Translate research ambitions into a realistic journal workload plan

1. Connect the journal to a specific research purpose

RDIA’s health and wellness priority includes prevention and accessible healthcare through digital transformation. These are directions for research and innovation; they do not specify the throughput of a particular journal. A society might choose a defined clinical readership and a type of evidence it can assess well, then explain how that scope relates to a public priority.

Write the intended contribution in a sentence that an editor can use: which readers, which decisions and which forms of evidence? A broad national theme cannot decide whether an individual manuscript is methodologically sound or within scope. Record the proposed editorial remit separately from an institutional publication target. The following workload model is an original planning exercise, not an estimate of Saudi research output.

Reference: RDIA: the national health and wellness priority

2. Separate submissions, reports and published articles

Use different counters for newly received manuscripts, initial editorial assessments, invitations, completed reviewer reports, revisions and published articles. One manuscript can generate several invitation rounds or revised versions. A reviewer report is work performed on a manuscript, not another publication. Count unique manuscript records when that is the intended unit, and retain the reporting period.

Draw the proposed sequence from receipt to decision and production. Give each stage an owner and a time allowance based on actual local observations when available. Until those observations exist, label the allowance as an assumption. Include correspondence, reassignment, conflict checks and corrections; they consume attention even when no article is accepted.

On small screens, scroll the table horizontally, or focus it and use the arrow keys.

3. Test one fictional month against the available review slots

Assume a fictional journal expects 24 new manuscripts in one month. Initial assessment is budgeted at 30 minutes each. The planning team assumes that eight manuscripts will proceed to external review, with two reports sought per manuscript and four hours budgeted per report. In this exercise, twelve report slots have been confirmed for that period. No actual journal, reviewer or manuscript is represented.

The initial assessments require 12 hours. The external-review plan requires 16 reports and 64 reviewer hours under these assumptions. Twelve confirmed report slots leave four report slots uncovered. This is a workload gap, not four rejected papers, four late reviews or an observed shortage across the country. The assumed number of reports and time per report are not universal standards.

On small screens, scroll the table horizontally, or focus it and use the arrow keys.

4. Change assumptions without manipulating decisions

If the same fictional team sends twelve manuscripts to review instead of eight, the assumption of two reports creates demand for 24 reports. With twelve confirmed slots, twelve remain uncovered. That scenario changes the workload estimate; it does not establish that either selection is editorially appropriate. Similarly, reducing the time allowance on a spreadsheet does not make a complex statistical review shorter.

Resolve capacity through scope, scheduling, appropriate reviewer recruitment and realistic communication. ICMJE assigns editors responsibility for suitable reviewers and notes that journals have different review arrangements. Its guidance also connects timely processing to available resources. A numerical output target should therefore remain separate from the editor’s assessment of the work and from any commitment about an individual paper.

Reference: ICMJE: journal and reviewer responsibilities

5. Pair volume with evidence about the work

A monthly sheet can report unresolved methodological questions, overdue decisions with their reasons, corrected production errors and the completeness of public article records. Use defined events and denominators rather than a composite score whose weights have no basis. Record an unavailable duration as unknown; do not give it a zero that makes the workflow appear faster.

DORA recommends assessing research on its merits and recognizing outputs such as datasets and software alongside publications. That does not establish a Saudi institution’s promotion rules or make every training artifact a research achievement. It does support a practical question for this plan: what useful, inspectable work has been produced, and what remains to be assessed?

Reference: DORA: assess research on its merits and recognize diverse outputs

6. Make the plan a dated editorial decision record

At a planning review, bring the counter definitions, actual available hours, confirmed roles, assumed article mix and unfinished workload. Ask the responsible editors which assumptions they accept for planning and which need a short measurement period. Keep a record of changes so that a revised forecast cannot be mistaken for an achieved result.

For the fictional month, a defensible status is that twelve hours of initial assessment and sixteen review reports have been budgeted, while four report slots remain unfilled. Acceptance, publication dates and production effort are undetermined. An author-facing timetable should be published only through the journal’s actual policy process, with uncertainty and dependencies explained.

Questions for a practical final check

• Each output has a defined unit and reporting period.
• Time assumptions are distinguished from observed durations.
• Accepted invitations and received reports have separate counters.
• Editorial selection remains independent of the numerical target.
• Uncovered work and unknown production capacity are visible.
• A named editorial owner will review the forecast against actual events.