Author Feedback Program
The Author Feedback Program (AFP) has shown that the five most important considerations for an author when choosing a journal are:
The speed of the refereeing process,
The refereeing standard,
The impact factor,
The production speed and
The reputation of the journal.
Depending on the subject field the order of importance of these attributes varies.
If you had to choose one of the following statements, which one would it be and why?
A) AFP provides valid information so I use the feedback for my journal to improve performance, in close cooperation with my publishing contact.
B) I don’t really use the AFP results since they don’t provide the information I really need.
C) I see the validity of a system like AFP but I go with my own gut feeling when making improvements to the journal.
Add your comment by clicking the ‘Write Comment’ link below. Please give your name and mail address. First time you contribute please also type your journal name in the comment box.
August 29th, 2006 at 10:24 am
I am unaware of AFP. This is my first year as the Editor-in-Chief of Biologicals and so far I have operationally used C) as my approach.
July 4th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Annals of the ICRP
I must admit that I was not aware of AFP (since several others say the same thing, this may be its main problem!)
In our case I would say B, because our journal is essentially a review series with invited papers only, no proffered papers, so the system is not geared towards our situation. However, AFP appears to be a sensible idea for ‘normal’ journals.
July 2nd, 2006 at 3:17 pm
OptionC probably reflects best my present approach. I found interactions with the other editors of my family of journals and elsevier staff at board meetings most interesting and important. Still I feel that the editor is at the best position to see how the general policy of the journal as defined by the board of editors can be implemented.
June 22nd, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Science of the Total Environment (STOTEN)
Statement A reflects what we do at STOTEN. We meet regularly with Elsevier staff and discuss the AFP results each time. There is good interaction with Elsevier on how to improve these factors for the journal. Senior editors are responsible for the first 3 factors (above), while Elsevier is responsible for the last 2 factors, so it is a collaborative effort.
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:42 pm
I would choose option C. Although I like hearing author feedback, I find that it only gives me a feeling for areas in which there is potential concerns. However, not all concerns are founded nor can they be easily fixed, except by discussions with other editors or members of the editorial board.
June 21st, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
I think A is the closest to the way the journal operates.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:13 am
I most certainly would like to see all authors completing a form and responding to answers important to our journals. Unfortunately, it seems to me that only a small percentage of the authors complete the forms. So, it is very possible that the answers are biased.
Perhaps Elsevier should consider a mandatory completion of the form by authors just before the article is published. This way the editors would get feedback from satisfied and unsatisfied “customers”.
June 19th, 2006 at 7:12 am
Editor, Journal of Orthopaedic Nursing.
Option C most reflects my feelings.
AFP is useful, but I have not found it paricularly useful for helping to devlop the journal directly as the comments are so supportive. However, as the journal seems to get very positive evaluations from authors it afirms that we are on the right track.
Of the five areas to be evaluated the impact factor is a bit meaningless for my journal.
I also get many very postive and appreciative emails from authors directly which obviously do not feed into the AFP system.
June 17th, 2006 at 11:11 am
A) AFP provides valid information so I use the feedback for my journal to improve performance, in close cooperation with my publishing contact.
Why? Because these are important considerations, as you point out above. I find one should take the results with a pinch of salt, but they are valuable and good to have.
June 16th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
A) Although I agree with the five items listed, it is very difficult to speed up the reviewing process. Reviewers are generally overworked and not rewarded. The major problem for the editor is getting timely responses from reviewers.
June 16th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Author feedback is very useful and insightful. Such feedback influences editors in subtle ways that they might remain unconscious of.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
I do like learing about author feedback even though it tends only to give a sense of areas in which we are improving or wheer there are concerns. It doesn’t so much influence our management as much as give a sense of where we are going.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Journal: Consciousness and Cognition
A) A double-blind option should be available to authors, but as a general policy it doesn’t do much. Normally it’s pretty obvious who wrote an article or at least which lab it is from, and normally the identity of the author only helps to put the research in context, helpfully. When I was an editor for JEP:HPP we offered the double-blind option. I once inadvertently insulted a senior researcher by saying that the double-blinded paper was excellent work for a graduate student and that I saw promise in the author’s future despite the rejection. I learned the author’s identity through subsequent correspondence. The author was about 60.
B) Author recommendations of reviewers are very important. I find that even if they recommend friends, the “friends” give objective reviews. The list of recommended reviewers is also a tip-off as to how well the author knows the field. If only the most famous people in an area are listed, I usually find that the author does not know the sub-field of the submission very well. If the author picks well I can get reviewers I may not have known otherwise.
C) We need a bcc line for action letters! The best reward for me as a reviewer is receiving the full package of reviews. Elsevier makes this difficult by denying us a bcc line. I have been asking for this for years. How can it be so difficult? Another very good reward would be a year of electronic access to Science Direct.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Infection, Genetics and Evolution
C. I am afraid I am not ware of the AFP system.
I agree with the prioritiesabove listed. Impact factor is hard for new journals. Infection, Genetics and Evolution had to wait for close to 5 years before being included in the ISI database wand will have to wait until 2009 to get the official IF, that’s to say 8 years after its launch. This is unacceptable and enough to kill a journal.
