Author Survey Spotlight: What do researchers have to say about PeerJ’s submission system?

What an amazing influx of research articles we received during our 5 Year Celebration last month! PeerJ received over 1500 submissions throughout February 2018 and we are very pleased to have so many scientists experiencing our modern publishing platform.

It is author feedback that inspires us to keep innovating and confirms the reasons why we do what we do. From our early days five years ago to the many submissions we received last month, below is some of the fantastic feedback we’ve received along the way…

What are PeerJ authors saying about our submission system?

“I really like the PeerJ web interface for manuscript submission. Someone thought carefully about how to help authors to organize and upload files and metadata.”

“Formatting a manuscript for submission is usually the most tedious part of the writing process, but PeerJ’s online interface made it completely painless. I don’t know what’s taking other journals so long to adopt a similar system.” Gregory Wheeler

“I enjoyed the submission process. This is often not the case with many journals!”

“This journal handles software submissions very well.” Veronica Grieneisen

“Thanks for developing a friendly web application to upload and submit a manuscript.” Luis Bautista

“The best part of PeerJ is its layout and user-friendly submission system. Hats off to PeerJ staff for doing such a good work.” Kumar Manish

“The online submission process for PeerJ was smooth. I liked how you could see a brief profile of the Editors when making a selection.” Christopher Beaven

“As a first-time author, I appreciated the amount of guidance and explanations the submission site gave me. Everything was super user-friendly and straightforward.”

“The interface for submission is very user-friendly and for once submitting the manuscript was a pleasant experience.”

At PeerJ, we’ve worked hard on, and continue to refine, a set of tools and instructions that aim to make the submission process an enjoyable experience. Read more author feedback and learn more about the benefits of publishing with PeerJ.

We invite you to submit your next article to PeerJ and experience our streamlined submission platform, constructive peer review, and broad readership. If you’re not at the submission stage yet, you can sign up for a free PeerJ account to receive content alerts along with notice of future offers and innovations.

You may also like...

  • Grimm

    I just like to confirm everything said above.

    The submission process may be scary for a first-time user, because one rarely finds such professionality (so many thing to check and click through). For instance, the editor- and reviewer-masks. One is encouraged to suggest editors and(!) provided information about them to assist selection; and on the next sheet five or more reviewers with the possibility to exclude the one or other and providing the reasons for doing so. The mask to quickly annotate the authors’ contributions is something every journal should have, but PeerJ is the only one I know of.

    The way our submitted manuscripts were handled and judged instilled in me a faith in the editorial and peer review process, I had long lost. Would I have found PeerJ earlier, I possibly still would be an author rather than a blogger on science.

    The proofs are actual proofs and not only set-up, non-checked texts as it is more and more often the case with big publishers permanently trying to reduce their costs (by outsourcing everything to low-quality-low-pay companies) to maximise their profits for their shareholders (which is insane, because we usually use public money). All of our editors and reviewers were obviously engaged in the process, as you can see when looking at our peer review documentation (transparent peer review – another rarity in scientific publishing), and why we did not hesistate a minute to choose the option to make it public to give them due credit.

    And in general, the post-decision and production phase is characterised by a responsiveness and professionality by the PeerJ staff, even when it comes to tricky questions such as copyright issues, that makes you wonder just one thing: why can’t multi-billion-dollar companies manage, too?

    My times as a scientific author are over, but I hope PeerJ will be able to keep up what they started: a fine publication platform that puts authors and science (e.g. clear open data policy) first, and allows editors and peers claiming their share in publishing science.

    Cheers, Guido