The questionnaire of the JBC Author survey was sent to approximately 500 randomly selected authors who published in the JBC in 1996. These names were obtained through the courtesy of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB). A the time of tabulation, 238 replies were received. Fourteen additional replies have been received since then and are not included in the tabulations. When the non-valid e-mail addresses are subtracted, the total response rate was slightly above 50 percent.

On-line subscriptions account for approximately 9 percent of the roughly 3,700 institutional subscriptions to JBC. The results of Question 1 show the expected, namely, that the authors of JBC articles are drawn disproportionately from institutions that have research programs with sufficient resources to support both on-line and print versions. (Only approximately 3 percent of the institutional subscriptions are for on-line only.) The numbers raise a question ASBMB will have to face as it thinks about moving to an on-line only journal. For whom is the journal being published? The answer may well be that its audience is primarily a group of scientists in advanced research centers who have the facilities and the resources to take advantage of the rapidity and ease with which information can be disseminated on-line. A conscious decision in this direction would remove some of the hesitancy in speeding up the transition from print to electronic media.

Question 2 was obviously confusing to the survey respondents. Based on the answer to Question 1, the total number of answers to Question 2 could not have been greater than 135. (It could have been less because some institutions might have subscribed only to the on-line version.)

Examination of the questionnaires reveals that many authors did not read the first part of the question carefully and focused only on the second part: Do you use both print and on-line? That is, authors who answered No to Question 1 also answered No to Question 2, although the latter asks specifically about institutions that subscribe to both versions.

The interesting--and uncontaminated result--is that nearly all of the authors whose institutions have an on-line subscription used it. (116 versus 135). (The Yes answer is not subject to the distortion of the No answer.) Moreover, the answer that they use "both" is a lower limit because the question does not distinguish between those who use print only and those who use on-line only.

These results suggest that the key ingredient in any JBC strategy to develop a user base for the electronic version is to ensure that scientists have access to it. If the numbers are to be believed, the resistance to use is not, as is sometimes alleged, on the part of scientists but on the part of institutions that are not subscribing to the electronic version. As the survey of librarians reported elsewhere indicates, a key determinant of institutional decisions is cost, a fact that the JBC management may wish to review in light of their dissemination objectives.

The answers by authors about why they like the on-line version are the same answers given by previous users. The on-line version is an easy, fast, convenient way to search for information. In this survey, features such as linking to other databases and providing future tables of contents were barely mentioned. However, one suspects that, in the mind of the user, these specific attributes all run together. They are all part of a scientist's search for information and, unless referred to specifically, are part of an all-encompassing perception of speed and convenience.

The advantages of the print version as seen by authors are also consistent with previous surveys. The quality of the figures is better in the print version, it is easier to read material in hardcopy, the serendipity factor is more prevalent, etc. What was perhaps more widespread in the author sample was the extent of complaints about the slowness of the display and hardcopy downloading. As the detailed comments in the final section make clear, researchers continue to have a legitimate need for hardcopy and therefore the availability of PDF files is considered important. The repeated comments to the effect that "xeroxing is faster" points to a major reason for the continued belief that both the on-line and the print versions are needed. Given the current network technology and the equipment available in most labs, getting hardcopy in a timely fashion continues to be a problem. It may well be that the substantial number of foreign authors has contributed to the higher percentage of complaints about network access (Question 8), but the printing problem appears to be universal and suggests that local problems with server access may also be important.

This table gives no comfort to anyone who proposes that the print version of the JBC be dropped any time soon. The 46 percent also has a serious downward bias because, as is evident from the answer to Question 1, it comes from a sample biased by the research centers from which the authors were drawn. If all users (as opposed to authors) were polled, they would include a large number of people who do not have access to the on-line version at all and hence would not vote for any scheme that meant giving up the print version.

These results also reinforce the earlier argument that (a) there is a substantial group of authors that have access to JBC on-line, use it regularly, and value it greatly, and (b) these authors also see certain shortcomings in the on-line version that make them unwilling to give up print. As for the problem of increasing size, a number of authors provided an explicit solution: reduce the acceptance rate and decrease --or at least do not increase--the number of articles published. The concern about the acceptance policies of the journal was first raised by comments made in the Editorial Board survey. Similar suggestions to this effect were more numerous in the author survey.

