The first in a series of Journal of Biological Chemistry users surveys was done at the 1996 Annual Meeting of the Editorial Board in New Orleans. The editors were asked to fill out the questionnaire after a slide-show and talk by Dr. Robert Simoni, an Associate Editor of JBC, that simulated the functions and features of the on-line version of the journal. The result was 135 completed forms that contained, in addition to questionnaire answers, names and affiliations of the respondents. The latter provide a database for a follow-up e-mail survey that was used to elicit additional information on answers that had particular relevance for planning purposes.

As one might expect from the Editorial Board, the journal is a significant part of the survey in As one might expect from the Editorial Board, the JBC figures prominently in their professional reading. However, a better formulation of the question, one that would lead to a quantitative dependent variable, would have been how many hours per week are spent in reading the JBC.

It is clear from this and other questions that many of JBC's editors have had, as yet, no experience with JBC on-line. (One member of the Board said that, prior to Bob's talk, he didn't know there was such a thing.)

Perhaps more interesting than the number of print-only users was the percent of users in this group who found the two versions complimentary. The reasons for selecting the "both" answer became somewhat clearer from later questions. On the positive side, respondents cited speed of access, searching, and hyperlinks to other sources as reasons for consulting the on-line version. Lack of portability, slowness of printing, quality of graphic images, and a dislike of extensive reading of computer displays were cited as problems with the on-line version. It would appear that, at this point in the evolution of on-line journals, people use the two formats for different, complimentary, purposes. The interesting question, of course, is whether a "dual" approach is a product of functionality or simply the result of long standing habits.

Of the 54 people who use only the print version, about two-thirds did so simply because they "prefer print." The remainder cited a combination of hardware, software, and performance issues.

When combined with a subsequent question about network performance÷about 1/3 of the editors who use the electronic version reported delays÷it seems reasonable to conclude that access continues to be a nagging, albeit not overwhelming problem. (The question may not have captured the full extent of infrastructure bottlenecks. Conversations with Stanford librarians indicate that, while scientists have the equipment, it is in such demand for various kinds of data processing that it is not available for lengthy on-line journal sessions. It could also be that some of the complaints about slow printing and viewing are really equipment problems that the researchers themselves do not recognize.)

As noted above, the follow up to Q2 should have tried to elicit from the "both" category more precisely how they combine the use of the print and on-line versions. Such a comparison would have provided more useful insights into transition problems than asking the print-only group why they didn't use the on-line version.

The large percentage of respondents who agreed that, in an unspecified future, the JBC should only be published electronically is surprising in that only three percent of the Board now use on-line only. However, some correlation analysis would be required before a consistent interpretation of the numbers is possible. One interpretation would be that the 40 percent who prefer print (Q2) would have checked the "both" option. For them, "bundling" print and on-line would continue to provide a print version. In this scenario, the assumption would be that the 57 percent who currently use both would

move to electronic media-only because they have developed sufficient confidence in the on-line version to be comfortable in doing away with print. They would make up the bulk of the 40 percent who agree that on-line only is the wave of the future. Another interpretation, however, would be that the 60 percent who now use both believe that complimentarity of the two formats has been clearly demonstrated and hence they are the ones who want to continue to have both versions. By this argument, they would be the ones in the "want both" category. The "only" category would be people who were jumping from print to electronic without having much experience with the latter.

It is unclear who would be in the transition format category. The two-page print summary goes against what most people regarded as the strengths of the on-line version, e.g., the ease with which a lot of material can be scanned quickly. From other answers, it would appear that the print version is preferred for in-depth reading of selected articles that contain highly detailed images. (Several people indicated, in sideline notes, that summaries would be helpful if they contained the article's major tables and images.)

The results of this question are revealing and demonstrate substantial support for current JBC thinking. But the question needs to be phrased differently in any follow-up survey. It is important to determine whether it is experienced "both" users who are willing to move to the on-line version or whether that group consists of people with relatively little background who are making this choice in the abstract. It could be, for example, that the print defection stems from the fact that, as one respondent commented, "we would all like to get rid of the four-pound JBC's that currently use up all of our shelf space." Using this logic, what is driving the move to electronic publishing for a journal like JBC is simply the sheer volume of information being produced and the practical logistics of its dissemination.

