17
www.plos.org Summary of results and conclusions Author Research 2009

PLoS Author Research 2009

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

A summary of the results of the 2009 PLoS author surveys

Citation preview

Page 1: PLoS Author Research 2009

www.plos.org

Summary of results and conclusions

Author Research 2009

Page 2: PLoS 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

Page 3: PLoS Author Research 2009

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)

Page 4: PLoS Author Research 2009

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

Page 5: PLoS Author Research 2009

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

Page 6: PLoS Author Research 2009

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

Page 7: PLoS Author Research 2009

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

Page 8: PLoS Author Research 2009

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

Page 9: PLoS Author Research 2009

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

Page 10: PLoS Author Research 2009

Sample question

Page 11: PLoS Author Research 2009

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-

mail

The degree towhich you werekept informed

throughout theprocess

Biology

CompBiol

Pathogens

Genetics

NTDs

ONE

Medicine

Page 12: PLoS Author Research 2009

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

Page 13: PLoS Author Research 2009

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

Page 14: PLoS Author Research 2009

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

Page 15: PLoS Author Research 2009

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

Page 16: PLoS Author Research 2009

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

Page 17: PLoS Author Research 2009

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