Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Online Manuscript Submissions: Author Survey and Satisfaction (2008)

“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” —Charles Darwin HISTORY Before September of 2004, all manuscripts submitted to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery were submitted through a “traditional” submission process: they were sent as hard copy submissions through the mail or via courier. All manuscripts and figures were required to be sent in triplicate. Once received, manuscript details were manually logged into the Editorial Office’s database and a file was made for each manuscript–-a labor-intensive process. Typically, there was a 2- to 4-business-day lag between when a manuscript was received and when it was logged into the database. After that, manuscripts were assigned to reviewers; reviewer assignments were, again, manually logged into the office database, and then the manuscripts were physically processed for mailing. As with the previous stage, it was not uncommon for 2 to 3 business days to pass between when a manuscript was assigned reviewers and when it was actually mailed. After it was mailed, a manuscript could take anywhere from 2 to 10 days to reach a reviewer, at which point the clock began all over again. Reviewers were given 2 weeks to complete their reviews, but delays could increase that time frame substantially. Once a review was completed, the reviewer mailed in his or her comments, which were matched up to the manuscript in question. When a sufficient number of reviews were received for a manuscript, its file was placed on the editor’s desk for a decision, at which point the editor’s decision was logged into the database. Only then were the authors finally notified (via fax and mail). The typical time it took from first receipt of a manuscript to the time of the first decision was anywhere from 8 to 12 weeks. Any revisions to manuscripts had to be made in hard copy, in triplicate, and multiple copies of revised figures had to be supplied as well. From the above description of the traditional manuscript submission and review process, it is clear that the system was time- and labor-intensive, and expensive. It was not unusual for authors to spend hundreds of dollars on a single manuscript in postal, photography, and other costs. Additional thousands of dollars each year were spent by the Editorial Office on postage. The cost in terms of time spent waiting at every stage of the process was enormous; years could and sometimes did pass between the initial submission and ultimate publication of an article. The Journal began to advertise its new online system, dubbed “PRS’ Enkwell,” in June of 2004. Authors and reviewers were informed of the new system, and tutorials were sent out months in advance of the system going live. September of 2004 saw the system go live in a “soft launch”; authors who wished to submit online were encouraged to do so at that time, while others who wished to continue submitting their papers via the traditional system were allowed to do that as well. Fully 531 manuscripts were submitted using the Enkwell system from September 1 through December 31, 2004. Immediately it became apparent to authors and the editorial staff alike that the new system was conducive to submitting papers; it was faster at every stage of the process and less expensive. In May of 2005, online submission became the sole means of sending in papers. That year, a record number of submissions were received; 2207 new manuscripts were submitted, representing a 50 percent increase over the number of papers received in 2004. Even more papers (2294) were submitted in 2006. Automation built into the system provided important efficiencies to the process, which resulted in shorter review times and a nearly absolute elimination of postage costs. Although the number of papers received increased dramatically, the overall time it took to provide authors with a decision steadily decreased; time from submission to first decision was 31.9 days in 2005, down to 20 days in 2006, and down again in 2007 to 16.6 days (Table 1). It was clear that the online system possessed many advantages for authors, reviewers, and editorial staff alike. Overall, there was a general impression on the part of the Editor-in-Chief and editorial staff that authors liked the new system, but that impression had not been quantified and could not be validated. In addition, no official mechanism had been implemented to obtain official feedback from authors regarding the online system. In response to these concerns, a survey was created in December of 2007; the results are reported below.Table 1: Manuscript Statistics for PRS’ EnkwellTHE ONLINE SUBMISSION AUTHOR SURVEY: RESULTS With the assistance of the publisher, an alphabetical list of 3200 separate authors who had submitted at least one manuscript through the Enkwell system was developed. Every tenth author on this list was selected and sent an author survey via email. A total of 76 surveys were completed and returned, for a survey response rate of 23.75 percent. The survey was divided into four sections for author input: the online submission system, the editorial office, the review process, and general questions. Online Submission System Nearly 30 percent of first-time users of the system encountered some difficulty with the Enkwell system; the biggest challenge was providing figures in the correct format. However, facility and ease of use came with experience; only 18 percent of authors who have submitted multiple manuscripts have encountered ongoing difficulty. Authors who had submitted papers using both the older, traditional system and the new online system noted many benefits with the new system, including less expense, faster manuscript preparation time, shorter review times, and faster communication with the Editorial Office. One author mentioned that he never worried about his submissions; he was never concerned about them getting lost in the mail. The vast majority of respondents (94 percent) indicated that the Enkwell system provided them with the right amount of feedback and communication. Fully 98 percent of respondents indicated they preferred the Enkwell system to the traditional system. Editorial Office Critical to the success of the overall review process was the interface between authors and editorial staff. Nearly half (47 percent) of authors have contacted the Editorial Office for help with a submission. Universally, authors were responded to in a quick, courteous, and helpful manner. All authors responded that their questions were answered in a helpful way. In addition, 96 percent of respondents indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied in their contact with the Editorial Office. Review Process Ninety-two percent of authors said they thought their papers received adequate review. Reviewer comments were described as “fair,” “clearly communicated,” “useful in revising and improving the manuscript,” and “educational.” Although only a small number of authors had contacted the Editorial Office to reconsider a decision, those who had said they thought the reconsideration was treated “fairly” and “quickly.” It is important to note that all manuscripts submitted to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery undergo peer review. Nearly 80 percent of all manuscripts received are sent out to a review panel of subject matter experts. Their reviews provide the essential guidance to the Editor-in-Chief, directing him to decide the outcome of a manuscript. A small percentage of manuscripts received undergo review directly by the Editor-in-Chief and the section editors for a “summary review.” These summary reviews provide an expedited evaluation of a manuscript. It is important to emphasize that the Journal ensures that all manuscripts receive the highest quality of review, which has been our standard from the beginning. General Questions and Comments Authors were asked to rate their level of satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 indicating very dissatisfied and 10 indicating very satisfied. Fully 92 percent of respondents indicated satisfaction ratings of 7 to 10; 79 percent of respondents gave a rating of 8 or above. Ninety-eight percent of authors said they would submit more manuscripts to the Journal. The most frequently cited concern was that the time between acceptance and publication was rather long. We share authors’ concerns over the time from acceptance to publication. This lag time is a direct result of our manuscript backlog. In a separate Editorial, we will address this very real and important issue. We are glad to report, however, that the backlog of manuscripts has been dramatically reduced over the past year, and the average delay from acceptance to publication is now less than 8 months. We are striving to reduce that delay time even further, and have as a goal a time from acceptance to publication of 6 to 7 months for most articles by the end of 2008. COMMITMENT TO ONGOING IMPROVEMENT We are pleased that the Enkwell system has been well received and has provided substantial improvements to a number of key factors in the submission and review process. With that said, however, it is true that not all authors have enjoyed an idyllic submission experience. Our system is not perfect, and we have an ongoing, dedicated process to improve it. Some of the recent improvements provide language assistance to non–English-speaking authors. Technical updates have made the submission of video and animated clips easier, for ultimate online publication. And in an effort to integrate digital files in a more streamlined fashion, online upgrades will facilitate the production of accepted articles, aiding the publisher in the final publication of print and Web-based articles. Lastly, coming soon, we will provide additional tutorials that will help make the submission process more intuitive and comprehensible. We are grateful to you, the authors, for your submissions. Your work serves as the lifeblood of the Journal, and without you, we would not exist. We will continue our efforts to increase the ease and flexibility of the submission process, so that it will become second nature. “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” —Albert Einstein