Maintain both print and on-line into the foreseeable future. You have to continue the print version for an extended time. There are many labs and institutions in the world that don't have access to on line down-loading. Besides I am old fashioned enough to believe in the sanctity of the printed word.

Continue printing of reprints. Supply print version to a limited number of libraries in key locations.

Students, fellows etc. with limited means depend on copying print versions. Libraries would have to be equipped with numerous fast printers, and a few with high definition/color capability.

I would prefer that the journal move to control size rather than going entirely electronic, unless the on-line capability is much improved (speed of access, speed and success of downloads)

Plan to discontinue print in 1-2 years. Note: I would answer "Stop as soon as adequate...." but my experience is that what is adequate is usually dramatically under-estimated. Thus, I suggest running both systems in parallel for a few years until the load on the electronic medium stabilizes and is known.

Maintain both print and on-line into the foreseeable future. Make the print version an abridged table of contents and the "first page only of each paper." This will help me decide which ones to pick up electronically.

Maintain both print and on-line into the foreseeable future. But re-evaluate in 2-3 years.

Given the strength of sentiments expressed by some authors about the desirability of maintaining both the print and the on-line versions into the foreseeable future, the results in Table 6 are not surprising. The essence of their comments, as described below, is that they "don't want to publish in a journal to which many people will not have access."

This view is a form of the critical mass problem that plagues all journals. (If the best people don't write for them, they won't have much of a circulation. If they don't have much of a circulation, the best people won't submit to them.) These results suggests again the importance to JBC of developing the broadest possible user base before considering an on-line only version. The widespread support of the research community for the on-line version will ensure that the inevitable defectors will be kept to a minimum.

Maybe. But surely you can price the on line version so that it and the hardcopy version can both be continued? I am an editor of another journal and have found our publishers very amenable to meeting diverse needs with appropriate pricing.

Yes, if I felt the readership would diminish as a result.

No, but if this caused the acceptance rate to go over 45-50%, I would definitely reconsider.

Probably not - depends on how well received. Availability of the paper version is certainly an issue.

Yes- unless most companies and universities make on-line services available to everyone because you want to insure that your paper will still be read.

JBC On-line clearly has made some converts. Although, at this point, the number is only about 15 percent, this is a sizeable portion of authors who not only have a positive personal outlook on the on-line version, but, by implication, think the reactions of a significant number of their peers are positive as well.

The number of respondents who reported delays is up sharply from the Editorial Board and Individual Subscriber surveys. This is likely due to the fact that there were a substantial number of foreign contributors in the author sample. Although it might not remove all complaints, e.g., the slowness of printing, having mirror sites in Europe, Asia, and Latin America clearly would be welcomed by JBC authors residing there.

Yes. Probably because of local problems! also, in Europe, the only period easily available is early in the morning. Later, the time to be connected is too long.

I have only used (tried to use) the on-line version a few times using a colleague's access code-- I found that access to both the site and new "pages" within the site was extremely slow. Furthermore, I tried downloading a paper (several times) using the most recent version of Adobe acrobat available on the web. The download was incredibly slow (even though I was working through a university hook-up with fast communications links) and whatever was eventually downloaded was unable to be brought up in Adobe. These experiences were so frustrating (taking hours to try to see a paper that I could peruse in minutes in the print version) that I ceased trying to use the on-line version.

Yes. It is slow; I have noticed that the Biochemistry PDF versions print out MUCH faster than the JBC version.

Suggestions for improvement were numerous and are, to some extent, already reflected in Table 6 (The Advantages of Print) and in the comments made on specific questions. However, all author comments have been reproduced below because they add texture to the numerical tabulations that have been presented above. There are a number of easily discernible themes in the responses:

(1) JBC On-line gets numerous plaudits from the author's group. These range all the way from comments that the user can think of no ways to improve the presentation to the observation that JBC On-line marks a watershed in the delivery of scientific journals on-line.

(2) As noted earlier, complaints about speed of printing and the quality of images are also abundant. As more knowledgeable users are aware, however, this is often a problem with the user's equipment and not with the intrinsic speed of the network or the server. Whatever the cause, the fact that over half the on-line users are experiencing difficulties is a cause for concern.

