www.plos.org

Summary of results and conclusions

Author Research 2010

www.plos.org

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

www.plos.org

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Biology Medicine CompBiol Genetics Pathogens NTDs ONE

Publ ished

Rejected

65 (85)

319 (408)

31 (38)

72 (108) (108)

133 (78)

127 (112)

140 (102)

148 (153)

136 (102)

205 (185)

56 (47)

28 (17)

1306 (782)

236 (145)

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

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 More than 30 Prefer not tosay

Biology

CompBiol

Pathogens

Genetics

NTDs

ONE

Medicine

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

Social network membership (Published)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Link

edIn

Twitt

er

Face

book

BioM

edEx

pert

s

Nat

ure

Net

wor

k

Link

edIn

Twitt

er

Face

book

BioM

edEx

pert

s

Nat

ure

Net

wor

k

Cite

ULi

ke

Link

edIn

Face

book

BioM

edEx

pert

s

Nat

ure

Net

wor

k

Link

edIn

Face

book

BioM

edEx

pert

s

Nat

ure

Net

wor

k

Link

edIn

Face

book

Rese

arch

GAT

E

BioM

edEx

pert

s

Nat

ure

Net

wor

k

Cite

ULi

ke

SciL

ink

Link

edIn

Twitt

er

Face

book

BioM

edEx

pert

s

Nat

ure

Net

wor

k

Cite

ULi

ke

Link

edIn

Face

book

Rese

arch

GAT

E

BioM

edEx

pert

s

Nat

ure

Net

wor

k

Scis

pace

.net

Biology

CompBiol

Pathogens Genetics NTDs

ONEMedicine

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%)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Referred byanother PLoS

journa l

Col league Read a PLoS X article

Media coverage Link fromanother

journa l/blogpost

Advertisementon a PLoS

journa l Webs i te

Advertisementon a PLoS

journa l E-mai lContent Alert

E-mai l fromPLoS X

Other

Biology

CompBiol

Pathogens

Genetics

NTDs

ONE

Medicine

2009 2010

From another journal

Colleague Readarticle

Mediacoverage

From another journal

Colleague Readarticle

Mediacoverage

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

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0Sp

eed

ofpu

blic

ation

Opti

on fo

r dire

cttr

ansf

er fr

oman

othe

r PLo

Sjo

urna

l

Pers

onal

reco

mm

enda

tion

Peer

-re

view

/acc

epta

nce

crite

ria

Com

men

ting

and

ratin

g to

ols

Ope

n Ac

cess

Impa

ctFa

ctor

/Pos

sibi

lity

that

PLo

S O

NE

coul

d ha

ve a

nim

pact

fact

or

Prev

ious

expe

rienc

e w

ithPL

oS

Qua

lity

of P

LoS

X

Qua

lity

of th

e PL

oSbr

and

Insti

tutio

nal o

rfu

ndin

g bo

dyO

pen-

Acce

ssm

anda

te Pric

e

Insti

tutio

nal

disc

ount

The

fact

that

PLo

SO

NE

is c

ompl

etel

ym

ultid

isci

plin

ary

Biology CompBiolPathogens GeneticsNTDs ONEMedicine

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%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Biology CompBiol Path Gen NTDs Medicine ONE

Published2009

Published2010

Rejected2009

Rejected2010

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)

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

Onl ine submiss ionprocess

Time to fi rst decis ion Overal l effi ciency of theprocess

Qual i ty of editoria lfeedback from

reviewers

Qual i ty of editoria lfeedback from the

Editor

Respons iveness andhelpfulness of editoria l

s taff via E-mai l

The degree to whichyou were kept informedthroughout the process

Biology CompBiolPathogens GeneticsNTDs ONEMedicine

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)

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

Speed from acceptanceto online availability

Quality of publishedarticle (in HTML--online)

Quality of publishedarticle (in PDF)

Reproduction of yourfigure(s)

Responsiveness andhelpfulness of production

staff via E-mail

The degree to which youwere kept informed

throughout the process

Processing of your articleafter acceptance

(manuscript preparation,typesetti ng, and in-house

proofing procedure)

Biology CompBiol PathogensGenetics NTDs ONE

Medicine

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Biology CompBiol Pathogens Genetics NTDs ONE Medicine Biology CompBiol Pathogens Genetics NTDs ONE Medicine

How much have these enhancements improved your LaTeX submission experience?

How much more likely is it that you will submit your manuscripts in LaTeX?

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.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Biol

ogy

Com

pBio

l

Path

ogen

s

Gen

etics

NTD

s

ON

E

Med

icin

e

Biol

ogy

Com

pBio

l

Path

ogen

s

Gen

etics

NTD

s

ON

E

Med

icin

e

Biol

ogy

Com

pBio

l

Path

ogen

s

Gen

etics

NTD

s

ON

E

Med

icin

e

How aware were you that Article-Level Metrics existed (prior to

reading it here)?

Is it clear what information is available under each article tab?

How useful do you find Article-Level Metrics?

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

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

09 10 09 10 09 10 09 10 09 10 09 10 09 10

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)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

1 2 3 4 5 or more

Biology

CompBiol

Pathogens

Genetics

NTDs

ONE

Medicine

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)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

1 (one of the bestpubl ishing experiences I

have had)

2 3 (i t was acceptable) 4 5 (one of the worstpubl ishing experiences I

have had)

Biology CompBiolPathogens GeneticsNTDs ONEMedicine

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

1 (one of the bestpubl ishing experiences I

have had)

2 3 (i t was acceptable) 4 5 (one of the worstpubl ishing experiences I

have had)

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)

2010 2009

www.plos.org

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