Round 2 of the Board of Editors survey covered Board members who were not at the New Orleans meeting but who had valid e-mail addresses. E-mail addresses were obtained from the Editor Directory and verified by a test mailing. Approximately 240 names passed the test and questionnaires were sent to the verified addresses on August 5, 1996. Roughly 150 members responded, most within 48 hours, for a 60 percent response rate.

As expected, the results of Round 2 bear a strong resemblance to the answers given to questionnaires that were distributed in conjunction with the meetings in New Orleans (Round 1). Both show, for example, that, at this early stage, few members rely only the e-version of JBC. However, far fewer of the Round 2 respondents have any connection with the e-version at all. Approximately 60 percent use print with only 34 percent using both the print and on-line versions. In Round 1, the numbers were reversed with 40 percent using print only and 57 percent using both. For a sample of this size, these values probably are significantly different and suggest that the group that came to the meetings in New Orleans, for whatever reason, is more attuned to where JBC is going with its on-line efforts than the group that did not attend.

The advantages mentioned by Round 2 respondents for the on-line and print version were approximately the same as those indicated in the follow-up questions sent to Round 1 respondents asking why they used both. In the on-line case, searching topped the list of positive features followed by savings on storage space, availability (convenience), PDF print outs, and future ToCs. Those who used both the print and the on-line versions liked most the ease with which the print version can be scanned or browsed, the quality of the half-tone figures, portability, and readability.

The Round 2 group was also more conservative on the question of discontinuing the print version. In Round 1, 40 percent agreed that the print version should be discontinued compared to 16 percent in Round 2. Sixty-three percent in Round 2 believed that both should be maintained compared to 38 in Round 1. (Those favoring a "transition" arrangement were roughly the same-20 percent.) This difference is quite significant and may again reflect the difference in the group that attended the meetings compared to those who did not. It may also be the effect of handing out the Round 1 questionnaires immediately after Bob Simoni's very effective presentation of JBC on-line and his discussion of ASBMB's plans for the future.

When asked what they would regard as an acceptable premium for an on-line version, the figures were predictably low reflecting the fact that a large portion of the membership surveyed has no contact with the on-line version at all. For them, there is no value-added in having an electronic version of JBC. Roughly 40 percent said they would pay an additional 10 percent and 15 percent they would pay 20 percent, placing the membership at the price point that most electronic journals have chosen for the incremental cost of their on-line versions.

 Interestingly, 25 percent of the group indicated that they would pay the incremental cost of having the on-line version, whatever that was. This group obviously places considerable value on having an electronic version and definitely wants to have this option available. They are also probably making the judgment that the incremental cost is unlikely to be outside the 10-30 percent range.

On the topic of which journals this group of scientists read, the results of Round 2 underscore the findings of Round 1. Although these scientists mentioned nearly 60 journals, only about a dozen are heavily read. For example, almost 100 percent of those surveyed read Science and Nature. Seventy-five read Cell, 35 percent read PNAS, and 25 percent read Molecular Cell Biology. After that, the list tails off rapidly into a large number of rarely consulted journals.

Both groups answered that they were experiencing some difficulties with network and server busy signals. (In Round 1, 32 percent had problems, 68 percent did not; in Round 2, the figures were 23 percent and 77 percent.) Without minimizing these difficulties, the results suggest that the majority of users are satisfied with the quality of the access they have to the on-line version.

As noted earlier, the more conservative attitude of the Round 2 respondents to the use of on-line JBC surfaces in a number of places. Indeed, not only do they continue to prefer print, but, for many in the group, they have no contact with the e-version at all. In this case, one cannot make the argument that the two versions are complementary and that people are continuing to use the print version because the two versions serve different functions. Instead, the results suggest that Bob Simoni's thesis about the role of habit and the unwillingness to invest in new ways of doing things is closer to the truth.

I am afraid that the on-line version would loosen what little restraint there is on the length of the JBC papers and their number. Thus a larger literature may result which is even less possible to digest.

Wonderful for perusal. Much of the fun and excitement in going through a journal is the discovery of those things that are found accidentally, i.e. the paper next door. Additionally the printed journal is easier to read in the bathtub. To me there is a certain "legitimacy and validation" of a publication on paper rather than on a computer. In some ill-defined and not well-articulated way, I consider a body of work more substantial on hard copy than as a mass of electrons on a (particularly -my) computer. Having a manuscript on a library shelf imbues it with a type of immortality, having it solely in computer data banks does not have that same connotation. I accept that this may be an age-related issue. I well recognize the power and use of computers and the electronic age. There is no question that the electronic databases and gene and protein analysis have vastly improved science. (having used one I much prefer a calculator over a slide rule, an SDS-Gel over a model E). However, I grew up with books and libraries (and the early Beatles) and I still appreciate their worth.

Major: Availability of research to people not linked to the internet. Who knows what changes will occur in the next few years to the internet (high access charges limiting student access, overload of the system, etc.). The JBC print version has been around since 1906 (?) and to break the continuity of the premier journal of biochemistry for the 20th century seems shortsighted. I see the journal as more than a data repository like Genbank - it represents the thought and careful analysis of now generations of scientists that deserves the opportunity to be seen on more than a computer screen!

How about print version for libraries and electronic version for personal use?

But the print version only needs to be available in institutional libraries. I would not subscribe to the print version myself.

My reaction to the idea of eliminating the print version is: NO! NO! NO! STUPID! STUPID! STUPID! I hope that this adequately conveys my opinion.

I personally can go either way since I have a direct ethernet link, fast machine, etc. Am concerned that going totally 'on-line' may disadvantage lots of folks not so fortunate who currently make use of JBC. Am also concerned that some authors may choose to publish elsewhere if there is no "hard copy."

The increment should be paid by those who require the print version, so as to encourage as many people as possible to switch. The print version should be discontinued after 3-5 years.

I believe that eventually all printed versions will be obsolete.

I use the on-line versions [of Cell, Science, and Nature] to preview the contents of upcoming issues. Since these are front-line journals it is helpful to have access to the new articles as soon as possible. The same is not true of JBC. I have no need for accelerated access to the contents of JBC, and therefore have no need to use the on-line version.

In summary: I am strongly opposed to any move which would eliminate the JBC as a real (printed) journal. I cannot foresee any time in the near future when computers, printers and networks will be sufficiently powerful and reliable so that an on-line version of the JBC would even approach the utility of the printed journal. If a subset of the membership wants the on-line version and has the resources to use it, they should be prepared to pay extra for it, rather than sticking the print subscribers with an extra expense for something they don't want and/or cannot use. If the print version is becoming too unwieldy, then the Editorial Board should accept fewer papers- I would be glad to help there, and I know of many other Board members who feel the same way. The ASM has successfully raised standards for MCB without turning it into another fashion magazine- why can't we do the same?

Possibly, depends on rate for combined print and on-line, also depends on the services.

This situation has been generated by uncontrolled growth of the JBC. One issue/week is too many. The alternative was not too grow (guaranteeing the present lack of uniformity in quality) but to accept less submitted manuscripts for publication.

My interests are broad, both through our research and my teaching. A single journal cannot cover the literature for me. Science and Nature can be good for browsing, other journals are read as needed.