(3) A good many authors have taken the opportunity to advise against moving to on-line only. Again, the reasons vary. Many are concerned about the availability of the necessary equipment, especially for authors and readers overseas. Others simply believe there are intrinsic virtues to the printed version that cannot be replicated even by an improved on-line version.

(4) Quite a few authors in this and previous samples have a solution for the size problem: reduce the percentage of papers that are accepted. If this argument is to be a cornerstone of the JBC rationale for moving to on-line only, efforts will needed to persuade users that this is indeed a problem.

It takes more than 1 h to down-load for printing, being interrupted frequently. This may be because I am working in the peripheral area of Japan (Sapporo, Hokkaido), resulting in a limited capacity of the net work.

Quality of figures is still an issue.

I cannot respond to e-mail sent questionnaires on-line by "clicking" as you so instruct. That in and of itself should give you some indication about my thoughts on having only an on-line version. I go to the library and xerox articles I want from the print version. I do not subscribe to the on-line version and I do not know if the library here at the SFVAMC gets the on-line version. To my knowledge the Red SAGE project is the only on-line service which we get through cooperation with UCSF. I find that there is so much diversity in the type of computer instrumentation and such varying abilities of servers and systems to communicate I would not be in favor at this time of having only an on-line version of JBC. I chose this periodical to publish because I read the journal and consider it a valuable resource for people doing work in my field. The move to an on-line only format will prevent many people who are unable to use on-line system from viewing the journal.

Many readers want to get reprints of papers. How will the on-line only journal distribute the reprints to the authors?

Improve quality of figures if possible

Easier downloading of articles to print them.

I am not familiar with the on-line service of the Journal. Therefore it would be inconvenient for me if you stop the print version.

Limit the number of figures per article to avoid extremely long times or the requirement for sophisticated computers to load an article.

None. The main problem of using the on-line-version (transmission speed) is more related to the speed of servers and the net in general.

General remark: This survey should not only include authors but also readers, that might not have been publishing in JBC before but are frequently using the journal.

The costs currently are too high. You might consider lower rates for academic on-line users whose libraries currently subscribe to the printed version.

The on-line format must allow the user (perhaps it already does, but I can't decide because I only can log in as a guest) (1) quick and easy subject and author search and threading of subjects, (2) easy hardcopy printing nearly indistinguishable from xeroxs, (3) access by means of public domain software like, e.g. Netscape.

The on line format at this point would be best viewed as something that provides a searchable data base, but not as a substitute for print.

Speed up! It takes around 3 min from connection to your site to find an abstract. We are in Europe.

It looks good to me. My fellows and students love it and they have less down time out of the lab since they can download from their desks.

Good luck. It is great that the JBC is forward looking. However, I don't think any change to full on-line should influence the recent wise decision to cut down on the unwieldy size of the journal and to accept a somewhat smaller per cent of submitted papers.

Need to make it more user friendly with respect to printing out copies that have high quality figures.

None, as long as the Journal can keep current with technology.

Cannot scan pages as quickly and frequently get lost while scanning on the screen. Indexing according to topic categories and encoding (such as used for designating categories for abstract submission at meetings) would help browsers.

It is imperative that archiving and accessibility problems are addressed is a reasonable way. Unless library users are able to access the journal from their offices at no extra charge to the library, this proposal will go nowhere. Indeed, on-line journals should be less expensive to the library than the printed version otherwise the transition will not occur, at least not smoothly.

Create a text printout that is exactly like the printed article.

I am having trouble viewing papers in PDF format--this will eventually get worked out but for now its a pain.

JBC's on-line format is among the best I have used.

In order to convert readers to using the on-line format, the hard copy version will essentially have to disappear.

Haven't used it so far. But it should be really inexpensive, because the individual labs may have difficulties to subscribe to the journal(s) from money coming from their research grants. If the journal is available in the library only, there is no real advantage of an on-line version for the user/reader.

Improve the quality of the figures.

Several mirror sites, searches by blocks of years rather than issues.

Inform me the new issue is on-line by e-mail.

It works well now, so the only thing to improve is the speed. I am quite satisfied with the quality of the on-screen images (both BW and color), and with the BW images I can print out from the PDF files (I don't have a color printer; my black&white printer works at 600 dps, which helps).

An additional problem is the time that it takes to print the PDB files. The quality is not as good as a photocopy and nowhere near a reprint and the files take 15 minutes to print a single article.

