Rapid Responses to:

PAPERS: Sara Schroter, Helen Barratt, and Jane Smith Authors' perceptions of electronic publishing: two cross sectional surveys BMJ 2004; 328: 1350-1353 [Abstract] [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Disinterested Authors

Jaiganesh.K. Viswambharan   (7 June 2004)

Authors' perceptions of electronic publishing

Akheel A Syed   (14 June 2004)

Disinterested Authors 7 June 2004
Jaiganesh.K. Viswambharan, Nil Pondicherry,India Send response to journal: Re: Disinterested Authors	Respected Sir, Have the authors tried to find out why there is such a high rate of non response from authors whose articles were published? Figures of 10% and 25% among authors themselves can mean only one thing.They are disinterested once the article is published and it has enhanced their CV.Later followups are not their concern. The authors should have informed their study subjects(bluffing of course) that they will be included as authors of the study and I am sure the response would have been 100% in both groups. So,what is the actual motive of authors publishing?A topic worth studying indeed. Also in the actual methodology, more reminders and phone calls etc should have been made.A regular 3 and 6 wkly letter is insufficient.Were emails used? But really, why are the corresponding authors not corresponding? With Regards,Jaiganesh.K.V. Competing interests: None declared
Authors' perceptions of electronic publishing 14 June 2004
Akheel A Syed, Specialist Registrar & Clinical Research Associate University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4HH Send response to journal: Re: Authors' perceptions of electronic publishing	The many advantages of the electronic medium compared to paper have secured its future in biomedical publishing. However, the views and preferences of authors and readers have been under-researched; the paper by Schroter and colleagues is, therefore, particularly welcome [1]. It confirms the broad acceptance of electronic long, paper short (ELPS) process of publication first introduced by the BMJ five years ago [2]. However, it is hardly surprising that most authors did not support publication of only abstracts in the paper journal with the full article posted on the website. Perhaps publishers need to do more before contributors (and readers) gain greater confidence in the permanence, tamper-proofness and accessibility of electronic archives [3]. What is surprising is that 50% of authors felt it was not preferable/acceptable to post unedited manuscripts on the website immediately upon acceptance of the paper, although this is already the practice with several specialist and open access journals. There is a considerable delay from acceptance of an article to web publication after technical editing: 52 days in the case of this paper prepared by members of BMJ staff! Could it be that English is not the primary language of these authors, who therefore rely on and find comfort in the journal’s editorial expertise to spruce up their papers? An analysis of demographic characteristics of participants would be most interesting. References 1. Schroter S, Barratt H, Smith J. Authors' perceptions of electronic publishing: two cross sectional surveys. BMJ 2004;328(7452):1350-3. 2. Delamothe T, Mullner M, Smith R. Pleasing both authors and readers. A combination of short print articles and longer electronic ones may help us do this. BMJ 1999;318(7188):888-9. 3. Archive of electronic journals planned:. BMJ 2000;320(7232):402g. Competing interests: None declared