A total of 69 journals were reported. Large as this number may seem, this is probably an understatement, given the limited time that respondents had to complete the questionnaire. What is surprising is how concentrated the reading is for this group of scientists. The top ten are shown below:

The 40 percent who answered "print only" to question Q2 would, of course, have left Q6 blank. But so did by far the largest percentage of those who use JBC on-line. Many wrote that they didn't know which of the journals they read had on-line versions. What this suggests is (1) that there may not be many journals that are worth pursuing on-line or (2) that this group of senior scientists are simply not "web surfers." They use JBC on-line because they are associated with the journal and not because their reading habits are moving from print to electronic media.

Board members mentioned 14 on-line journals they have looked at. The top five are listed below. The base for the percentage calculation is the 60 percent of Board members who report that they have used the on-line version of JBC. For example, 16 percent of the people who reported that they have used JBC on line have also used the electronic version of Science and Nature.

Based on this evidence, being on the JBC Board has obviously been a significant incentive for members learn about on-line publishing. Over half are familiar with the electronic format.

At this writing, the number of other on-line journals in the life sciences is quite small. But they are increasing at an incredible rate. As reports from a recent SAL meeting demonstrated, there are projects for putting scientific journals on the web in every publishing house. However, most of these are still in their initial stages and it is not surprising that very few Board members would have had any experience with other efforts in this area. (It would be interesting to know if the experience of the editorial boards of other journals that have an on-line version is roughly the same asthe JBC's.)

The ranking of different features are contained in the table below:

Write-in: Links to current and recently published issues of other journals; author's fax and phone; store and reuse searches; means of sending comments to authors. From the tabulations, it is clear that, with perhaps the exception of the author's e-mail address, virtually every feature listed was "important." Search capabilities obviously lead the list. But the desirability of being able to make hard copies of particular articles quickly and easily shows up in this--and other questions÷as something that readers value.

A significant number of people (1/3) have been experiencing network busy problems. It is hard to know what is a little or a lot in this type of question, but 32 percent reporting difficulties suggests that there are problems that need to be addressed regarding access to the on-line version.

Taking the last part of the question first, there were two interesting answers: (1) most of the people who answered it (85 out of 113) thought it would be worth $150-200 for some or all of these enhancements, and (2) there were a number of write-in comments to the effect that these enhancements should be included in the institutional subscription!

It is difficult to rank the answers to specific enhancements because the base was constantly changing. For example, many people, presumably those who have never used the electronic version, simply left the entire question blank. Approximately 65 percent of the Board did make choices among the various possibilities, often without indicating whether they would be willing to pay for them or not. (This was the flip side of other respondents who answered that they would pay without saying for what.)

The results presented below are a response to the question: Based on the total number of questionnaires in which any detailed enhancement choice was made (87 out of 135), how were particular enhancements ranked? These are somewhat surprising results. The highest ranking was for something reasonably mundane. These choices may simply reflect the fact that readers are familiar with the bibliography problem where as the idea of a some method of helping them with literature searches is less obvious.

Overall, the on-line version of JBC has a lot of enthusiastic users. Searching, access to important databases, economy of space, removal of journal length as a constraint on the numbers of papers, full-text, review of coming issues, hyperlinks, availability of high quality print-outs, quality of images, the fact that it is published by ASBMB, and its role as a pioneer in the area of on-line publishing were all mentioned. (A numbers of people just boiled it down to the essentials: super, wonderful, great!

Others were not quite as impressed with the virtues mentioned above. Most frequently cited difficulties were the slowness of printing and the quality of the images displayed and printed. In all, however, there were very few complaints.

Most Board members were aware of the fact that JBC on-line subscriptions would no longer be free as of September.

The results of the survey point to a group very much in transition. Their answers can perhaps be likened to respondents who were asked about the Iron Horse in the 19^th Century. It was obvious that the steam locomotive was something important but no one had an inkling that it would revolutionize transportation to the extent that it did.