Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

PLoS Author Research 2010

on

  • 7,000 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
7,000
Views on SlideShare
6,999
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
42
Comments

1 Embed 1

http://twitter.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

PLoS Author Research 2010 Presentation Transcript

  • Summary of results and conclusions Author Research 2010
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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%)
    2009 2010 From another journal Colleague Read article Media coverage From another journal Colleague Read article Media coverage
  • 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
  • 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%
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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
    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)
  • 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)
    2010 2009
  • 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
{"cc_re__cc_re__cc_by_2_5": ["zation\" itemscope>\n                      <a itemprop=\"url\" class=\"api-credit-text\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"/\">\n                        <span itemprop=\"name\">SlideShare</span>\n                      </a>\n                    </span>\n                    <span>as </span>\n                    <a class=\"uploaded-as\" href=\"/\">Microsoft PowerPoint</a>\n                  </p>\n                </div>\n                <div class=\"span2\">\n                  <h3>Usage Rights</h3>\n                  <p class=\"license\"><a rel=\"license\" itemprop=\"license\" href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/\" title=\"CC Attribution License\"><img src=\"//public.slidesharecdn.com/b/images/CC_AttributionFinal.png?2\"  title=\"CC Attribution License\" alt=\"CC Attribution License\" /></a></p>\n                </div>\n                <!-- Flag begins here-->\n                <div class=\"span2\">\n                  <h3>Report content</h3>\n                  <div class=\"flag flag-inappropriate\">\n                    <a class=\"action-flag\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"/signup?login_source=slideview.popup.flags&amp;from=flagss&amp;from_source=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.s"], "copyright__copyright__copyright": ["s gaining status as an attractive publication venue in its own right\n      \u2022 Motivation for submission \u2013 (\u2018read article\u2019 increased)\n      \u2022 First choice for more published authors (23% to 37%)\n    \u2022 Remaining dissatisfaction for PLoS Comp Biol\n      \u2022 Yet to see impact of improvement in LaTeX processing\n    \u2022 ALM data \u2013 responses are positive\n      \u2022 We need to increase utility\n    \u2022 Across many journals, main driver of awareness is content\n      \u2022 Promote the outstanding content in all journals", "s gaining status as an attractive publication venue in its own right\n      \u2022 Motivation for submission \u2013 (\u2018read article\u2019 increased)\n      \u2022 First choice for more published authors (23% to 37%)\n    \u2022 Remaining dissatisfaction for PLoS Comp Biol\n      \u2022 Yet to see impact of improvement in LaTeX processing\n    \u2022 ALM data \u2013 responses are positive\n      \u2022 We need to increase utility\n    \u2022 Across many journals, main driver of awareness is content\n      \u2022 Promote the outstanding content in all journals", "s gaining status as an attractive publication venue in its own right\n      \u2022 Motivation for submission \u2013 (\u2018read article\u2019 increased)\n      \u2022 First choice for more published authors (23% to 37%)\n    \u2022 Remaining dissatisfaction for PLoS Comp Biol\n      \u2022 Yet to see impact of improvement in LaTeX processing\n    \u2022 ALM data \u2013 responses are positive\n      \u2022 We need to increase utility\n    \u2022 Across many journals, main driver of awareness is content\n      \u2022 Promote the outstanding content in all journals", "s gaining status as an attractive publication venue in its own right\n      \u2022 Motivation for submission \u2013 (\u2018read article\u2019 increased)\n      \u2022 First choice for more published authors (23% to 37%)\n    \u2022 Remaining dissatisfaction for PLoS Comp Biol\n      \u2022 Yet to see impact of improvement in LaTeX processing\n    \u2022 ALM data \u2013 responses are positive\n      \u2022 We need to increase utility\n    \u2022 Across many journals, main driver of awareness is content\n      \u2022 Promote the outstanding content in all journals", "s gaining status as an attractive publication venue in its own right\n      \u2022 Motivation for submission \u2013 (\u2018read article\u2019 increased)\n      \u2022 First choice for more published authors (23% to 37%)\n    \u2022 Remaining dissatisfaction for PLoS Comp Biol\n      \u2022 Yet to see impact of improvement in LaTeX processing\n    \u2022 ALM data \u2013 responses are positive\n      \u2022 We need to increase utility\n    \u2022 Across many journals, main driver of awareness is content\n      \u2022 Promote the outstanding content in all journals"]}