeks, down from six to eight.
Moreover, because manuscripts must be sent to editors and several reviewers, then back to publishers and on to authors for revision, and then on to presses, journals' express mail bills easily reach $100 for each accepted article. Add in international reviewers, and the bills can double. Many journals receive thousands of submissions a year and publish hundreds of articles, making electronic systems attractive for postage savings alone.
This year, Mr. Collins expects to eliminate 80 percent of his mailing costs, which had typically run between $60,000 and $70,000.
"It gives us more time and freedom to add more features and keep better track of things like editorials, images, letters to the editor and news items," Mr. Collins said. "All of that keeps us closer to the big guns."
There are as many pricing schemes as there are peer-review programs. Some publishers license software and run it themselves, others hire software companies to run it for them. In one common model, there is a set-up charge, typically $5,000 to $20,000, and sometimes processing fees, generally $12 to $50 a manuscript.
Even when the cost savings are minimal, publishers often install electronic systems for convenience. "The reason you do it is so that the authors can track the status of their manuscripts," said Catherine D. DeAngelis, editor in chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association, which plans to have an electronic peer-review system in place by January.
Anxious authors now call or e-mail her staff to learn about the progress of a review. But once the Web-based system is installed, authors will be able to look up that information much the way U.P.S. and FedEx customers can track their packages online.
Because most systems track the amount of time an article stays at each stage, electronic peer review also allows publishers to identify bottlenecks. In addition, the systems can automatically generate alerts when an article is delayed. And they let publishers create a record of how often each reviewer has been invited, which articles each accepted, and how each performed.
Reviewers are divided on the electronic systems. "To send the reviews in is very easy," said Daniel Simberloff, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Tennessee. "But I don't like to screen-read a whole paper, especially tables and graphs. So I have to print it out, and I feel a little cheated. But I have to be sympathetic to saving postage."
Ruth Wilson, editorial project manager for the Nature Publishing Group, which is based in London and has electronic review for 18 of its 40 journals, has found that 80 to 90 percent of reviewers have adopted the system, a rate she said surprised her.
Publishers say that in disciplines with younger constituents, there is little resistance. But medical journals often work with doctors who are older and used to dictating to secretaries.
"Our system is very user-friendly, but a large number of our submitting authors are in their 50's and 60's and they get frustrated submitting online," Mr. Collins said. Many publishers said they would maintain a paper-based submission and review system for those who could not adapt to technology.
In fact, publishers, known for their entrenched ways, often find the switch difficult themselves. "The internal change process is not to be underestimated," Ms. Wilson said. "You don't just click your fingers and it happens. You're changing lots of people's working processes."
Despite the barriers, there is consensus among publishers that electronic peer review will soon be universal as demand for speedier publication increases. But many publishers point out that while technology can ease the process, the bulk of time from submission to publication is simply the weeks or months that a reviewer holds a paper.
"All authors want their papers considered quickly, and all reviewers don't want to be bugged," said Mr. Collins of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. "But authors and reviewers are the same people. It's really the guy two doors down that's slowed it up. Even with electronic systems, it's still really in their own hands how fast these things can come out."
