The Knee 22 (2015) 443–445
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Knee
BASK survey of The Knee readership 2015 Arash Aframian a,⁎, David Sands Johnson b, Caroline Blanca Hing a a b
Trauma & Orthopaedics, St George's Hospital, London SW17 0QT, United Kingdom Trauma & Orthopaedics, Stockport NHS Foundation Trust, Stepping Hill Hospital, Cheshire SK2 7JE, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords: Survey BASK 2015 The Knee Questionnaire
a b s t r a c t A convenience sample of the attendees of the 2015 annual meeting of the British Association of Knee showed that the majority of the attendees who responded read The Knee, would like a section on surgical tips, more themed supplements and guest editorials. There is still not enough support for purely electronic publication. For those that have submitted papers, the experience with the publication process was positive. © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The attendees at the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) meeting 2015 were asked to complete a questionnaire amongst which were questions pertaining to The Knee to facilitate a convenience sample of The Knee readership [1]. The survey was compulsory to be eligible for a certificate for attendance at BASK 2015 ensuring return rates of 79%. Involving the readership in decisions regarding the future content and design of the journal will allow The Knee to remain relevant and appealing. There are several factors to consider, and the BASK meeting provides a good opportunity to obtain feedback from the readership.
2. Material and methods This online survey was sent to the 363 attendees of the BASK 2015 meeting in Telford. The survey was conducted using self-reported electronic questionnaires via the SurveyMonkey.com website, and was a pre-requisite to obtaining an attendance certificate for the conference. The invitation to participate in the survey was distributed via an email list to attendees, with a reminder three weeks later. 3. Results Of the 363, there were 288 respondents (79%), although some questions were skipped by some respondents. The first question asked about the frequency with which members read the journal and revealed that the majority of respondents were occasional readers, with the second most common group being those who read most issues. Less than 10% of the BASK attendees never read The Knee (Fig. 1). Regarding content and presentation of the journal, there was an almost even distribution across the five point scale as to whether the journal should be changed to an electronic only format, with 49% still supporting the retention of print copy whilst 35% supported purely electronic publication (Fig. 2). Eighty-six percent of those surveyed supported a ⁎ Corresponding author at: Trauma & Orthopaedics department, St George's Hospital, London SW17 0QT, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 7966 052 404. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Aframian).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2015.07.001 0968-0160/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
section on surgical tips and techniques. There was overall support for themed supplements and guest editorials, 68% and 59% respectively (Fig. 2). The third question was specific to the paper submission process with largely favourable responses for the process, the majority were mostly good (50% for the publisher and editorial office and 46% for the review process). Only five percent found the review process mediocre, and three percent reported it to be poor. Similarly, six percent reported the editorial office to be mediocre, and only one percent responded that they had a poor experience. By comparison to the other end of the spectrum, there were more than 10 times as many who responded with an excellent experience of the publisher and editorial office (11%), and three times as many found the review process excellent (Fig. 3a, b). There is still an untapped resource for reviewers, with nearly a third wanting to become involved (Fig. 4). The final question related to The Knee was for suggested improvements and generated 38 answers, with 250 skipping this question. Three respondents requested a larger font size, and two suggested further efforts for electronic formats, with encouragement for The Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) to subscribe. There were two calls requesting more work from the UK, and less from overseas. One respondent suggested sections within each issue, such as “Arthroplasty” and “Cartilage” which are already in place within the journal. Some responders asked for instructional and technical tips sections, or discussed issues with submission, editing or the publication processes.