Thank you very much for your e-mail. The on-line format is convenient and fast to exchange the information. However, the problem is that all the authors do not always have the equipment for the on-line service. This is the big problems for equal contribution. This is my opinion.

None, it is excellent...

When it first came out, I didn't like the way it printed out reprints, but the move to a PDF format seems to have fixed that problem very nicely. I prefer the computer printouts to xeroxes of the hardcopy, and they are available immediately.

Unsolicited comment: I like the print version because my network is frequently down and it is often difficult to access on-line material. Frankly, right now it is just faster to look through the print version than to deal with the network. I expect that this problem will disappear in a few years and access times will be shortened; I would allow for a generous margin of time here or some people will be deprived of access. Perhaps some on line help for printing the figures.

I think it [the on-line version] is terrific,

Your on-line format is the best I have used.

I don't use it.

None

A very important issue is to make it easier to subscribe to. I would have ordered a personal on-line subscription by now, but I don't wish to receive the paper copy. Also, the requirement to join ASBMS to get a subscription is a pointless obstacle; if you need to, just increase the cost of the subscription enough to allow the journal to subsidize the society.

Provide on-line links to related articles in the Entrez database. Such a feature is already in place in the Entrez system, and it vastly increases the power of the information base.

Keep it cheap and make sure everyone has access. Build in software so that people can view reprint quality articles without having to separately install Adobe Acrobat. In comparison to other on-line journals, currently JBC is head and shoulders better. Keep up the good work.

Improve search engine within program. improve printability of articles on standard printers.

Speed has to be markedly improved-- there has to be some convenient way to "page through" the journal to find not only papers of topical interest but also those that might have useful technical or methodological aspects that would not be readily apparent from titles or abstracts-- downloads must be improved. Also, at the moment the additional charge for on-line access over the print subscription price is a major impediment both for individual subscribers and for many university libraries (including ours)-- If J.B.C. is considering switching totally to an on-line version, it should make the on-line version available without charge to print version subscribers to ease the transition (and test the robustness of the on-line version to increasing usage).

Coordinate with as many other journals as possible to use a consistent on-line format. Allow on-line delivery and editing of page proofs to speed up turn-around of manuscripts.

Improve the quality of the reproduction of the photographs, provide for inclusion of video segments, improve the speed of access.

As for any internet service, future bandwidth problems, particularly at home are a real concern. When cable modems, and satellite connections are widely available this may not be a problem. The government needs to improve the infrastructure or the whole system may bog down.

For an interim solution, I particularly like the proposal to have a two-page print format combined with the on-line for the complete paper.

Download times must be faster. There can be a long wait for just the contents, not to mention papers themselves! When I press "Print", I must get clear text and legible figures without a hassle or being required to download some obscure software, instead of the gobbledy-gook print-outs I get now. Also, the digitized images in my opinion are not as good as in the original journal. I figure that these problems can be solved in 3-4 years, allowing an on-line version only at that time.

I have corresponded with Maureen Phayer and John Sack somewhat on these topics. Minor glitches get fixed right away. The overall design is excellent and I can't think of any major improvements. In fact, I predict that this overall design will become a classic in the scientific literature. Including PDF's makes it much better than Science. Minor suggestion: next to authors' e-mail address, let them list their home page too.

Faster, faster, faster.

I would seriously worry about relying solely on the on-line format without major upgrades to the existing internet network.

It's a great system, but needs improvements mentioned above.

For some reason the figures usually look out of focus unless you enlarge.

Better graphics.

None at this time, except speed and being able to print out multiple "reprints" in a faster time.

The few times I've used it, it took quite a while to get entire articles.

I feel it would be a terrible mistake to drop the printed version at the moment. JBC is one of those traditional journals that is widely read in 3rd World countries and by many generations of scientists. At the present time, I am aware that many Latin American countries are not yet ready to receive journals on-line. The journal should also consider that there are considerable numbers of scientists, often persons that did not grow-up with personal computers, that feel uncomfortable using the PC to access journals.

As a JBC Editor and author, I wish to lower the acceptance rate to a target of 25,000 pages per year regardless of how many papers we have to reject. I think JBC must be the premier journal that publishes definitive work at the top of the field, not a repository for data. Our acceptance policies are not restrictive enough.

