The Elsevier Author Feedback Programme

Discover how authors are shaping our services

Since 1999, we have been running the Author Feedback Programme, a continuous survey of authors' experience of publishing with us.

How does it work?
Corresponding authors of recently published articles are invited to answer questions concerning their publishing experience, providing insight into what authors think about the journal and support they receive. Click here to see the statements that authors are invited to rate.

Over 50,000 authors complete the survey each year!

Recent Results

Percentage of Authors who are satisfied in the following areas*

Refereeing Speed


Production Speed


Refereeing Standard


Editor/Editorial Board


Journal Reputation


Publishing Services


Impact Factor


Final Quality




* Based on 50,987 responses received between 1st Jan and 31 Dec 2014

One of the questions we ask authors is “Why would you recommend this journal to your peers?” Answers in 2014 have included:

  • “Easy and quick, no significant red-tape despite the fact that this is a very influential and big journal.”
    (Author on Applied Geography from Australia aged Under 26)
  • “Extremely high qualifications and competence of the reviewers and high quality of the editorial work, constructive and well-intentioned remarks of the reviewers, rapid decision to publish the article after rectification of the deficiencies.”
    (Author on Annals of Nuclear Energy from Bulgaria aged 46-55)
  • “Geoderma is one of the most important journals in the field of soil sciences (including soil mineralogy).”
    (Author on Geoderma from Poland aged 36-45)
  • “Rapid speed of reviewing and good advices on our study.”
    (Author on Journal of Ethnopharmacology from China aged 46-55)
  • “Quick review progress and constructive comments.”
    (Author on Spectrochimica Acta A: Molecular Spectr. from China aged 36-45)
  • “Very well respected status of this journal among scientists dealing with sensors, hi-quality articles that I want refer to, very good impact factor.”
    (Author on Sensors and Actuators B:Chemical from Slovakia aged 26-35)
  • “High reputation of the journal; - Good level of reviewers' knowledge in my field of research; - Good work of the editorial board.”
    (Author on Chemical Engineering Science from Russian Federation aged Over 65)
  • “The Editor managed the paper very well. I was given the opportunity to significantly improve the paper.”
    (Author on Economics Letters from United States aged 36-45)
  • “Satisfied with overall review process.”
    (Author on Neurocomputing from Australia aged 26-35)
  • “1. Fast response. 2. Very professional way of managing the submitted articles.”
    (Author on Marine Pollution Bulletin from Malaysia aged 46-55)
  • “Very smooth process all way through submission of a manuscript to acceptance and publication.”
    (Author on Tetrahedron Letters from Japan aged 36-45)

Listening to authors

We take all the feedback we receive, whether via this program or during our direct interactions with authors, very seriously and many of our initiatives to improve our services to authors come from listening to them. Here are just a few recent examples:

Improving reviewing time

“The review process was very slow, almost six months.”
(Author on Chemosphere from Finland aged 26-35)

“Great journal. Review time (18 months or so) is a major deterrent for tenure-track faculty. I would recommend because it is a great journal, but only to those who have a paper for which major delays do not matter.”
(Author on Energy Economics from United States aged 26-35)

20 percent of authors who responded to the survey have identified reviewing speed as an issue. We understand these concerns and are constantly investigating and trialling new workflows to improve the overall speed of the reviewing process.

For example we are running a trial looking at the outcome of shortening reviewing deadlines.  In the interest of transparency, we also make public the average reviewing and production time for our journals, which can be found, together with other metrics, in the “Journal Insights” section on the journal homepage.

We have also launched The Elsevier’s Reviewer Recognition Program which aims to engage reviewers and reward them for the work they do. The Program features several projects and experiments, such as the Reviewer Recognition Platform

Sharing Research

“After publishing a paper, even authors were not able to access their own research article.”
(Author on Catalysis Communications from India aged 36-45)

We understand the frustration of authors who are unable to access their own articles or share them with their community. In 2014, we launched Share Link, a new service which sends authors a customized link to their newly published article which they can freely share and post for 50 days after publication.

Publishing Open Access

“Elsevier offers standard guidelines, but it is sometimes difficult to find the specific guidelines for the separate journals. For example, I had difficulties finding information on the open access policy (will papers become freely available 1 year after publication?)”
(Author on Gynecologic Oncology from Netherlands aged 26-35)

All the information about publishing open access in a journal, including the embargo period, now appears on the journal page under the Support Open Access link. Authors can also found generic information about sharing their article on our website.