Regards,
Michel Tibayrenc
June 16th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.
I select C, not having been aware of the AFP program. Being myself an author, I could agree withe priorities listed in the AFP survey. The issue of production time may be no longer relevant, for Elsevier posts on line the accepted papers within a few days from acceptance.
June 16th, 2006 at 9:26 am
High Energy Density Physics
On balance A. The journal however is so new that I think in this early stage we have to make our decisions based partly on these results but moderated in the light of our initial experience.
June 16th, 2006 at 8:38 am
Journal of Molecular Graphics & Modelling
Our journal is currently not connected into AFP, but my feeling is that author feedback would be useful and complement editorial “gut feeling” (a phrase that perhaps doesn’t do justice to the accumulated experience of editors). Of course, the agendas of authors may not necessarily completely aligned with that of editors.
June 16th, 2006 at 4:44 am
I agree with point A
June 16th, 2006 at 4:31 am
Separation and Purification Technology
My choice would be A.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:51 am
A is my choice.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:37 am
Agricultural Water Management
Since I haven’t been aware of this service before, I could opt with “non of the above.”
Im my editorial work, the focus has been on responding quickly when review comments are available, and when necessary arranging for an additional review in cases where the reviewer comments are not adequate. During the past six months I have become involved in recommending reviewers to the Elsevier ditor that handles the review process. Using Scopus has been a useful tool in selecting reviewers to recommend. And the quality of the reviews has improved.
I think the impact factor is considered to be the measure of journal reputation used in many academic departments when assessing promotion files.
For Agricultural Water Management the quality of the submitted paper has a major impact on the production speed.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
I agree with a. I have not previously used this but can see the benefits.
June 15th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Physical Therapy in Sport
I have not yet had the opportunity to receive any feedback from the AFP. I feel, however, that I would find it very useful for the further development of the journal. I would imagine that I would still rely on my own observations from speaking to people in the relevant discipline areas that my journal covers. I would agree with a combination of A and C.
June 15th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
The Breast
I think A is the most appropriate.As a patient advocate I think that the validity of the information is the most important and this is what this system provides.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
I agree with A.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Engineering Geology:
Speaking as an Editor, we must await manuscripts that are subject to Elsevier reviewing process, and any associated delays. Authors want turn-around speed; but the journal must maintain quality, which - alas - can be highly subjective! Arguments between authors and reviewers are common, and egos are at stake, particularly when a reviewer wants his/her own papers cited. As a result of uncertainty inherent in manuscript review, I am obliged to opt for “C.” The AFP system is certainly OK, but an Editor’s experience and common sense still prevail.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
The best fit of the three choices is “A”. The reputation of the journal and impact factor are synonymous in my view. They are the factors that I concentrate on in improving the journal. The other three attributes are less of a concern. The wide usage of the internet throughout the world and the ability of most reviewers to download large files (1 MB or greater) eliminates one of the major bottlenecks in the manuscript review process. Access to Scopus with its powerful search engine has been an immense help in identifying scientists who can serve as potential referees of manuscript. Although production speed of the hard copy of the journal is still a problem, this concern is muted by the fact that the published article with appropriate citation tags can be available on the journal’s web site within a month after acceptance.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Tectonophysics
Statement A would best fits my answer. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to control how fast referees react. The electronic system now in use has strongly helped in shortening general delays, and our contributors have noticed it. The consequence is improved reputation of the journal since cutting-edge science must benefit form speedy distribution.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
I’d say A.
I’m not surprised by any of the factors listed. We are already working to improve in those areas. Feedback of author perceptions is helpful.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety
None of the choices are valid for JCHAS, as we are not yet plugged into the Author Feedback Program, so “D” - none of the above.
(N.B. I am currently working with the Elsevier editors to move JCHAS into the Author Feedback Program, we just haven’t completed it yet. Judging from many of the other comments, I am looking forward to using the program once it is implemented for the journal.)
Harry
June 15th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
I am closest to (A), even though there is a lot of difficulties to get the reviewers writing their comments. I strongly support two things in the journal: a) speed of the refereeing process, and b) the quality of the reviewer’s comments and the general quality of the Journal.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
I am closest to A - although in practice it is hard to get referees both to agree to review a paper, and then to actually deliver a report!
Authors undoubtedly prefer a quick turn-around of their papers. At the same time, they need to be sure of quality control i.e. that the views of two referees are used (except very occasionally in the case of JASTP).
AFP is therefore useful - at least in this case, where it confirms my own preferences!
June 15th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
I would be closest to (A).
