As the demand for expedited publications continues to rise, scientific publishers face growing pressure to balance speed of publication with rigour of review. Rapid publication timelines – once an exception – are becoming more common, with manuscripts moving from submission to publication in a matter of weeks rather than months. How can publishers uphold quality standards in compliance with industry guidelines under such time constraints? Following his involvement in the session ‘Sustaining publication quality in a fast-paced world’ at the 2025 ISMPP European meeting, The Publication Plan caught up with Sam Cavana, Head of Publishing Solutions at Taylor & Francis Group to find out. 

During the session ‘Sustaining publication quality in a fast-paced world’ at the 2025 ISMPP European meeting, we heard that fast-track publications are becoming increasingly common, with timelines shrinking significantly. What do you see as the key factors driving the uptake of fast-track publication options? 

We run a regular survey at Taylor & Francis to understand the key reasons for choosing accelerated publication. The primary reasons are:  

• to publish on novel topics to get the information out to the research community as quickly as possible  

• to hit key deadlines for publishing the work, eg, to impact key discussions scheduled with healthcare authorities, to present at a conference, to time it to coincide with other planned publications  

• to make the content available and accessible as quickly as possible when there is a direct impact on patient care 

• to obtain peer review comments as quickly as possible to enable extra time for discussion of revisions and other publication planning activities.  

Bringing a scientific manuscript from inception to publication is a complex process with many steps and contributors. How do publishers maintain the integrity and reliability of scientific literature when implementing fast-track publication processes? 

Taylor & Francis ensures that publication of all manuscripts, whether via the standard track or accelerated track, is of the same high quality, integrity, and reliability. Publishing on an accelerated route does not change any editorial processes, and we expect reviewers to spend just as much time carefully reviewing an accelerated manuscript as they would any other. The key differences are that reviewers are usually found more quickly for accelerated papers, those reviewers are given shorter deadlines to complete their review, and, once peer reviewed, editors will assess those papers more promptly to make a decision.   

“Publishing on an accelerated route does not change any editorial processes and we expect reviewers to spend just as much time carefully reviewing an accelerated manuscript as they would any other.” 

Beyond the publisher’s role, authors and industry scientists clearly have a key part to play in the process. What are some of the common pitfalls they encounter during fast-track publication development? What guidance would you offer to ensure a smooth experience?  

We would recommend that all content is complete at submission, with any authors available to provide responses in a timely manner. This includes at both revision and proof stage. Ensure decisions regarding copyright and open access are made up front, so there are no discussions that may delay timely publication. Don’t hesitate to contact the publisher if there are specific requirements, dates you need to publish by, or questions you need to ascertain prior to submission.

Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are beginning to influence various aspects of scientific publishing. Could technologies like these enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of peer review in fast-track publishing? 

Taylor & Francis is already using AI tools to help us match some submitted manuscripts with appropriate reviewers. Finding the right reviewers for a paper can be a time-consuming process, so this technology can really help to improve efficiency of the process. We also use specialist AI-powered tools like CrossRef Similarity Check and Image Twin to perform checks on submitted manuscripts, identifying potential cases of plagiarism or image manipulation for further investigation. Beyond this, Taylor & Francis doesn’t have plans to use AI in the actual reviewing of research articles, and editorial decisions will always be made by a human. Our AI policy is that reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts they are reviewing to generative AI systems, as doing so may pose a risk to confidentiality and rightsholders’ intellectual property.  

“Finding the right reviewers for a paper can be a time-consuming process, so [AI] technology can really help to improve efficiency of the process.” 

 When publications move through peer review at an accelerated pace, maintaining reproducibility and transparency could be challenging. What measures are in place to promote these standards in research findings published through accelerated channels? How do publishers address potential ethical challenges that may arise from the pressure to publish rapidly, such as conflicts of interest or data integrity issues? 

All papers follow COPE, ICMJE, and GPP 2022 guidelines, this wouldn’t change based on the speed of review. All papers are subject to the same policies in accelerated publication as in traditional publication. Open research practices are a key element in the promotion of reproducibility and transparency. Our data sharing policies encourage researchers to deposit their data in a repository before submission, so the availability of these data shouldn’t be impacted by the speed of the review and publication process. Any conflicts of interest would be picked up in Taylor & Francis’ screening processes and data issues picked up in the peer review process. Publishing on an accelerated route does not change editorial decisions or impact the screening processes. 

Elsewhere at the ISMPP meeting you championed the role of video explainers in the dissemination of scientific information. With visual media gaining popularity – especially among younger healthcare professionals – is it possible to integrate enhanced publication content types into fast-track publications to enhance engagement and impact? 

Accelerated publication for video articles and abstracts is available. To ensure accelerated publication timelines are met, we suggest providing a storyboard at submission rather than the final video. If there are comments on the video, it may mean that the video will need to be recorded again.  

The Video Journal of Biomedicine offers an accelerated publication option for standalone video articles. This follows the same process as a traditional manuscript. With video articles or abstracts, make sure that the authors are aware that they need to be available for the revision of the storyboard and that after provisional acceptance of the storyboard, no editorial changes can be made once the video has been created.  If the authors are creating the video, ensure that you have all stakeholders aware of the timelines for the accelerated publication route, so no delays are introduced at this stage.  

Internally, we have seen extenders significantly increase views of an article, and we look forward to presenting our findings in a poster at the 21st Annual Meeting of ISMPP in Washington, DC. 

Looking ahead, how do you see fast-track scientific publishing evolving? What criteria should be used to determine when fast-tracking is appropriate – and when a more traditional timeline is the better option? 

Taylor & Francis has offered accelerated publication in a small list of biomedical titles for over 15 years, and we will be expanding this service to a few select titles in our Medicine & Health portfolio in 2025 to offer a wider range of options to our customers in the industry. Taylor & Francis doesn’t have any plans to introduce this service to journals within other subject areas. As for whether the standard or accelerated route is most appropriate for a paper, that decision will be one for the person or team planning the publication, be it a medical communications agency or pharmaceutical company, rather than us. Our role is to provide publishing options to the community and to ensure that the highest standards of publishing excellence are maintained.  

“Whether the standard or accelerated route is most appropriate for a paper, [is a] decision for the person or team planning the publication, be it a medical communications agency or pharmaceutical company” 

 Sam Cavana is Head of Publishing Solutions at Taylor & Francis Group and can be contacted via LinkedIn. All views and opinions expressed in this article are those of Sam Cavana and do not necessarily represent those of Taylor & Francis. 

—————————————————–