Faster access would be nicer, but the rate-limiting step is probably not the current server(s). If it is, upgrade before phasing out print.

None.

None at present.

It seems to be well thought out and no suggestions come to mind.

Develop mirror sites around country so that when on-line only format comes, delays do not follow.

The JBC size problems reflects inadequately rigorous review. Bad review will sink the journal under its own weight in paper or electronic format.

Format is Ok. On-line version is a very positive move, but in my opinion it is too soon to drop the hard copy.

How will I be able to make a single copy of an article for personal use only in an academic setting? What types of restrictions will be in place? Will reprints still exist? If a beautiful crystal structure of a protein is published on line, will and how will I (legally) be able to make a slide of it for teaching a class of 5-10 students. I'm not completely against the on line version as long as the conveniences associated with the hard copy remains. I like searching on line and reading abstracts, but I like to read and make notes on the hard copy and keep it in files.

Speed up the process of making quality hard copies.

Improve the ability to print quality reproductions of figures.

I have problems sometimes getting the enlarged version of figures (I get some silly error message) Otherwise, I like it a lot and find it is much easier for me to keep up with to date. I wish more journals would follow your lead.

The current format seems fine, so far.

Better interface with printers for figures.

Currently, my preference is for the print version, so my experience with the on-line version is rather limited.

Make it easier to download high resolution images of the figures. Downloading a 200K figure takes 1-2 minutes for me. Downloading a whole paper with 6-8 figures could take 30 minutes.

Please do not switch to electronic only!!!

I think there will be problems with on-line access in other countries - South Africa and other developing countries in particular. Also old fashioned bias towards printed and archived copies etc.

While on-line is great for searches and cross-referring subjects etc, there is nothing like a hard copy of an article which one can mull over away from the computer. Using the on-line format necessitates having an adequate printer for creating hard copies. One question is how does one obtain substantial "reprints" to submit with grants and promotions? Perhaps the journal can expand by publishing articles in JBC volume sections (JBC Biochemistry, JBC Molecular Biology, JBC Genetics) which are printed in separate volumes.

Many improvements will likely come from the advances in computer hardware and graphics. Probably, I just need to get used to the text format currently in use on-line.

None, I like it.

Printing of a good copy is difficult and slow.

Instead of having separate links to present, past and future, have a single link that allows browsing of all issues.

Convince NIH to allow us to buy better monitors and printers. Reading a monitor is very hard on the neck and eyes. Expense of the cartridge for the laser printers is covered by our grants. Thus, I will spend a few hundred dollars a year printing, for it is too hard to glance through a on-line version. Sorry, I am just not a computer fan. I do not surf the WEB. Yes, I do use Entrez, but reading articles is different. I know it is the wave of the future. It will also keep us from bumping into colleagues in the library and talking about what we read. Maybe you can provide an on-line friend.

Restrict the on-line version to indexes, abstracts and telephone numbers and E mail addresses of authors. If the printed version is abolished, authors will be swamped with reprint requests, library literature searches will become even more tedious than they are now, and a lot of people will find that their contributions to JBC simply will not be quoted by other authors. I myself will not contribute to a journal that does not publish a printed version.

Downloading and printing initially requires some footwork before the necessary software is installed. Printing can also be awkward since each individual page may have to be given the print command separately. This may however be a problem specific for the computer or printer.

I do not think that JBC should be the first and only journal that is exclusively available on-line. If however this trend is inevitable, reprints should continue to be made available to authors.

My main concern about moving to an on-line-only format it that the increased capacity for information distribution would decrease competitive submission. I would not want to submit manuscripts for publication to a journal with an unlimited acceptance rate. Limitation of publication space provides a filter for quality control. In addition, the number of publications in each journal is already close to the maximum that allows perusal of the entire table of contents in a timely manner. If an on-line-only version is adopted, I strongly feel that there should still be a limited number of papers published per issue.

At this point, really none. I still take the hardcopy, and rely mostly on it, but have used the on-line version enough to like it. By comparison, I no longer subscribe to the hardcopy version of Biochemistry, rather relying entirely on my reference update program and Biochemistry on-line to get my information. Thus, I would eventually adapt to JBC being solely on-line, but would miss the old way. I think this is more than curmudgeonness on my part.