4. Conclusions Although the journal has previously conducted surveys of members they were not specifically looking at content of The Knee, but rather opinion on surgical decisions [2]. This survey represents a new direction for the journal, with input from its readership guiding future journal design. Overall, more than 90% of respondents read the journal, so the results of the questionnaire could be considered a fair representation of The Knee readers. Web based surveys of surgeons & readers have been used elsewhere to assess the target market but not necessarily to shape the content specifically [3–5]. These studies had looked at some different factors as some were more generalised surgical journals [6] and therefore questions also asked about sub-specialty interest. There is perceived bias in some questionnaires, where for example open access publishers ask closed questions about the benefits of open access article publication [7], although this did reveal a disparity between willingness of authors for their work to be cited in non-commercial
444
A. Aframian et al. / The Knee 22 (2015) 443–445
a
I receive the Knee and read every issue 16%
I have never read an article in the Knee 9%
Respondents' experience of the review process Good 46%
I receive the Knee and read most issues 19% I read articles in the Knee sometimes 43%
Excellent 9%
I receive the Knee and read some issues 13%
Poor 3% Satisfactory 37%
Fig. 1. Readership profile of respondents with regard to The Knee.
scenarios rather than where there was gain for others (p = 0.0005). A survey by one journal looked into readers' use of smartphones and tablet devices, presumably to consider planning of electronic media and journal distribution as they also asked about frequency of access of the journal's website, and time spent with the journal each month in detail [8]. The advent of electronic media has enabled the collection of survey data in a cost-effective and efficient way. Surveys published in the literature pertaining to publication processes exist for other societies & journals such as the journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) [9] repeated in 2014 from a previous survey in 2005 [10] and an author survey for publishers, The Taylor & Francis group [7] but neither looked into what their readership wanted in terms of content and future direction. The AAOS readership survey similarly found 91% of respondents read their journal (compared to 90% for The Knee), and that in the two years up to the 2014 survey, there was “a statistically significant increase in the number of readers who read both the print and online versions of AAOS Now” [9]. There was a requirement to complete the survey to obtain an attendance certificate for the BASK conference, a deadline to do so, and a reminder email. By making this survey compulsory to be eligible for the attendance certificate return rates were likely increased and
Mediocre 5%
b Respondents' experience of the publisher / editorial office Excellent 11% Good 50%
Poor 1% Mediocre 6%
Satisfactory 32% Fig. 3. a: BASK attendees' experience of the review process when submitting an article for publication in The Knee. b: BASK attendees' experience of the publisher/editorial process when submitting an article for publication in The Knee.
Not at all Not really
60%
No preference
53%
Somewhat
50%
Very strongly 41%
40%
40%
36% 33% 30%
30%
20%
26% 19%
27%
19% 16% 16%
19% 13%
10% 5% 0%
2%
2%
5% 0%
0% Pure electronic publication of the Knee (no paper copy)
Inclusion of a section on surgical tips / techniques
Increasing the number of themed supplements
Increasing the number of guest editorials
Fig. 2. BASK attendees' interest in new sections/themes for The Knee.
A. Aframian et al. / The Knee 22 (2015) 443–445
Already a reviewer 11%
Yes 32%
No 57%
Fig. 4. Interest amongst BASK attendees in becoming a reviewer for The Knee.
