View
4.928
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
A summary of the results of the 2009 PLoS author surveys
Citation preview
www.plos.org
Summary of results and conclusions
Author Research 2009
www.plos.org
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
www.plos.org
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
Percentage of completed surveys
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Biology CompBiol Genetics Pathogens NTDs ONE Medicine
Published
Rejected
85
408
78 102
10247
782
38
112 153185
17
145 108
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
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 More than30
Biology
CompBiol
Pathogens
Genetics
NTDs
ONE
Medicine
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)
How did you first learn of PLoS X? (Published)
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Ref
erre
d by
ano
ther
PLoS
jour
nal
Col
leag
ue
Rea
d a
PLoS
X a
rtic
le
Med
ia c
over
age
Link
fro
m a
noth
erjo
urna
l/bl
og p
ost
Adv
erti
sem
ent
on a
PLoS
jour
nal W
ebsi
te
Adv
erti
sem
ent
on a
PLoS
jour
nal E
-mai
lC
onte
nt A
lert
E-m
ail f
rom
PLo
S X
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
Biology
CompBiol
Pathogens
Genetics
NTDs
ONE
Medicine
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.
What motivated you to publish in PLoS X? (Published)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4Sp
eed
of p
ublic
atio
n
Opt
ion
for
dire
cttr
ansf
er f
rom
anot
her
PLoS
jour
nal
Pers
onal
reco
mm
enda
tion
Peer
-re
view
/acc
epta
nce
crit
eria
Com
men
ting
and
rati
ng t
ools
Ope
n A
cces
s
Impa
ct F
acto
r
Prev
ious
exp
erie
nce
wit
h PL
oS
Qua
lity
of P
LoS
X
Qua
lity
of t
he P
LoS
bran
d
Inst
itut
iona
l or
fund
ing
body
Ope
n-A
cces
s m
anda
te Pric
e
Inst
itut
iona
l dis
coun
t
Biology
CompBiol
Pathogens
Genetics
NTDs
ONE
Medicine
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
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Biology CompBiol Pathogens Genetics NTDs Medicine ONE
Published Rejected
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
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
It has been accepted by another journal It has been submitted to another journal It has not yet been submitted to anotherjournal
Biology CompBiolPathogens GeneticsNTDs ONEMedicine
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)
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
Speed to finaldecision
Overall efficiencyof the process
Quality of editorialfeedback from
reviewers
Quality of editorialfeedback from the
Editor
Responsivenessand helpfulness ofeditorial staff via e-
The degree towhich you werekept informed
throughout theprocess
Biology
CompBiol
Pathogens
Genetics
NTDs
ONE
Medicine
Satisfaction with production process
• Y axis = average rating. Max is 4, and 3 means ‘above average’. • 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)
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6Sp
eed
from
acce
ptan
ce to
onlin
e av
aila
bilit
y
Qua
lity
ofpu
blis
hed
articl
e(in
HTM
L--o
nlin
e)
Qua
lity
ofpu
blis
hed
articl
e(in
PDF)
Res
pons
iven
ess
and
help
fuln
ess
of p
rodu
ctio
nst
aff v
ia e
-mai
l
The
degr
ee to
whi
ch y
ou w
ere
kept
info
rmed
thro
ugho
ut the
proc
ess
Proc
essi
ng o
fyo
ur a
rtic
le a
fter
acce
ptan
ce(m
anus
crip
tpr
epar
atio
n,ty
pese
ttin
g, a
ndin
-hou
se p
roofi
ngpr
oced
ure)
Biology CompBiol PathogensGenetics NTDs ONEMedicine
Satisfaction with web site
• Y axis = average rating. Max is 4, and 3 means ‘above average’. • Only published authors shown. Rejected results very similar • Suggestions for improvements in free comments
– usage of commenting tools
– manuscript submission system
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
Functionality Overall design Speed Commentary tools
Biology
CompBiol
Pathogens
Genetics
NTDs
ONE
Medicine
Distribution and Access
• Y axis = average rating. Max is 4, and 3 means ‘above average’. • Levels of enthusiasm are very high• Nothing to choose between the journals
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Distribution (how widely it was made available) Accessibility (how easy it was to access)
Biology
CompBiol
Pathogens
Genetics
NTDs
ONE
Medicine
Overall satisfaction
• Overall responses are very good• Some evidence of dissatisfaction amongst a small group of PLoS Comp Biol authors
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
1 (one of the bestpublishing experiences I
have had)
2 3 (it was acceptable) 4 5 (one of the worstpublishing experiences I
have had)
Biology
CompBiol
Pathogens
Genetics
NTDs
ONE
Medicine
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
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Biology CompBiol Pathogens Genetics NTDs ONE Medicine
LikelyHighly likely
www.plos.org
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
Recommended