Abstract:Most research manuscripts are not accepted for publication on first submission. A major part of the resubmission process is reformatting to another journal's specific requirements, a process separate from revising the scientific content. There has been little research to understand the magnitude of the burden imposed by the current resubmission process.We analyzed original research article submission requirements from twelve randomly selected journals in each of eight scientific and clinical focus areas from the InCites Journal Citation Reports database. From the 96 journals selected, we randomly identified three recently published manuscripts and sent surveys to those first and/or corresponding authors (288 total) to solicit information on time spent reformatting resubmissions and opinions on the process.There was significant variation in manuscript submission requirements for journals within the same scientific focus and only 4% of journals offered a fully format-free initial submission. Of 203 authors responding (71.5% response rate), only 11.8% expressed satisfaction with the resubmission process and 91% desired reforming the current system. Time spent on reformatting delays most publications by at least two weeks and by over three months in about 20% of manuscripts. The effort to comply with submission requirements has significant global economic burden, estimated at over $1.1 billion dollars annually when accounting for a research team's time.We demonstrate that there is significant resource utilization associated with resubmitting manuscripts, heretofore not properly quantified. The vast majority of authors are not satisfied with the current process. Addressing these issues by reconciling reformatting requirements among journals or adopting a universal format-free initial submission policy would help resolve a major subject for the scientific research community and provide more efficient dissemination of findings.

Resequencing: A Method for Conforming to Conventions for Sharing Credits Among Multiple Authors

Generalized Linear Weights for Sharing Credits Among Multiple Authors

Polynomial Weights or Generalized Geometric Weights: Yet Another Scheme for Assigning Credits to Multiple Authors

Normalized Paper Credit Assignment: A Solution for the Ethical Dilemma Induced by Multiple Important Authors

Collective credit allocation in science

A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation

A Geometric Counting Method Adaptive to the Author Number

Contributorship, not authorship: use CRediT to indicate who did what

Axiomatic Quantification of Co-authors' Relative Contributions

Modernizing authorship criteria and transparency practices to facilitate open and equitable team science

Is big team research fair in national research assessments? The case of the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021

Credit allocation based on journal impact factor and coauthorship contribution

Fairly Sharing the Credit of Multi-Authored Papers and Its Application in the Modification of H-Index and G-Index

Credit where credit is due

Considering Author Sequence in All-Author Co-Citation Analysis

Research on Credit Distribution of Cooperative Papers According to Authors' Rank

Modifying H-Index by Allocating Credit of Multi-Authored Papers Whose Author Names Rank Based on Contribution

I Will Have Order! Optimizing Orders for Fair Reviewer Assignment

Co-author weighting in bibliometric methodology and subfields of a scientific discipline

ENCORE: a practical implementation to improve reproducibility and transparency of computational research

The high resource impact of reformatting requirements for scientific papers