Authors’ perceptions of electronic publishing

Article Review

2. Schroter (2004) and others contributed a study on authors’ perceptions of electronic publishing of the unedited version of article on bmj.com once papers have been accepted for publication. Conducting two cross sectional surveys among 253 authors from corresponding authors of a consecutive sample of published BMJ research articles that had undergone the ELPS (Electronic Long, Paper Short) process and corresponding authors of consecutive research articles submitted by BMJ authors, but there is some concern that electronic information is not permanent and uncertainty about how versions are referenced. While authors who had experienced ELPS reported some problems with editors shortening papers, most were able to rectify these. Overall 70% thought that the BMJ should continue to use ELPS; 49% thought that publishing just the abstract in the printed journal with the full version only on bmj.com was unacceptable; and 23% thought it unacceptable to post unedited versions on bmj.com once a paper had been accepted for publication. The study revealed that it is acceptable to authors to publish short versions of research article in the printed version of a general medical journal with longer version on the websites i.e., the authors are in favour of electronic publishing of their articles.       

Sara Schroter, Helen Barratt and Jane Smith. Authors’ perceptions of electronic publishing: Two cross sectional surveys. BMJ vol. 328,  5 June 2004. bmj.com.