As a follow up to a survey of JBC users drawn from the Editorial Board, we have surveyed a group of users who have purchased individual subscriptions to the on-line version. There were 110 names in the sample. Seven e-mail addresses were invalid which reduced the number of potential respondents to 103. Forty-eight scientists responded for a response rate of approximately 50 percent. This is comparable with the response of members of the Editorial Board to the e-mail surveys sent to them several months ago.

The results of the survey are shown below. A brief commentary follows the answer to each question.

These percentages are quite close to those obtained from the Editorial Board survey and suggest that the individual subscriber group being surveyed comes from the same population of scientists from which the Editorial Board is drawn.

This question was designed to test the response to HighWire's efforts to create incentives for individuals to subscribe toe the on-line version even if their institution has a regular subscription. A majority of those replying felt that the enhancements were worth the additional costs. This bears out the results of the Editorial Board survey in which members were asked if they would be willing to pay $150-200 for the individual subscriber enhancements. Approximately 40 percent said they would and the fact that, of the individual subscribers, over half said that was the enhancements that they found valuable seems to corroborate the earlier survey.

These results are consistent with every JBC survey that has been done. It is also consistent with the response of librarians in recent Science On-Line focus group meetings. Scientists are very enthusiastic about the on-line version and, for many purposes, find it superior to hard copy. However, they use the print version differently than they use the on-line version and want both. This is true even in this case where scientists have purchased the on-line version from their own resources. (The reasons for this complimentarity are given in the table below.)

The ranking shown above is similar to the rankings obtained in the two earlier surveys. Ease of access, searching, storage, and timeliness explain why researchers like the on-line version. Ease of reading, ability to browse efficiently, and image quality are considered to be better in the print version.

As might be expected of a group that has elected to subscribe individually, they are much more willing to give up the print version than members of the Editorial Board, many of whom have had no experience with the on-line version at all. However, the majority, even in this group, believe that the printed version should be maintained. This position is also reflected in the results of Question 7 where only 26 percent believe that the move to the on-line version should be made immediately.

The number of users experiencing difficulties in accessing JBC on-line is considerably higher than in the previous groups. This discrepancy has its origins in the fact that many of the individual on-line subscribers are accessing JBC from outside the U.S. If the group is sorted on country of origin, the response of U.S. users is comparable to the mild problems reported by the Editorial Board. However, this in turn means that the problem is much more severe for those outside the U.S. (As one Tokyo researcher reported: "It is only practical [to access JBC] on the weekend from here."

The questionnaire tried to elicit written comments from subscribers at a number of places. Many of these comments have been tabulated above, but the actual responses provide texture to the numerical analysis. Hence they have been repeated below without attribution and without editing.

1. I am sending the survey again because I may not have stated clearly how valuable the print version of JBC is to me as a biomedical scientist. I peruse and read several articles weekly in the print version. I find the print version far more informative and valuable than Science or Nature. These two journals occasionally have an article of interest to me. However, the majority of the issues do not, so I toss them aside after glancing through the contents, advertisements, and political editorials. My research is I believe within the "mainstream" of biochemistry and cell biology. I work on protein kinase C, calcium transport proteins, and the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway. As I say the ability to browse, immediately read articles as they appear or are recovered from medline of JBC online is important to me. I generally find the articles in JBC to be of high quality and of current interest. I have a power pc with about 30 MB of ram and have printed several articles from JBC online. The print quality is excellent--as good or better than a photocopy with my HP laserjet 4mplus (600 dpi) with about 16 MB. Regardless, printing is time consuming, and I would not find some of the articles that I read if I only read the table of contents, rather than thumbed through each issue. I am willing to pay the price for JBC print version even if I have to cancel Nature and Science. I emphasize that I find the on-line version of JBC to be excellent and superior to all the other on-line journals I have read, but still believe that many in the research community would miss the print version a great deal. I look forward to hearing what you find from your survey. Because you or your employer seems to have an interest in the on-line version, are you biased against the print version?

2. By the way, JBC is getting so big, it may self-destruct as individuals seek out smaller and more "manageable" avenues for expression. If JBC does consider splitting up, it should NOT do this the way AJP or BBA have done it. Instead, make each subunit independent, self-reliant and responsive to its individual audience. More along the lines of the many journals put out by Amer Soc Microbiol, rather than the mishmash that BBA/AJP have made. Nature has done it marginally better than these others by sticking to very specific fields (Biotech/Genetics/Structure) and not trying to cover all the territories, but I'm not sure any except the Nature-Genetics has legs.

3. Stanford has JBC online, but the VA does not. Even though I am a Stanford faculty member, I can access JBC at Stanford only via a modem connection and not via my usual internet connection at the VA, prompting me to purchase my own subscription.

4. The enhancements are good; paper is too burdensome (and expensive).

5. We are an institutional subscriber to JBC but, for reasons pertaining to our computer "firewall", we were issued an individual subscription to JBC online. (As I am a librarian and not the end-user, my answers to some of the questions are not applicable.) Computer firewall prevents our IP address from being read by external systems. Stanford's system administrator felt an individual subscription was the simplest solution.

6. I will likely use the print version in occasional visits to the library, but soon learn how to handle the on-line version as a routine thing.

7. You should not drop the print version. If the costs are proving prohibitive then cut the number of papers that are published. There would be an opportunity for a journal with a much better quality of science.

8. It seems to me, a foreigner, that you allow the grants system to push the policy of the Journal. The vast plethora of papers that appear in the J Biol Chem do endear it to the working scientist. You have a reputation for quality. Build on that and publish less, but of an even higher standard. Those scientists left out will find some other vehicle to publish their data.

9.The librarians feel that JBC online is somewhat too expensive, currently has no provision for archiving and is handicapped by the fact that not all our scientists have access to the level of computer technology required for use.

10. The print version is useful for archiving and not all the graphics for the on-line version have yet to be perfected.

11. Continue print for another 3-4 years do not stop, put it off as long as possible until printers catch up [in quality] with the original figures.

12. The Biochemical Journal--It is much better on screen that the Journal of Biological Chemistry

13. J. Neurosci, Cell, Science Nature, Biochem J.Neuron (abstracting is a waste, all the journal should offer full article access like JBC, J Neurosci, Biochem J for a reasonable fee. If ending the print version would cut overall subscription fees, do it. More info would be available for less.

14. Access is very bad at certain times of the day.

15.Yes, I do experience delays. Some of them from problems at this end, but certainly not all of them. The biggest problem is getting on to use the search and retrieve services when the mood strikes - especially, since we can't always schedule our reading of journals around your availability.

16. Yes -- it is really only practical at the weekend from here [Tokyo].