Summary of results and conclusions Author Research 2009
Goals <ul><li>Broad objective </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Assess author satisfaction and establish goals for improvement </li></...
Methodology <ul><li>Two surveys for each journal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Only corresponding authors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><...
Response Rates <ul><li>Response rates higher for published relative to rejected authors </li></ul><ul><li>Fairly consisten...
Years of experience <ul><li>Combined data for published and rejected authors </li></ul><ul><li>PLoS CB authors seem to be ...
How did you first learn of PLoS J? <ul><li>Results shown only for published authors – similar for rejected </li></ul><ul><...
Motivation for submission <ul><li>Y axis = average rating (Max is 4).  Only published authors – rejected very similar </li...
Did you submit to another journal before PLoS? <ul><li>Also asked authors to indicate the other journals to which their ar...
Status of rejected manuscript <ul><li>Majority have been re-submitted/accepted in another journal </li></ul><ul><li>PLoS O...
Sample question
Satisfaction with editorial process <ul><li>Y axis = average rating.  Max is 4, and 3 means ‘above average’.  </li></ul><u...
Satisfaction with production process <ul><li>Y axis = average rating.  Max is 4, and 3 means ‘above average’.  </li></ul><...
Satisfaction with web site <ul><li>Y axis = average rating.  Max is 4, and 3 means ‘above average’.  </li></ul><ul><li>Onl...
Distribution and Access <ul><li>Y axis = average rating.  Max is 4, and 3 means ‘above average’.  </li></ul><ul><li>Levels...
Overall satisfaction <ul><li>Overall responses are very good </li></ul><ul><li>Some evidence of dissatisfaction amongst a ...
Likelihood to submit again <ul><li>Only published authors shown </li></ul><ul><li>Generally positive response – mostly >90...
Conclusions  <ul><li>Dataset represents a solid baseline for future comparison </li></ul><ul><li>Actions this year have in...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

PLoS Author Research 2009

5,564 views

Published on

A summary of the results of the 2009 PLoS author surveys

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
5,564
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
23
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
34
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

