PLoS Author Research 2010
by Liz Allen on Jan 20, 2011
- 5,068 views
Statistics
- Favorites
- 2
- Downloads
- 40
- Comments
- 1
- Embed Views
- Views on SlideShare
- 5,067
- Total Views
- 5,068
PLoS Author Research 2010 — Webinar Transcript
- Summary of results and conclusions Author Research 2010
- Purpose of author research
- Organizational objective
- Products and Services - Improve overall author service
- Specific goals in 2010
- Consider all aspects of our service
- Provide quantitative data to compare with 2009 data
- Consider significant new features in 2009
- ALMs
- Better LaTeX handling
- Figure process modifications
- Identify actionable outcomes
- Methodology
- Two surveys for each journal (conducted in March)
- Note just corresponding authors
- Rejected authors in 2009
- Published authors in 2009
- Avoid duplicates
- 14 surveys in total
- Consistent questions wherever possible
- To allow cross-journal comparisons and comparisons with last year’s data
- Survey Monkey is the mechanism
- Incentivized with prize draw
- % Completed
- Similar results to last year (09 figures in parentheses)
- Lower response rates for rejected authors, as before
- Years of experience
- Combined data for published and rejected authors
- PLoS CB and PLoS Med seem to attract the youngest authors –more marked than last year
- Remember that this is just corresponding authors
- Social web resources
- Plot just shows any resource that is used (even if infrequently) by >10% of respondents.
- Facebook is the frontrunner, followed by Linked-In
- CB shows the highest level of usage, particularly Facebook and Linked-In
- There is now a PLoS LinkedIn group
- How did you first learn of PLoS X?
- Results shown only for published authors – similar for rejected
- Most frequent answer –’colleague’ or ‘read article’ – general shift towards ‘read article’ (growth of content?)
- For Genetics and Pathogens results, ‘read article’ is still driver (as last year) – suggests content is major driver
- Also for Comp Biol, Biol and NTDs
- For ONE, referral from another journal is more common but less so than last year (27% to 17%)
- ‘ read article’ is correspondingly increased (21% to 31%)
- Motivation for submission
- Y axis = average rating (Max is 4).
- Only published authors – rejected very similar
- Service (blue) and quality (red) are the predominant drivers
- Similar to the picture in 2009
- Did you submit to another journal before PLoS?
- Highest levels implies competition is greatest (ONE, Med, Bio, Genetics)
- % Authors who view Med as a first choice journal has increased from 32% to 45%
- % Authors who view ONE as a first choice journal has increased from 23% to 37%
- Satisfaction with editorial process
- Y axis = average rating (Max is 4). Only published authors shown.
- A mean rating of 3 means an overall rating of ‘above average’
- Very similar picture to last year.
- Helpfulness of staff is where journals score highest
- Added a question about submission process
- Levels of satisfaction lower across board for rejected authors
- Free text comments (numbers pretty small):
- Published: most frequent dissatisfiers are online submission process (38/158, ONE; 12/20, Path)
- Rejected: ‘quality of feedback’ more commonly mentioned (22/57Bio, 9/33 Path)
- Satisfaction with production process
- Y axis = average rating (Max is 4). Only published authors
- Levels of enthusiasm are generally good (>3 = above average overall)
- PLoS CB is still lower in general
- main reason mentioned in free comments is quality of figures (7/26), proofing process (6/26), problems with LaTeX (4/26)
- handling of LaTeX issues much less frequent this year (4/26 versus 10/16 in 2009)
- Improvement of LaTeX handling
- Dark = “a great deal”; Light = “some”
- PLoS CB is the most relevant audience for these changes, but on most journals a small minority will benefit
- Full impact likely to be seen next year
- Article-level metrics questions
- Dark = “very”; Light = “moderately”
- In general levels of awareness are reasonable, but there is room for improvement
- In free text comments, plenty of enthusiastic comments
- ~32/131 ONE respondents are already finding them useful in some way.
- A large number also said that they haven’t used them yet.
- Likelihood to resubmit (published)
- Dark = “Highly likely”; Light = “likely”
- Comments
- Last year 101/154 ONE respondents indicated concern about IF/Indexing. This year that figure was reduced to 54/207
- How many times have you submitted to PLoS X?
- Around 40% of our authors are multiple submitters
- Reasons for multiple submissions
- High quality of journal
- Good previous experience
- Reasons for single submission
- Lack of suitable paper is most common answer (NTDs 6/25; Bio 7/29, ONE 36/336)
- Overall satisfaction
- Very similar to last year
- In free-text comments –
- Figures, tables, appearance (CB 6/15)
- Slow review/process (ONE, 9/91); Fast review (ONE, 9/91)
- Conclusions
- Levels of satisfaction are good and consistent with last year
- Improve service levels where possible (new journal management system)
- PLoS ONE is gaining status as an attractive publication venue in its own right
- Motivation for submission – (‘read article’ increased)
- First choice for more published authors (23% to 37%)
- Remaining dissatisfaction for PLoS Comp Biol
- Yet to see impact of improvement in LaTeX processing
- ALM data – responses are positive
- We need to increase utility
- Across many journals, main driver of awareness is content
- Promote the outstanding content in all journals
PLoS: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?mostPopular=&gid=3484244
Meet PLoS: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?mostPopular=&gid=3484731
Open Access: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?mostPopular=&gid=3484567 1 year ago Reply