the reminder email will have further helped in achieving the 79% return rate. Published response rates can vary greatly (0.25%–70%) [6,11–13]. It is assumed that this survey benefited from the pre-requisite requirement of completion for certificate of attendance at the conference, helping to contribute to the excellent response rate. The use of a deadline has not been shown to increase return rates, but does increase the speed of response [1]. The Canadian Journal of Surgery (CJS) found that “42% of respondents stated that they would not continue to read the journal if it was provided online only”. In addition, the survey asked respondents to rate each section of the journal, finding different values assigned by the readership can help to guide future paper selection when reviewing and journal content has reportedly been changed as a result. Their survey revealed that there was strong interest in a section reporting ‘hot topics’ in the field and also ‘highlights’ from national meetings. They also asked specifically about the ‘attractiveness’ of the journal to which to submit papers, rather than just about the experience when doing so, though it is likely to have a strong correlation [6]. Although opinion is still divided, there is a greater proportion of respondents opting for electronic only format for The Knee than seen in other comparable surveys, where only 6.7% preferred an electronic only journal for the CJS [6]. There was issue with dissatisfaction with time to publication, but this is a recognised phenomenon with peer-reviewed journals as there are several steps in the review process to ensure the journals' quality standards are maintained in terms of content and scientific interest, as well as factual information and analysis of results with appropriate statistical methodology. Previous studies have shown that time from abstract submission to publication can vary from nine to 18 months with an average of 9.47 months for “biomedicine” journals [14] and referenced previous papers with times as much as two years to publish
445
in Economics & Management journals [15]. Time for publication of clinical trials is even longer, ranging from four to eight years [16,17]. Improved satisfaction rates are important as this can influence choice of journal authors choose for submission, with 18% citing this as a reason for further article submission in one publisher's survey [18]. Similar issues are reported by the CJS in their readership survey [6], with concerns that this may have an impact on submissions [6]. The number who found the review process poor was low at less than three percent, compared to published data with 16% dissatisfaction in the CJS survey [6]. The editorial office will continue to try to improve the review process to improve efficiency with new processes implemented such as a reduction in time allowed for reviewers to assess revised manuscripts, reminder emails to late reviewers and faster turnover of declined invites to review. In conclusion, the readership and authors were largely satisfied with the journal but there were areas for improvement such as including surgical tips and techniques and guest editorials or themed issues.
References [1] Hing CB, Smith TO, Hooper L, Song F, Donell ST. A review of how to conduct a surgical survey using a questionnaire. Knee 2011;18:209–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. knee.2010.10.003. [2] Jena D, Ng A, Courtman N, Smith RB. Current attitudes towards cementing in TKR: a national survey amongst members of the BASK. Knee 2005;12:183. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.knee.2004.08.003. [3] Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. Readership #1 With Readers. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2015:2–3. [4] Loder RT, Feinberg JR. Orthopaedic implants in children: survey results regarding routine removal by the pediatric and nonpediatric specialists. J Pediatr Orthop 2006;26:510–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0276-1092(08)70056-7. [5] Klein G, Hussain N, Sprague S, Mehlman CT, Dogbey G, Bhandari M. Characteristics of highly successful orthopedic surgeons: a survey of orthopedic chairs and editors. Can J Surg 2013;56:192–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1503/cjs.017511. [6] Warnock GL. CJS Readership Survey 2009: summary and call for action. Can J Surg 2009;52:452–3. [7] Taylor & Francis Group. Open access author survey; 2014 1–35[http://www.tandf.co. uk/journals/explore/open-access-survey-june2014.pdf (accessed May 29, 2015)]. [8] Editorial. JOSPT 2014 reader research. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014 [http://www. jospt.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1413584879076/2014ReaderSurveyResultsAuthors.pdf (accessed June 8, 2015)]. [9] AAOS Now. AAOS now 2014 readership survey. AAOS Now; 2014[http://www.aaos. org/news/aaosnow/nov14/youraaos7_f1.pdf (accessed May 29, 2015)]. [10] Rankin EA, Jenkins L. 2005 Bulletin readership survey results. AAOS Bull; June 2005. [11] Gould JA. Editorial. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1989;11:93. [12] Rogers C. Readers evaluate Orthopaedic Medical Legal Advisor. AAOS Online Serv Bull 2004:4–5. [13] Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL. A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas 2000;60:821–36. [14] Björk B-C, Solomon D. The publishing delay in scholarly peer reviewed journals. J Informetr 2013:1–25 [In Proof]. [15] Kling R, Swygart-Hobaugh AJ. The internet and the velocity of scholarly journal publishing. Retrieved from https//scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/148; 2002. [Working Pa]. [16] Ross JS, Mocanu M, Lampropulos JF, Tse T, Krumholz HM. Time to publication among completed clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med 2011;173:825–8. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.celrep.2011.1011.1001.7. [17] Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L, Tierney L. Time to publication for results of clinical trials (review). Cochrane Rev 2007:1–13. [18] Biomed Central. BioMed Central Author survey results. Biomed Cent 2014 [http:// www.biomedcentral.com/authors/survey (accessed May 29, 2015)].
