In the last few years the editorial team at Veterinary Evidence have been conducting three surveys, targeted at our core user groups to gain valuable feedback on our systems, processes and accessibility of the journal. Here we present the ongoing results of these continuous surveys* and, based on this feedback, what we have done to improve your user experience.
In March 2018 we started asking our authors for feedback on their experience of the publication process.
The submission process
We scored good to very good on our submission process.
We received positive feedback on our overall submission process, specifically on our Author Guidance documents, submission templates, and the ease of use of our online journal submission system.
Improvements:
You identified the need for more updates and communication throughout the process as a main area for improvement. Based on this feedback we have now:
The review process
In 2019 84%(18/21) of you said that the quality of the reviewer comments aregood to very good, with only 16% stating they were satisfactory. 2020 has seen that increase to 100% (11/11) - excellent feedback for all our hardworking reviewers.
Our Associate Editors pick reviewers who they believe have the specific skill set to properly assess and critique the level of evidence discussed in a Knowledge Summary. Each AE has their own specific area of expertise and, together with the editorial team, work hard to ensure that the same level of review is carried out across all our papers.
Improvements:
One thing you fed back to us was that although the reviewer comments were of a high quality it took a long time to receive them.
Over 70% say the time it took to receive reviewer comments was good to very good.
Based on this feedback we have:
‘Knowledgeable reviewers who offer constructive feedback and assistance whilst still providing paper review.’
‘The comments from the reviewers were very useful to improve the clarity and quality of the paper.’
Turnaround times
Whilst the time taken in peer review seems long, the time a paper spends in the submissions system has actually shortened.67% (14/21)of you said our time to final decision wasgood to very good, and in 2020 we surpassed this with 73% (8/11) agreeing howeverVEis always looking at ways we can improve our turnaround times, for example:
The copyediting process
Last year 92%(18/20) of you said that the quality and timeliness of our copyediting wasgood to very good, in 2020 this increased to 100%.
100% of you also said our time to publication was good to very good.
Here at VE, we pride ourselves on publishing high quality evidence-based literature and helping our authors published papers be the best that they can be. We are ecstatic that you feel the same too and with that would like to share some of the lovely feedback comments we have received.
'The copyediting was very thorough.'
'Great communication and understanding.'
'Turnaround time very quick on copyediting […] Very flexible with adjusting timeline[s].'
100% of you said:
Of the 47% of authors who have published papers with other journals,83%said that theyagree or strongly agreethat the submission experience withVEis comparable to other journals. This has gone down in 2020 to 60%. We are always looking to better our users experience and are taking steps to ensure our process for our authors is as smooth as possible.
Together with the 45% of authors who had never published a paper in a journal before, overwhelmingly100% said they would submit toVeterinary Evidenceagain, and that they would recommend us to their colleagues.
‘I’m really impressed with everything from the help by the amazing librarian to the reviewers to the editor. I have really had fast and accurate help with all my questions and everyone have always been so polite.’
‘Felt simple and straight forward, for a novice having never submitted a paper before it was very easy. The editor was always on hand to assist which was exceptionally useful.’
‘A very good lesson for me to learn, to see how a publishing process goes. I really learned a lot!!!’
On average it takes authors 4 weeks to write a KS and 6 to write an article. This shows that contributing to the evidence base may not take as long as you would think.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank our authors for submitting to our journal.
For those who would like to submit to VE or get involved visit our website.
In May 2018 we created our Reader Feedback Survey. The aim of the survey was to find out how our readership engage with the content of our journal.
To take part in our Reader Feedback Survey please click here
‘One of the most useful resources on EBVM.’
We asked what functions would you most like to see in Veterinary Evidence. Here they are rated by most popular:
77%of you said you would like us to link our published content to similar papers published byVE. This is something we intend to implement, and hope we will be able to do so with our upgrade to our new OJS 3 viewer.
We have implemented Altmetric which enables us to show how many views, downloads, shares, citations, etc. an article has had. This is displayed by the colourful doughnut on a papers abstract page. Altmetric enables you to view a papers statistics at the article level.
Since our website upgrade, you can access PDFs of our papers directly in the Adobe viewer in the browser, where it can be read immediately.
We now include social media share buttons at the top of all article papers.
92%of you agreed it is easy to navigate issues and browse content, and92%of you said you agreed that the search function allows you to easily find specific topics or papers. Since our upgrade to OJS 3, we have added categories by species to our papers, which allows all papers to be listed by population. It is our intention to extend this search further to include important and/or common conditions such as epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, harm/improvement, prognosis, control and prevention.
Our readers did not think a forum to engage with others would be useful.
We are currently looking into ways in which we can alert readers to newly published content, with58%of you saying that the way you keep up-to-date with content fromVEis by visiting the website itself. We currently use social media, Twitter and Facebook, to alert followers to new content, however according to our survey these only notify 17% of you. Most of you keep up-to-date with our newly published content by visitingVeterinary Evidenceonline directly. All our most recent papers are listed on ourhome page.
‘It provides actual reviews on sometimes presumed facts.’
Almost 92% of you agreed that our content is of high quality, that there is a good spread of content across each species area and that an appropriate amount of content is published at an appropriate frequency.
