Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. Research
  2. Authors' perceptions...
  3. Authors' perceptions of electronic publishing: two cross sectional surveys
Papers

Authors' perceptions of electronic publishing: two cross sectional surveys

BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38117.624259.55 (Published 03 June 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:1350
  1. Sara Schroter, senior researcher (sschroter{at}bmj.com)1,
  2. Helen Barratt, research assistant1,
  3. Jane Smith, deputy editor1
  1. BMJ Editorial Office, BMA House, London WC1H 9JR
  1. Correspondence to author: S Schroter
  • Accepted 28 March 2004

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate how acceptable authors find the BMJ's current practice of publishing short versions of research articles in the paper journal and a longer version on the web and to determine authors' attitudes towards publishing only abstracts in the paper journal and publishing unedited versions on bmj.com once papers have been accepted for publication.

Design Two cross sectional surveys.

Setting General medical journal.

Participants Survey 1: corresponding authors of a consecutive sample of published BMJ research articles that had undergone the ELPS (electronic long, paper short) process. Survey 2: corresponding authors of consecutive research articles submitted to BMJ.

Results Response rates were 90% (104/115) in survey 1 and 75% (213/283) in survey 2. ELPS is largely acceptable to BMJ authors, but there is some concern that electronic information is not permanent and uncertainty about how versions are referenced. While authors who had experienced ELPS reported some problems with editors shortening papers, most were able to rectify these. Overall, 70% thought that the BMJ should continue to use ELPS; 49% thought that publishing just the abstract in the printed journal with the full version only on bmj.com was unacceptable; and 23% thought it unacceptable to post unedited versions on bmj.com once a paper had been accepted for publication.

Conclusions It is acceptable to authors 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.

Footnotes

  • Contributors JS initiated the study. SS and JS designed the study. SS developed the questionnaires with assistance from the BMJ editorial team. SS and HB conducted the surveys and managed the data collection. SS analysed the data. SS wrote the paper, and all authors helped revise it. SS is guarantor.

  • Funding BMJ Publishing Group's research budget

  • Competing interests SS is research manager for the BMJ Publishing Group, and HB was working at the BMJ as a research assistant while conducting this research. JS is the managing editor of the BMJ. Because members of BMJ staff were involved in the conduct of this research and writing the paper, assessment and peer review have been carried out entirely by external advisors. No member of BMJ staff has been involved in making the decision on the paper.

  • Ethical approval Not required

  • Accepted 28 March 2004
View Full Text
Back to top