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Knee
BASK survey of The Knee readership 2015 Arash Aframian a,⁎, David Sands Johnson b, Caroline Blanca Hing a a b
Trauma & Orthopaedics, St George's Hospital, London SW17 0QT, United Kingdom Trauma & Orthopaedics, Stockport NHS Foundation Trust, Stepping Hill Hospital, Cheshire SK2 7JE, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords: Survey BASK 2015 The Knee Questionnaire
a b s t r a c t A convenience sample of the attendees of the 2015 annual meeting of the British Association of Knee showed that the majority of the attendees who responded read The Knee, would like a section on surgical tips, more themed supplements and guest editorials. There is still not enough support for purely electronic publication. For those that have submitted papers, the experience with the publication process was positive. © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The attendees at the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) meeting 2015 were asked to complete a questionnaire amongst which were questions pertaining to The Knee to facilitate a convenience sample of The Knee readership [1]. The survey was compulsory to be eligible for a certificate for attendance at BASK 2015 ensuring return rates of 79%. Involving the readership in decisions regarding the future content and design of the journal will allow The Knee to remain relevant and appealing. There are several factors to consider, and the BASK meeting provides a good opportunity to obtain feedback from the readership.
2. Material and methods This online survey was sent to the 363 attendees of the BASK 2015 meeting in Telford. The survey was conducted using self-reported electronic questionnaires via the SurveyMonkey.com website, and was a pre-requisite to obtaining an attendance certificate for the conference. The invitation to participate in the survey was distributed via an email list to attendees, with a reminder three weeks later. 3. Results Of the 363, there were 288 respondents (79%), although some questions were skipped by some respondents. The first question asked about the frequency with which members read the journal and revealed that the majority of respondents were occasional readers, with the second most common group being those who read most issues. Less than 10% of the BASK attendees never read The Knee (Fig. 1). Regarding content and presentation of the journal, there was an almost even distribution across the five point scale as to whether the journal should be changed to an electronic only format, with 49% still supporting the retention of print copy whilst 35% supported purely electronic publication (Fig. 2). Eighty-six percent of those surveyed supported a ⁎ Corresponding author at: Trauma & Orthopaedics department, St George's Hospital, London SW17 0QT, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 7966 052 404. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Aframian).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2015.07.001 0968-0160/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
section on surgical tips and techniques. There was overall support for themed supplements and guest editorials, 68% and 59% respectively (Fig. 2). The third question was specific to the paper submission process with largely favourable responses for the process, the majority were mostly good (50% for the publisher and editorial office and 46% for the review process). Only five percent found the review process mediocre, and three percent reported it to be poor. Similarly, six percent reported the editorial office to be mediocre, and only one percent responded that they had a poor experience. By comparison to the other end of the spectrum, there were more than 10 times as many who responded with an excellent experience of the publisher and editorial office (11%), and three times as many found the review process excellent (Fig. 3a, b). There is still an untapped resource for reviewers, with nearly a third wanting to become involved (Fig. 4). The final question related to The Knee was for suggested improvements and generated 38 answers, with 250 skipping this question. Three respondents requested a larger font size, and two suggested further efforts for electronic formats, with encouragement for The Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) to subscribe. There were two calls requesting more work from the UK, and less from overseas. One respondent suggested sections within each issue, such as “Arthroplasty” and “Cartilage” which are already in place within the journal. Some responders asked for instructional and technical tips sections, or discussed issues with submission, editing or the publication processes.
