The Editors’ Update Readership Survey was intended to gauge editor interest and satisfaction with the publication, as well as to generate ideas for further improvement. While responses to the survey were varied, respondents offered a variety of suggestions in three primary areas: saving time, ease of use and subjects of real interest to you, our readers.

“It was no surprise that editors are seeking ways to save time,” says Paul Evans, Senior Vice President of Publishing and Research Relations. “We recognize how busy editors are, and appreciate their desire to save time whenever they can. That’s why the shorter, summarized email alert emerged as the favorite feature of the publication.”

Although time is certainly at a premium for most of our editors, many take the time to view the online version of the newsletter. In fact, of the 81% of respondents that read EU at least occasionally, more than two-thirds of that number read the online publication quarterly, when each new issue comes out. “Of those respondents who don’t read it every quarter, 51% said they ‘don’t have time’ to do so,” Evans says.

“This is an idea that we struggle with in the publication, because we want the information to be complete and substantial, but realize the longer article format can be time-consuming. We’re exploring ways to balance substantive information with quicker accessibility,” he continues. Changes to the web version of the newsletter and improvements to navigation were among the ideas suggested. These are already being explored.

The voices of your colleagues
No less than 76% of respondents indicated an interest in hearing directly from fellow editors. Whether through sharing experiences, communicating best practices, or offering tips for finding good reviewers, many readers want the information straight from the source.

“We were, however, surprised to learn that editors don’t want this information communicated through blogs. Only about 1/5 of respondents had an interest in seeing blogs included in the newsletter,” Evans continues. “This begs the question: what formats do editors prefer to use when communicating with other editors? Which types of technological tools work best for this group?”

In the meantime, the publication’s editorial board is exploring possibilities for close editor involvement in the newsletter, including ‘guest contributions’ from editors, discussion panels or ‘Ask the Editor’ feedback sections. Possibilities will be explored for feasibility, effectiveness and desired outcome, and conclusions for improving the communication medium will follow. Discussions are already underway.

Seeking support
Among the topics that respondents felt needed more coverage, articles about editor and reviewer support and helpful hints for finding reviewers were top of mind. In addition, some attention to issues of h-index and impact factor scores was also mentioned, as well as issues of ethics and language polishing. In general, there seemed to be a preference for a focus on more material of a practical nature, to directly assist with the role of the editor.

Listening and responding
Elsevier is constantly exploring ways to improve communication with our editors, in general. This includes Editors’ Update and similar publications, as well as the editor conferences and other services that are designed to serve the needs of this valued group.

“In order to improve and expand our relationship with editors, we must truly partner with them directly,” Evans says. “We aim to do more to ensure we are listening and responding to the needs of the group, and providing the best support we possibly can. We welcome further input.”

Evans is hopeful that more EU readers will choose to include their input into the mix. “We’re now entering discussions to further review how we can improve the publication. These include changing the length, style, layout and content or subject matter of the articles. If editors feel strongly about certain aspects of the publication, or if they are eager to see specific changes, now is the time to respond. After all, editors are our best, and most important, source for information on improving communication between Elsevier and editors. We need to know what you want, so that we can try to provide it to you in a way that is useful in your busy schedules.”

If you have additional suggestions input, comments or questions, please send an email to editorsupdate2@elsevier.com, and we will be sure to include them in our ongoing review.

“We would also like to thank those editors who took the time to fill out the survey. We realize that you are all extremely busy, and we appreciate your effort to communicate with us,” Evans concludes. “It is only through your feedback that we’ll be able to address the issues of most importance to you. I assure you, we’re listening. ”

To cite this article, please use: “Forum Results”, Elsevier Editors’ Update, Issue 26, May 2009