The speed (or otherwise) of the refereeing process is a major issue. It can be frustrating to authors, and also to editors who spend much time in chasing late reviews. Linked to speed is, of course, quality; there is little evidence that ’slow’ reviews are more thorough or of higher quality than ones delivered on time. Clearly there is an ethical issue in authors commiting to review within a certain time period and then failing to do so. Underlying that issue, however, is the tradition of unpaid reviews that dates back to the days when most journals were produced by learned societies. Since then, journals have been marketised but the review process has not been. This asymmetry may become an increasing problem in the future. AFP can help but it is unlikely fully to resolve the problem.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
I like the program and find it helpful. I have highlighted some of the findings in an editorial and plan to contact my Elsevier representative to ‘repair’ the one area in greatest need of improvement. Although we have been aware of this need for change, I trust Elsevier will be more likely to agree now that we have results of the AFP. If nothing changes, I will be inclined to be more negative a year from now when asked about the value of AFP.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
I think speed and reputation are important. I think that the Author’s feedback program is a good idea. I want to use the program to improve my journal.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Undoudtedly A.
Personal experience of having over 250 papers published over the last 40 years has convinced me of the importance of all the factors highlighted.
Experience as a journal editor, in one capacity or another, for many many years has also taught me that the relative importance of these factors varies with time, area from which a paper is submitted, individual needs and degree of new scientific knowledge/understanding arising from the work
June 15th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
I think the AFP serves a valuable function in author relationships, regardless of how we use it. Of the options, A is appropriate for our journal, although as yet it has not led to changes.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Of three options, “C” reflects my approach the best.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
I would choose C):
I feel that it should be the task or even the obligation of Elsevier’s ‘Publishing Editors’ to keep the editors informed on items which might be valuable for their day to day work. The editors just don’t have the time to regularly rummage e.g. all the new AFP information.
Unfortunately - at least in my domain of ‘Energy’ - , Elsevier’s ‘Publishing Editors’ are being replaced so often that they can’t be of big help to the editors. The Principal Editor seems to be knowing much more formal editorial details than the - always new - ‘Publishing Editor’ who should help improving and running the journal. In theory, the ‘Publishing Editors’ should be the principal editorial contact for the editors; they should start ‘contacting’, e.g. also concerning matters of AFP.
At least this is my understanding of the tasks of Publishing Managers.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Speed and reputation. I am more and more concerns about impact factor. Please see the article int last weeks Wall Sreet Journal. It goes into considerable detail about how some editors are manipulating these data.For example, when a paper is accepted it is sent back and specific references are suggested for inclusion. The artilces of course are form the accepting journal and recent.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
The journal that I edit receives a flood of contributions, and my experience is that the authors do not care much about the impact factor, which is a ‘magic number’ that does not really reflect the quality and popularity of the journal. Most of the authors are keen about expeditious editorial handling, fast reviews, rapid online publication and quick print version. So, overall performance of a journal, from the point of view of the author, is in the hands of the editor and the publisher. The Author Feedback Program is indeed useful for Edtiors and I would like to use the information.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
I do not use the AFP because I am well aware of what the authors want and do everything possible to provide it. My experience has told me that the people most likely to contribute to the author feedback program are the ones who are for some reason annoyed and it does not give a good representation of the hundreds who are not and didn’t have time to waste filling out yet another questionnaire. Yes, speed of reviewing is key and when someone invents a way to speed up the reviewers we’ll all be in paradise!
June 15th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
I am only aware of the AFP as an author, not as editor. I don’t currently have any direct access to AFP data for my journal so it is hard to comment. Might be useful.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
I have not received any feedback through the author feedback program, and so it is difficult for me to comment on it. I do receive direct feedback from authors, both positive and negative, and I do try to consider what authors have to say. The author feedback program could be valuable, but editors should not be expected to respond to whatever authors have to say. I agree with another editor who noted that authors’ comments can be biased based on their experience with a journal.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
I think that the Author’s feedback program is a good idea and I want to use the information I can gather from the program to improve my journal. Nevertheless, in similar occasions, I have realized that the answers are rather biased and the overall picture. The authors that provide comments belong to special groups (although I wouldn’t know how to identify such groups) and their opinion does not provide a faithful sample of what AlLL authors think.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Honestly, I was not aware that there was an author feedback program. But judging from the description of it, it sounds like a good idea. I agree that speed and quality of reviewing, as well as the impact factor, are important for many authors. As an editor, I always try to keep these factors in consideration.
Rune Elvik
June 15th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
I think people don’t care about the “official” the impact factor. They care only about the impact factor as perceived by the scientific community, at least in math.
A go for “C”.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
I was very impressed with what the AFP had to offer, but I do not have oportunity to review it regularly, only when in discussion with my current Elsevier Publishing Manager, who filters out the more important information for me. I would certainly like it to continue.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
I have interested in APF. Maybe I do not always look it but certainly I use it for my editing processes and for Physica D as far as I have a time.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
I would make use of AFP if I received regular information from Elsevier