PLoS Author Research 2009

  1. 1. Summary of results and conclusions Author Research 2009
  2. 2. Goals <ul><li>Broad objective </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Assess author satisfaction and establish goals for improvement </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Use author surveys to provide quantitative data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consider all aspects of our service </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Explore any specific issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide a snapshot of author opinion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compare across fields and journals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A baseline for future comparison </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Methodology <ul><li>Two surveys for each journal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Only corresponding authors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Authors rejected in 2008 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Author published in 2008 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Consistent questions wherever possible </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To allow cross-journal comparisons </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Survey Monkey questionnaires (www.surveymonkey.com/) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For each questionnaire we did a prize draw ($150 Amazon gift voucher) </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Response Rates <ul><li>Response rates higher for published relative to rejected authors </li></ul><ul><li>Fairly consistent across journals </li></ul>
  5. 5. Years of experience <ul><li>Combined data for published and rejected authors </li></ul><ul><li>PLoS CB authors seem to be a younger crowd (young field) </li></ul><ul><li>PLoS Medicine authors also tend to be younger </li></ul><ul><li>PLoS ONE author profile seems about same as other journals </li></ul><ul><li>Remember that this is just corresponding authors </li></ul>
  6. 6. How did you first learn of PLoS J? <ul><li>Results shown only for published authors – similar for rejected </li></ul><ul><li>Most frequent answer –’colleague’ or ‘reading an article’ </li></ul><ul><li>For PLoS ONE, referral from another journal is common (27%) </li></ul><ul><li>For PLoS Genetics and PLoS Pathogens, ‘reading articles’ is main driver – suggests journals are more established in their field. </li></ul><ul><li>Advertising is infrequently mentioned (exception is PLoS NTDs, although numbers are small, and it is the newest journal) </li></ul>
  7. 7. Motivation for submission <ul><li>Y axis = average rating (Max is 4). Only published authors – rejected very similar </li></ul><ul><li>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). </li></ul><ul><li>Price does not seem to be a big issue – a score of 2 indicates that most users are ‘neutral’ with respect to price. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Did you submit to another journal before PLoS? <ul><li>Also asked authors to indicate the other journals to which their article was submitted </li></ul><ul><ul><li>PLoS Biology – Science, Nature, Cell </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PLoS Medicine– Lancet, NEJM, JAMA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PLoS Comp Biol – PNAS, PLoS Biol, Science </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PLoS Genetics – PLoS Biology, Nature Genetics, PNAS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PLoS Pathogens – PNAS, J Exp Med, PLoS Biol </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PLoS ONE – PLoS Biology, PLoS Medicine, Nature </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PLoS NTDs – too few responses </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Status of rejected manuscript <ul><li>Majority have been re-submitted/accepted in another journal </li></ul><ul><li>PLoS ONE has the highest proportion of rejected articles that have not been resubmitted </li></ul><ul><ul><li>But 40% of rejected PLoS ONE articles have been accepted elsewhere </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Which journals has the work been submitted to? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Top answer for all journals is PLoS ONE </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PLoS Biol, PNAS was second choice; PLoS Comp Biol, Biophys J; PLoS Gen, Genetics; PLoS Pathogens, J Virol </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Sample question
  11. 11. Satisfaction with editorial process <ul><li>Y axis = average rating. Max is 4, and 3 means ‘above average’. </li></ul><ul><li>Helpfulness of staff is where journals score highest </li></ul><ul><li>Results shown for published authors. Levels of satisfaction lower across board for rejected authors. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Free text comments (number of times mentioned/total comments): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Published: most frequent dissatisfier is ‘speed of review’ (23/77 PLoS ONE, 6/10 PLoS Biol) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rejected: ‘quality of feedback’ more commonly mentioned (33/74 PLoS Biol, 12/30 PLoS Comp Biol) </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Satisfaction with production process <ul><li>Y axis = average rating. Max is 4, and 3 means ‘above average’. </li></ul><ul><li>Levels of enthusiasm are generally very good </li></ul><ul><li>PLoS Comp Biol is lower in general </li></ul><ul><ul><li>main reason mentioned in free comments is lack of handling of LaTeX (10/13) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Additional comments </li></ul><ul><ul><li>some dissatisfaction with author proofing process (e.g. PLoS ONE 13/47) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>figure quality concerns (e.g. PLoS ONE 5/47) </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Satisfaction with web site <ul><li>Y axis = average rating. Max is 4, and 3 means ‘above average’. </li></ul><ul><li>Only published authors shown. Rejected results very similar </li></ul><ul><li>Suggestions for improvements in free comments </li></ul><ul><ul><li>usage of commenting tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>manuscript submission system </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Distribution and Access <ul><li>Y axis = average rating. Max is 4, and 3 means ‘above average’. </li></ul><ul><li>Levels of enthusiasm are very high </li></ul><ul><li>Nothing to choose between the journals </li></ul>
  15. 15. Overall satisfaction <ul><li>Overall responses are very good </li></ul><ul><li>Some evidence of dissatisfaction amongst a small group of PLoS Comp Biol authors </li></ul>
  16. 16. Likelihood to submit again <ul><li>Only published authors shown </li></ul><ul><li>Generally positive response – mostly >90% are ‘likely’ or ‘highly likely’ to submit again </li></ul><ul><li>Figures are around 70% for rejected authors </li></ul>
  17. 17. Conclusions <ul><li>Dataset represents a solid baseline for future comparison </li></ul><ul><li>Actions this year have included </li></ul><ul><ul><li>LaTeX file handling </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improving figure processing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Actions to work on </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New ways to highlight outstanding content in PLoS Journals </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Additional data for next year </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Information about repeat authors – why do they come back again? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ask if people are prepared to be contacted for follow up? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attitudes towards article-level metrics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other improvements in web site </li></ul></ul>

×