PLoS Author Research 2009

Summary of results and conclusions Author Research 2009

Goals
Broad objective
Assess author satisfaction and establish goals for improvement
Use author surveys to provide quantitative data
Consider all aspects of our service
Explore any specific issues
Provide a snapshot of author opinion
Compare across fields and journals
A baseline for future comparison

Methodology
Two surveys for each journal
Only corresponding authors
Authors rejected in 2008
Author published in 2008
Consistent questions wherever possible
To allow cross-journal comparisons
Survey Monkey questionnaires (www.surveymonkey.com/)
For each questionnaire we did a prize draw ($150 Amazon gift voucher)

Response Rates
Response rates higher for published relative to rejected authors
Fairly consistent across journals

Years of experience
Combined data for published and rejected authors
PLoS CB authors seem to be a younger crowd (young field)
PLoS Medicine authors also tend to be younger
PLoS ONE author profile seems about same as other journals
Remember that this is just corresponding authors

How did you first learn of PLoS J?
Results shown only for published authors – similar for rejected
Most frequent answer –’colleague’ or ‘reading an article’
For PLoS ONE, referral from another journal is common (27%)
For PLoS Genetics and PLoS Pathogens, ‘reading articles’ is main driver – suggests journals are more established in their field.
Advertising is infrequently mentioned (exception is PLoS NTDs, although numbers are small, and it is the newest journal)

Motivation for submission
Y axis = average rating (Max is 4). Only published authors – rejected very similar
Most popular reasons are: journal quality, impact factor (or potential for an impact factor), OA, quality of PLoS brand, speed, peer review criteria. Common themes are ‘quality’ measures (impact factor, brand) and service (speed, peer review, OA).
Price does not seem to be a big issue – a score of 2 indicates that most users are ‘neutral’ with respect to price.

Did you submit to another journal before PLoS?
Also asked authors to indicate the other journals to which their article was submitted
PLoS Biology – Science, Nature, Cell
PLoS Medicine– Lancet, NEJM, JAMA
PLoS Comp Biol – PNAS, PLoS Biol, Science
PLoS Genetics – PLoS Biology, Nature Genetics, PNAS
PLoS Pathogens – PNAS, J Exp Med, PLoS Biol
PLoS ONE – PLoS Biology, PLoS Medicine, Nature
PLoS NTDs – too few responses

Status of rejected manuscript
Majority have been re-submitted/accepted in another journal
PLoS ONE has the highest proportion of rejected articles that have not been resubmitted
But 40% of rejected PLoS ONE articles have been accepted elsewhere
Which journals has the work been submitted to?
Top answer for all journals is PLoS ONE
PLoS Biol, PNAS was second choice; PLoS Comp Biol, Biophys J; PLoS Gen, Genetics; PLoS Pathogens, J Virol

Sample question

Satisfaction with editorial process
Y axis = average rating. Max is 4, and 3 means ‘above average’.
Helpfulness of staff is where journals score highest
Results shown for published authors. Levels of satisfaction lower across board for rejected authors.
PLoS Medicine is unusual in scoring much higher on speed for rejected authors than published – most likely the result of very rapid decision-making on presubmission inquiries.
Free text comments (number of times mentioned/total comments):
Published: most frequent dissatisfier is ‘speed of review’ (23/77 PLoS ONE, 6/10 PLoS Biol)
Rejected: ‘quality of feedback’ more commonly mentioned (33/74 PLoS Biol, 12/30 PLoS Comp Biol)

Satisfaction with production process
Levels of enthusiasm are generally very good
PLoS Comp Biol is lower in general
main reason mentioned in free comments is lack of handling of LaTeX (10/13)
Additional comments
some dissatisfaction with author proofing process (e.g. PLoS ONE 13/47)
figure quality concerns (e.g. PLoS ONE 5/47)

Satisfaction with web site
Only published authors shown. Rejected results very similar
Suggestions for improvements in free comments
usage of commenting tools
manuscript submission system

Distribution and Access
Levels of enthusiasm are very high
Nothing to choose between the journals

Overall satisfaction
Overall responses are very good
Some evidence of dissatisfaction amongst a small group of PLoS Comp Biol authors

Likelihood to submit again
Only published authors shown
Generally positive response – mostly >90% are ‘likely’ or ‘highly likely’ to submit again
Figures are around 70% for rejected authors

Conclusions
Dataset represents a solid baseline for future comparison
Actions this year have included
LaTeX file handling
Improving figure processing
Actions to work on
New ways to highlight outstanding content in PLoS Journals
Additional data for next year
Information about repeat authors – why do they come back again?
Ask if people are prepared to be contacted for follow up?
Attitudes towards article-level metrics
Other improvements in web site

PLoS Author Research 2009

by Liz Allen on Dec 13, 2009

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 12

Statistics

PLoS Author Research 2009 — Webinar Transcript

http://www.slideshare.net	9
http://bongsoo.egloos.com	3