4. Conclusions Although the journal has previously conducted surveys of members they were not specifically looking at content of The Knee, but rather opinion on surgical decisions [2]. This survey represents a new direction for the journal, with input from its readership guiding future journal design. Overall, more than 90% of respondents read the journal, so the results of the questionnaire could be considered a fair representation of The Knee readers. Web based surveys of surgeons & readers have been used elsewhere to assess the target market but not necessarily to shape the content specifically [3–5]. These studies had looked at some different factors as some were more generalised surgical journals [6] and therefore questions also asked about sub-specialty interest. There is perceived bias in some questionnaires, where for example open access publishers ask closed questions about the benefits of open access article publication [7], although this did reveal a disparity between willingness of authors for their work to be cited in non-commercial
444
A. Aframian et al. / The Knee 22 (2015) 443–445
a
I receive the Knee and read every issue 16%
I have never read an article in the Knee 9%
Respondents' experience of the review process Good 46%
I receive the Knee and read most issues 19% I read articles in the Knee sometimes 43%
Excellent 9%
I receive the Knee and read some issues 13%
Poor 3% Satisfactory 37%
Fig. 1. Readership profile of respondents with regard to The Knee.
scenarios rather than where there was gain for others (p = 0.0005). A survey by one journal looked into readers' use of smartphones and tablet devices, presumably to consider planning of electronic media and journal distribution as they also asked about frequency of access of the journal's website, and time spent with the journal each month in detail [8]. The advent of electronic media has enabled the collection of survey data in a cost-effective and efficient way. Surveys published in the literature pertaining to publication processes exist for other societies & journals such as the journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) [9] repeated in 2014 from a previous survey in 2005 [10] and an author survey for publishers, The Taylor & Francis group [7] but neither looked into what their readership wanted in terms of content and future direction. The AAOS readership survey similarly found 91% of respondents read their journal (compared to 90% for The Knee), and that in the two years up to the 2014 survey, there was “a statistically significant increase in the number of readers who read both the print and online versions of AAOS Now” [9]. There was a requirement to complete the survey to obtain an attendance certificate for the BASK conference, a deadline to do so, and a reminder email. By making this survey compulsory to be eligible for the attendance certificate return rates were likely increased and
Mediocre 5%
b Respondents' experience of the publisher / editorial office Excellent 11% Good 50%
Poor 1% Mediocre 6%
Satisfactory 32% Fig. 3. a: BASK attendees' experience of the review process when submitting an article for publication in The Knee. b: BASK attendees' experience of the publisher/editorial process when submitting an article for publication in The Knee.
Not at all Not really
60%
No preference
53%
Somewhat
50%
Very strongly 41%
40%
40%
36% 33% 30%
30%
20%
26% 19%
27%
19% 16% 16%
19% 13%
10% 5% 0%
2%
2%
5% 0%
0% Pure electronic publication of the Knee (no paper copy)
Inclusion of a section on surgical tips / techniques
Increasing the number of themed supplements
Increasing the number of guest editorials
Fig. 2. BASK attendees' interest in new sections/themes for The Knee.
A. Aframian et al. / The Knee 22 (2015) 443–445
Already a reviewer 11%
Yes 32%
No 57%
Fig. 4. Interest amongst BASK attendees in becoming a reviewer for The Knee.
