Authors' perceptions of electronic publishing: two cross sectional surveys
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
1 BMJ Editorial Office, BMA House, London WC1H 9JR
Corresponding author: S Schroter sschroter@bmj.com
Abstract
Participants
We excluded five of the 120 questionnaires sent out in survey 1, as the contact address was incorrect (returned by post office). Of the 115 eligible authors, 104 (90%) responded.
We excluded 14 of the 297 questionnaires sent out in survey 2 as the contact address was incorrect. Of the 283 eligible authors, 213 (75%) responded. Of these, 60% (128/213) reported that they were aware of ELPS before the survey and 13% (27/213) had previously been an author on a paper that had undergone ELPS.
As responses were largely similar in the two surveys we combined the results for reporting purposes (except when the groups differed) but have also presented the results for each survey separately in the table.
Main results of both surveys
What do authors like and dislike about the concept of ELPS?
Of the 317 respondents, 80% (253/317) liked the idea of making papers more accessible and not being restricted to just a short version; 43% (135/317) liked the fact that editors prepare the shorter version of the paper on their behalf; and 24% (77/317) thought ELPS may speed up the publication process (16% in survey 1 and 28% in survey 2; table).
Only 5% (17/317) of authors didn't like anything at all about ELPS, and 8% (25/317) didn't believe that readers wanted shorter papers. Both groups reported concerns about the possibility of information on the internet being transient (42/104 (40%), in survey 1; 52/213 (24%) in survey 2) and over a third (118/317, 37%) found it confusing to have two versions of the same paper. Most felt comfortable with having their name on the shorter version of the paper prepared by the editor.
Additional reasons for not liking ELPS largely focused on problems with editors shortening papers (inappropriate selection of material, important omissions, disjointed narrative, "dumbing down" of science); the unsuitability of some study designs for short versions (for example, systematic reviews and qualitative research); additional proof reading; and problems of accessing the long version for those with no internet access.
Readability
Over a third of authors thought that the short versions of papers in the printed BMJ are more readable (for general readers) than the long versions on bmj.com, and only a few (4%, 13/317) reported they are less readable (table). Of the authors in survey 1, 14% (14/104) thought that the short version of their own paper was less readable than the long version.
Concern over the editor preparing the short version
From the respondents in survey 1, half (53/104) reported they were initially concerned by the idea of an editor preparing the shorter version of their paper, but 30% (16/53) of these later reported that they liked ELPS more having experienced it. About 46% (48/104) reported that there were aspects of the shorter version of their paper prepared by an editor that they were not happy with. Problems largely focused on editors changing the meaning and interpretation, as well as important omissions potentially affecting the comprehension and context of the study. However, 65% (31/48) said they had the opportunity to amend this.
Satisfaction with ELPS
Overall, 70% (95% confidence interval 64% to 76%) of authors (223/317) thought that the BMJ should continue with ELPS. Only 3% (8/317) said that ELPS would stop them from submitting to BMJ in the future (table).
Acceptability of two further approaches to electronic publishing
Nearly half (49%, 41% to 57%; 156/317) reported that it would be "not at all acceptable" to publish only the abstract of papers in the paper journal and put the full long version on bmj.com (table). Also, 23% (13% to 33%; 73/317) reported that posting an unedited version of the full paper on the website on acceptance was "not at all acceptable" but 48% (40% to 56%; 151/317) reported it would be acceptable. Around 68% (216/317) thought it would not influence their likelihood of submitting papers to BMJ, and 16% (52/317) thought it would make them more likely to submit. While some were concerned by the potential quality of unedited papers, many emphasised the need for rapid dissemination of important clinical findings.
What is already known on this topic
Widespread use of the internet has led to innovative ideas for presenting scientific research
Little is known about what authors and readers think of these innovations
What this study adds
Authors think it is acceptable to publish short versions of research articles in the printed version of a general medical journal with longer versions on the website
Authors dislike the idea of publishing only abstracts in the printed journal but are in favour of posting accepted articles on the website ahead of the printed version
Discussion
Delamothe T, Müllner M, Smith R. Pleasing both authors and readers. BMJ 1999;318: 888-9.
Müllner M, Groves T. Making research papers in the BMJ more accessible. BMJ 2002;325: 456.
Müllner M. Publishing short articles in the print journal and full articles on the web? The BMJ is doing it with most research papers Eur J Sci Edit 2003;29: 6-9.
Electronic responses. Pleasing both authors and readers. BMJ 1999 www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7188/777#responses (accessed 21 Nov 2003).
Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New York: Wiley, 1978.
Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ 2002;324: 1183.(Sara Schroter, senior res)
Corresponding author: S Schroter sschroter@bmj.com
Abstract
Participants
We excluded five of the 120 questionnaires sent out in survey 1, as the contact address was incorrect (returned by post office). Of the 115 eligible authors, 104 (90%) responded.
We excluded 14 of the 297 questionnaires sent out in survey 2 as the contact address was incorrect. Of the 283 eligible authors, 213 (75%) responded. Of these, 60% (128/213) reported that they were aware of ELPS before the survey and 13% (27/213) had previously been an author on a paper that had undergone ELPS.
As responses were largely similar in the two surveys we combined the results for reporting purposes (except when the groups differed) but have also presented the results for each survey separately in the table.
Main results of both surveys
What do authors like and dislike about the concept of ELPS?
Of the 317 respondents, 80% (253/317) liked the idea of making papers more accessible and not being restricted to just a short version; 43% (135/317) liked the fact that editors prepare the shorter version of the paper on their behalf; and 24% (77/317) thought ELPS may speed up the publication process (16% in survey 1 and 28% in survey 2; table).
Only 5% (17/317) of authors didn't like anything at all about ELPS, and 8% (25/317) didn't believe that readers wanted shorter papers. Both groups reported concerns about the possibility of information on the internet being transient (42/104 (40%), in survey 1; 52/213 (24%) in survey 2) and over a third (118/317, 37%) found it confusing to have two versions of the same paper. Most felt comfortable with having their name on the shorter version of the paper prepared by the editor.
Additional reasons for not liking ELPS largely focused on problems with editors shortening papers (inappropriate selection of material, important omissions, disjointed narrative, "dumbing down" of science); the unsuitability of some study designs for short versions (for example, systematic reviews and qualitative research); additional proof reading; and problems of accessing the long version for those with no internet access.
Readability
Over a third of authors thought that the short versions of papers in the printed BMJ are more readable (for general readers) than the long versions on bmj.com, and only a few (4%, 13/317) reported they are less readable (table). Of the authors in survey 1, 14% (14/104) thought that the short version of their own paper was less readable than the long version.
Concern over the editor preparing the short version
From the respondents in survey 1, half (53/104) reported they were initially concerned by the idea of an editor preparing the shorter version of their paper, but 30% (16/53) of these later reported that they liked ELPS more having experienced it. About 46% (48/104) reported that there were aspects of the shorter version of their paper prepared by an editor that they were not happy with. Problems largely focused on editors changing the meaning and interpretation, as well as important omissions potentially affecting the comprehension and context of the study. However, 65% (31/48) said they had the opportunity to amend this.
Satisfaction with ELPS
Overall, 70% (95% confidence interval 64% to 76%) of authors (223/317) thought that the BMJ should continue with ELPS. Only 3% (8/317) said that ELPS would stop them from submitting to BMJ in the future (table).
Acceptability of two further approaches to electronic publishing
Nearly half (49%, 41% to 57%; 156/317) reported that it would be "not at all acceptable" to publish only the abstract of papers in the paper journal and put the full long version on bmj.com (table). Also, 23% (13% to 33%; 73/317) reported that posting an unedited version of the full paper on the website on acceptance was "not at all acceptable" but 48% (40% to 56%; 151/317) reported it would be acceptable. Around 68% (216/317) thought it would not influence their likelihood of submitting papers to BMJ, and 16% (52/317) thought it would make them more likely to submit. While some were concerned by the potential quality of unedited papers, many emphasised the need for rapid dissemination of important clinical findings.
What is already known on this topic
Widespread use of the internet has led to innovative ideas for presenting scientific research
Little is known about what authors and readers think of these innovations
What this study adds
Authors think it is acceptable to publish short versions of research articles in the printed version of a general medical journal with longer versions on the website
Authors dislike the idea of publishing only abstracts in the printed journal but are in favour of posting accepted articles on the website ahead of the printed version
Discussion
Delamothe T, Müllner M, Smith R. Pleasing both authors and readers. BMJ 1999;318: 888-9.
Müllner M, Groves T. Making research papers in the BMJ more accessible. BMJ 2002;325: 456.
Müllner M. Publishing short articles in the print journal and full articles on the web? The BMJ is doing it with most research papers Eur J Sci Edit 2003;29: 6-9.
Electronic responses. Pleasing both authors and readers. BMJ 1999 www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7188/777#responses (accessed 21 Nov 2003).
Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New York: Wiley, 1978.
Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ 2002;324: 1183.(Sara Schroter, senior res)