Results of the third annual PeerJ author survey

99.2% would recommend PeerJ to colleagues

85% had a fast editorial process

83% report very helpful peer-review

51% response rate

22 days median publication time

With this blog post, we are pleased to report on the results of our annual author survey.

In late October 2015, a survey invitation was sent to every PeerJ corresponding author who had received a final decision (of any type – including rejections) between Nov 1st 2014 and Oct 21st 2015. We had 596 responses representing a 51% response rate, which is a very good response rate for a survey of this nature and the same proportion as in previous years. The survey was closed on November 2nd 2015.

The headline finding was that 99.2% of those authors who have already been published by us would recommend that their colleagues submit to PeerJ. Taken over the entire sample, including rejected authors and those still in revision, the figure becomes 97.5% – still extremely impressive.

As to the speed and effectiveness of the editorial process, 85% reported that their time to first decision was either “extremely fast” (32.5%) or “fast” (52.5%). Right now, we are getting first decisions back to authors in a median of 26 days.

For the peer reviews they received 83% of all authors (i.e. including authors who were rejected) reported that their peer-reviews were “extremely good and very helpful” (26%) or ‘good and helpful’ (57%), with just 6% of authors feeling that their reviewers were below average. It is also worth noting here that 75% of all authors are making their peer-review history fully public and that 38% of all reviewers are naming themselves.

Of those authors who had already been published, 89% rated their production experience as either “one of the best I have experienced” (42%) or “good” (47%). For our 2015 publications, the median time from final Acceptance to Publication (which includes a round of author proofing) has been 22 days.

And finally, overall we very were pleased to learn that 97% of ALL respondents would submit to us again should they have a suitable article!

We also encouraged free text feedback giving authors an opportunity to tell us what they think, and we’ll be using this to inform all of our services for future authors. From that feedback, here are some great quotes from our authors:

“I believe PeerJ is a great open access journal and here to stay.”

“I like the philosophy behind PeerJ, and I think this is a good step towards the direction I think science should be done in the age of the internet.”

“It’s inexpensive and the review process is efficient and constructive.”

“I like the idea of PeerJ and the values of the journal. I also appreciate how easy and modern the whole process of publishing with PeerJ is.”

“I feel it is one of the best open access models on the market and the processes have been great.”

“I appreciated the stickers and posters that were sent following acceptance of my manuscript.”

“Fast, simple, transparent review process. The dream of any PhD student or young researcher.”

“Everything was fast, everyone was focused, and information is freely available. Just like science should be!”

“Simple open-access model, quick decision, rigorous reviews, easy to use.”

“I believe in your mission and hope you succeed.”

“Open access at a great price.”

We know that there is always room for improvement, and we strive for everyone to have the best possible experience at PeerJ. We believe these results show that we are delivering on our vision to provide an outstanding publishing experience at minimal cost to authors.

This year’s survey provided some great feedback from our authors, and we thank them for taking the time to provide it. It will take us some time to digest all the comments, but that feedback will help us shape the future of the journal.

Try the PeerJ publication experience for yourself – submit your work today or read what benefits PeerJ will provide.