the reminder email will have further helped in achieving the 79% return rate. Published response rates can vary greatly (0.25%–70%) [6,11–13]. It is assumed that this survey benefited from the pre-requisite requirement of completion for certificate of attendance at the conference, helping to contribute to the excellent response rate. The use of a deadline has not been shown to increase return rates, but does increase the speed of response [1]. The Canadian Journal of Surgery (CJS) found that “42% of respondents stated that they would not continue to read the journal if it was provided online only”. In addition, the survey asked respondents to rate each section of the journal, finding different values assigned by the readership can help to guide future paper selection when reviewing and journal content has reportedly been changed as a result. Their survey revealed that there was strong interest in a section reporting ‘hot topics’ in the field and also ‘highlights’ from national meetings. They also asked specifically about the ‘attractiveness’ of the journal to which to submit papers, rather than just about the experience when doing so, though it is likely to have a strong correlation [6]. Although opinion is still divided, there is a greater proportion of respondents opting for electronic only format for The Knee than seen in other comparable surveys, where only 6.7% preferred an electronic only journal for the CJS [6]. There was issue with dissatisfaction with time to publication, but this is a recognised phenomenon with peer-reviewed journals as there are several steps in the review process to ensure the journals' quality standards are maintained in terms of content and scientific interest, as well as factual information and analysis of results with appropriate statistical methodology. Previous studies have shown that time from abstract submission to publication can vary from nine to 18 months with an average of 9.47 months for “biomedicine” journals [14] and referenced previous papers with times as much as two years to publish
445
in Economics & Management journals [15]. Time for publication of clinical trials is even longer, ranging from four to eight years [16,17]. Improved satisfaction rates are important as this can influence choice of journal authors choose for submission, with 18% citing this as a reason for further article submission in one publisher's survey [18]. Similar issues are reported by the CJS in their readership survey [6], with concerns that this may have an impact on submissions [6]. The number who found the review process poor was low at less than three percent, compared to published data with 16% dissatisfaction in the CJS survey [6]. The editorial office will continue to try to improve the review process to improve efficiency with new processes implemented such as a reduction in time allowed for reviewers to assess revised manuscripts, reminder emails to late reviewers and faster turnover of declined invites to review. In conclusion, the readership and authors were largely satisfied with the journal but there were areas for improvement such as including surgical tips and techniques and guest editorials or themed issues.
References [1] Hing CB, Smith TO, Hooper L, Song F, Donell ST. A review of how to conduct a surgical survey using a questionnaire. Knee 2011;18:209–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. knee.2010.10.003. [2] Jena D, Ng A, Courtman N, Smith RB. Current attitudes towards cementing in TKR: a national survey amongst members of the BASK. Knee 2005;12:183. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.knee.2004.08.003. [3] Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. Readership #1 With Readers. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2015:2–3. [4] Loder RT, Feinberg JR. Orthopaedic implants in children: survey results regarding routine removal by the pediatric and nonpediatric specialists. J Pediatr Orthop 2006;26:510–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0276-1092(08)70056-7. [5] Klein G, Hussain N, Sprague S, Mehlman CT, Dogbey G, Bhandari M. Characteristics of highly successful orthopedic surgeons: a survey of orthopedic chairs and editors. Can J Surg 2013;56:192–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1503/cjs.017511. [6] Warnock GL. CJS Readership Survey 2009: summary and call for action. Can J Surg 2009;52:452–3. [7] Taylor & Francis Group. Open access author survey; 2014 1–35[http://www.tandf.co. uk/journals/explore/open-access-survey-june2014.pdf (accessed May 29, 2015)]. [8] Editorial. JOSPT 2014 reader research. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014 [http://www. jospt.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1413584879076/2014ReaderSurveyResultsAuthors.pdf (accessed June 8, 2015)]. [9] AAOS Now. AAOS now 2014 readership survey. AAOS Now; 2014[http://www.aaos. org/news/aaosnow/nov14/youraaos7_f1.pdf (accessed May 29, 2015)]. [10] Rankin EA, Jenkins L. 2005 Bulletin readership survey results. AAOS Bull; June 2005. [11] Gould JA. Editorial. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1989;11:93. [12] Rogers C. Readers evaluate Orthopaedic Medical Legal Advisor. AAOS Online Serv Bull 2004:4–5. [13] Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL. A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas 2000;60:821–36. [14] Björk B-C, Solomon D. The publishing delay in scholarly peer reviewed journals. J Informetr 2013:1–25 [In Proof]. [15] Kling R, Swygart-Hobaugh AJ. The internet and the velocity of scholarly journal publishing. Retrieved from https//scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/148; 2002. [Working Pa]. [16] Ross JS, Mocanu M, Lampropulos JF, Tse T, Krumholz HM. Time to publication among completed clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med 2011;173:825–8. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.celrep.2011.1011.1001.7. [17] Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L, Tierney L. Time to publication for results of clinical trials (review). Cochrane Rev 2007:1–13. [18] Biomed Central. BioMed Central Author survey results. Biomed Cent 2014 [http:// www.biomedcentral.com/authors/survey (accessed May 29, 2015)].