No slow down when I access via Stanford which I presume is acting like a satellite archive site. During the public access trial period when it was coming to me from U.K. it could be slow. Suggestion: If to be on-line only, address the question of how to produce very high quality half-tones. They are pretty good now on a good 600 dpi laser printer, but not quite journal quality. If very expensive printers with much higher than 600 dpi resolution are required, this would be a problem.

I'd like to search previous issues before 1994.

I prefer to keep reprints in the present printed form because they are often required for job and grant applications.

The only problem I found for the on-line version is those relating to print the manuscripts. Printing manuscripts containing Figures, especially color Figures, through the Adobe is still quite dull. I think that it is too early to stop the print version because of these printing problems. I also suggest that the colored Figures might also have its black-white version for reduce the time.

Being able to get good quality reproductions of micrographs, confocal images etc.

Sometimes, the system has been broken down and we could not use it for a while.

I like it as it is. I haven't had any problems or complaints.

On-line JBC only would be optimal (even for submission of manuscripts) if: (i) server problems can be taken care of (easy to do!) (ii) artwork and prints are very problematic-major impairment to quality of on-line versions (I have no idea how to change that without dramatically increasing costs for both JBC and subscribers).

Many of the problems that JBC face could be solved if the editors were to reduce the number of pages printed. This could be achieved by either imposing a strict page limitation for manuscript submission, or by being more selective in what is accepted. Many ACS journals keep their costs down by keeping the number of pages published per year the same.

Better servers.

Especially if you make the mistake of discontinuing the print version, downloading must be improved greatly. The graphics must download far more rapidly. Otherwise JBC has the best on-line format I know of.

Suggestions: (i) solve access problems, which are sometimes quite difficult. (ii) get better PDF's files (feasible?). (II) continue to reduce $cost of on-line journal.

Added comments: a) I believe JBCs has grown like tipsy, by being over-critical of its traditional market and under-critical of cell/molecular biology. this is dangerous, as it is beginning to loose its original loyalists and the newcomers look at it as "archival" and publish their best elsewhere. the argument that on-line must come because of size is not acceptable. b) by contrast on-line is clearly the wave of the future, but JBCs must manage it with much more powerful and accessible search capabilities than presently available. c) i also suggest JBCs consider three things to help bring attention the on-line effort and assuage the print enthusiasts. (i) offer a deal whereby one can order reprints of interesting articles at markedly reduced cost for the, say, first 25/year and markey cost for any other. (ii) offer a program that will alert readers to the publication of articles that contain key words/phrases/topics of interest. (iii) mail to on-line subscribers a print version of the table of contents and perhaps a mini-review compendium. Finally, i note that i have already signed up for the on-line journal and cut off my print subscription - both for reasons of price and space.

New technologies take some time to catch on. For example, word processors, CD players, and automatic teller machines took a number of years until they were accepted, and eventually replaced the previous mode of doing things. (I've heard that the automobile, the telephone, and phonograph were also slow to become commonplace). Eventually an on-line only format will prevail, and JBC should be a leader in this move. But, dropping the hardcopy would be a mistake until wider acceptance - this may take 5-10 years or more.

Color in articles can be used more widely, also the number of figures can be increased.

Graphic intensive figures are difficult to print or do not print at all.

I'm not familiar with the on-line format, because I do not have a subscription. I have used it to search the abstracts, which are available to non-subscribers, and have found this option to be useful.

1- The Journal should Suggest use of high quality printers (which ones) for obtaining good quality images. 2- Issues on line should be available in local servers (University/Research Institutes) so that consultation is more rapid.

None.

Provide a mirror site(s) outside the US e.g. Europe/Japan etc.

It's been awhile since I accessed the on-line version but being able to print in journal format (i.e. not many pages) would be an advantage. It is still easier to read things on paper than on the computer screen.

Giving authors a special code for their own publications. This code could be used to access their publications directly on line. The code could also be incorporated into the authors home page list of publications to give direct access to the JBC paper. I have a listing of my publications on my home page and until November or December you could go directly to one of my JBC publications from my home page since we had a direct link to the publication (i.e. you did not have to go to JBC on-line first). Please check my home page if you want to see our publications but now we can only get the abstract. Address: WWW: http://www-camlab.physlog.uiowa.edu/home.htm

Get a better/faster server. At times, I have had terrible connections and the process was way too slow. Perhaps mirror sites around the country might help with the load?