PLoS Author Research 2010


Published on

1 Comment
  • As requested in this survey, we've gone ahead and launched some PLoS Linked-In sites, please visit and join them if you wish. Here are the web addresses:

    Meet PLoS:
    Open Access:
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

PLoS Author Research 2010

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