PLoS Author Research 2010

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%)
2009 2010 From another journal Colleague Read article Media coverage From another journal Colleague Read article Media coverage

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
Bio CB Path Gen NTDs ONE Med

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)
2010 2009

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 Author Research 2010

by Liz Allen

Accessibility

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 1

Statistics