In 2020 we have been able to publish an average of 3 papers per month. This is an increase of 22% on the previous year’s content, but a 39% increase in content published since our first Volume back in 2016. In 2021 we aim to deliver new content to you on a weekly basis.
‘Really impressed with RCVS EBVM effort.’
By far the most promising news is that75%of our readers are actually putting the findings we publish in our articles and Knowledge Summaries into practice. This means that in a very real wayVEis contributing to the evidence-based discussions you and your colleagues are having, and on average100%of youagree or strongly agreeVEis trustworthy, and over 90% agreeing it is relevant, up-to-date, engaging and evidence-based, with 75% of you recommending us to others.
‘Informative, relevant and current evidence based scientific information.’
Our reader demographics:
|
|
2019 |
2020 |
|
Vet Surgeon |
45% |
16% |
|
Vet Student |
3% |
0% |
|
Vet Scientist |
21% |
8% |
|
Academic |
18% |
25% |
|
Animal Owner |
3% |
8% |
|
Vet Nurse |
/ |
8% |
|
Vet Nurse Student |
/ |
17% |
We would like to take this opportunity to thank all our readers for engaging withVeterinary Evidence in this way, and hope you will continue to use the journal as a source for evidence-based veterinary medicine.
In October 2019 Veterinary Evidence created a reviewer survey to get feedback on our peer-review process.
100% of our reviewers agreed that they are asked to review papers within their area of interest
A lot of time and research goes into selecting the right individuals to review specific topics, so if we invite you to review for us you know that we have carefully matched your expertise with the content of the paper. Knowledge Summaries are formulated around very specific PICO questions, and this helps to narrow down the best individuals who have the correct expertise to evaluate the evidence.
Our reviewers are motivated to accept our invitation to review
‘Iconsider it a professional responsibility as a subject specialist to contribute to the development of the literature in this way.’
‘I am interested in what people are researching and writing on in my subject area.’
‘I like to keep up to date with the literature in my subject area and be aware of the research that is taking place.’
‘The desire to make a contribution to the field.’
It appears that reviewing creates a symbiotic relationship with the author of the respective field.
95% of you agreed or strongly agreed that you are given clear instructions on the peer-review process
76% of you agreed or strongly agreed that you are provided with guidance and resources to conduct a confident review
Our editorial team try to make reviewing for VE as easy as possible. We provide each reviewer with a link to our guidelines and every reviewer is supplied with a simple form to submit their comments.
Improvements:
One reviewer mentioned that ‘new reviewers should be sent advice on how to review a paper to improve consistency’. We are working to provide webinars and tutorial videos from seasoned reviewers on how to conduct a review. Until then we have created a Q&A blog for advice from past reviewers.
‘Enjoyable process.’
95% of reviewers said they were not asked too often to review
We do not want to overwhelm our reviewers; the majority (68%) are happy to review more than twice a year.
‘I think it works as well as most other reviews in which I am involved.’
‘I am given enough time to review’ 91% of you agreed the review deadline dates were achievable
We are flexible and will work with you to fit your volunteering around your other commitments, to make it as easy as possible for you to contribute to your scientific field.
‘I like the system as it is; it is clear and concise.’
24% of our reviewers did not realise reviewing for VE can count towards their CPD
For 52% of our reviewers it takes on average 2-4 hours to complete a review for Veterinary Evidence. That is 2-4 hours of CPD earned!
‘My overall impression of the review process is positive.’
69% of reviewers said that they would prefer double blind peer-review
You may or may not be aware that there are different types of peer-review. These are normally separated into three categories:
Double-blind - the author does not know who the reviewers are and vice versa
Single blind - the reviewers know who the author is but the author does not know who the reviewers are
Open - the author knows who the reviewers are and vice versa
Up until now VE has been operating an open peer-review model, the premise being that it offers a clear and transparent critique of our content. You can read more about the pros and cons of peer review models in our recent blog.
With the debate surrounding peer-review always up for discussion we decided to ask our reviewers what model of peer-review they prefer.
Overwhelmingly, 72% of reviewers said that they would prefer a double blind type of peer review.
‘It was surprisingly easy and smooth.’
100% of reviewers agreed or strongly agreed that the system is easy to use
To continually improve - we have upgraded to OJS 3.
‘I enjoy reviewing and helping authors publish their research.’
Improvements:
‘It would be nice to receive notification when a paper in which I have reviewed is published.’ - We now send out a reviewer acknowledgement email, which not only tells you the paper you reviewed has been published, but provides you with a link to that paper, gives you information on how you can contribute more to VE and provides you with the necessary information that you can log with Publons. We like to keep our entire process as transparent as possible, with this in mind we have increased our overall communication from 16 emails to 22.
Veterinary Evidence has a roster of reviewers that review for 58 other leading international journals; Vet Rec, JAVMA and Journal of Small Animal Practice to name a few.
Our reviewerdemographics:
|
|
2019 |
2020 |
|
Vet Surgeon |
28% |
36% |
|
Vet Student |
0% |
3% |
|
Vet Scientist |
9% |
9% |
|
Academic |
59% |
50% |
|
Vet Nurse |
0% |
5% |
|
Vet Nurse Student |
0% |
0% |
We would like to take this opportunity to thank all our reviewers for giving up their time and expertise to contribute to evidence-based veterinary medicine.
* These survey results are accurate as of December 2020. This page will be updated annually.