All 3 entries tagged Feedback

A Positive Experience with a Highly Regarded Journal: Author Feedback Review

It’s important to listen to contributors, and in this piece, the EIC reviews the formal author feedback from the past three years.

• [I approached the journal because] A colleague spoke highly of the process and the journal's reputation. (author #1, feedback)

For many years now, we’ve asked every author who’s published in Exchanges to tell us about how they found the experience. Not all of them take up the offer, but many do, and I’m deeply grateful to each one for the thoughts they have shared. In fact, over the past three years[1] fully 53% of all authors have taken the time to reflect on publishing with us via our online survey form. As a result, it has been possible to create a snapshot of the journal’s perceptions within its core contributing community, along with a evaluative account of their experiences within the editorial journey. I recently collated and analysed the feedback for 2020-2022, and I have to say the result was wonderful! I certainly was not expecting the comments to be quite as positive as they were.

• I was rejected by three discipline-specific journals, but realise actually that the interdisciplinary nature of my article made Exchanges perfect, and I was reassured by the positive, constructive and professional response to my informal query and the emphasis on ECRs (author #2, feedback)

What these results principally demonstrate is how Exchanges, its EIC and editorial team, along with its present operational ethos are all strongly valued by our contributing authors. Interestingly, the journal’s operational transparency, interdisciplinary remit and editorial regime were all stressed as particular highlights by authors. This is fantastic, as I would personally point to all three of these as specific strengths or perhaps unique selling points Exchanges offers to its current and potential authorial community. Even more gratifying, in response to questions about how we could improve, almost 70% of all those responding either said ‘nothing’ or took the opportunity to offer further praise for the journal and team. While I am proud of the journal and all my editorial colleagues, I was really not expecting to come in for such (all-but) universal praise in this part of the survey. Tea and medals all-around, I think!

• I have no inhibitions in saying that out of the 6 peer-reviewed publications, and the 9 rejections (including an initial editorial rejection) I have had, Exchanges has been the most author-friendly experience by quite a margin. (author #3, feedback)

Seriously though, there were a few minor areas of unsatisfied technical or procedural development identified. I am not surprised, as the chief editor I am more than aware of many aspects of the journal, our hosting platform or even our operational protocols which could benefit from a re-examination. Certainly, for example, some authors felt the duration of review or time taken to obtain feedback could have been better. I would agree, my desire is always for speedy, but quality assured, reviewing. However, I must counter how from an editorial and reviewer standpoint, onboarding reviewers who are knowledgeable and willing to contribute their insights is never an easy task for my editors. Indeed, I’ve heard from other, larger and (dare I say it) more major journal editors how they face exactly the same problem.[2] So, while I appreciate this point, I fear it is more of a universal issue with reviewing than simply our title’s approach.

• The journal seemed very welcoming to early-career researchers and researchers who were looking to publish their first article. The interdisciplinary nature also aligned with my research and the article’s content. (author #4, feedback)

Beyond their concerns, we also asked what journal authors would like to see developed by Exchanges in terms of services, options or features. More themed special issues or calls for papers were the aspects with most uniform degree of high interest, which is gratifying. I really relish working with colleagues on special issues – as editorial leads and associate editors alike, it really helps us deliver on our title’s missions. Altmetrics and the ability for readers to comment on articles followed in importance, which considering we introduced the former last year is gratifying. I remain conflicted as to the latter – personally I delight in the discourse on and around publications, but I am concerned how much monitoring or even active policing this might be on the platform.[3] Certainly, it is an interesting option but I’m not seeing a groundswell of demand for it yet. Conversely, where there was more limited interest was in terms of hard copies of the journal – which is a relief, as arranging print production is not that straightforward an endeavour. Very limited interest in multimedia abstracts appeared too, so I won’t be focussing on these any time soon either.

• I've had a positive experience and fair and strict treatment here before, so I enjoy submitting here now. (author #5, feedback)

So, going on what does the outcome of this feedback review mean for the journal? Well, in part it will drive an update and refresh of the survey instrument to reflect the last three years of development for the title. It also underscores the importance for increasing the visibility and breadth within our potential contributing community. I strongly suspect there are many, many authors who would greatly value discovering Exchanges, but how and where we reach them has always been a challenge. I’m happy to report I’m talking actively with the IAS itself and fellow journal editors at Warwick about just how we raise our collective heads further above the parapet. The message here is clear: publishing with Exchanges is an excellent authorial experience…but you just need to know we exist first!

---

My thanks to all the editors, associate editors, reviewers and authors[4] who have worked so hard to make the journal the successful experience it has been, and I would hope continues to be.

---

Endnotes

• [1] That would be for all issues published 2020-2022, or 7 journals in total.
• [2] I suspect the recent UCU industrial action will not have helped matters – and that’s before you factor in the challenging work regime faced by so many of our colleagues.
• [3] Let alone running through any legal liability this might open the journal to.
• [4] Especially those who took the time to complete the feedback!

Gareth Johnson : 07 Mar 2023 10:00 |  Tags: Analysis Author Feedback Metrics Perceptions Reflection Report |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Announcing the Exchanges Reader Survey 2022

Writing about web page https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/exchanges/announcement/view/37

As revealed in the recent Volume 9(2), Exchangesis delighted to announce the launch of our first ever readers’ survey, tied in to the progress towards our tenth anniversary issue in late 2023.

Hence, the Editor-in-Chief, and Editorial Board, would like to strongly encourage our readership, and indeed anyone with an interest in the title, to offer some insights into what they most value and desire from the journal. The survey is, by necessity and efficacy, a brief and anonymous instrument which should take 2-3 minutes to complete at most.

To participate in the survey – please follow the link below:

• gle/JpdGjxU8EsYpCNxy6

Should you experience any issues - be they local security measures or simple accessibility - with being able to access or respond via this form, then please contact me directlyand I will provide an alternative format.

Thank you in advance for your comments as you will undoubtably help us in shaping our own direction of travel and aspirations for the nextten years of Exchanges!

The survey will run throughout the next month or so, closing on or around Friday 17thJune 2022.

Gareth Johnson : 05 May 2022 09:48 |  Tags: Feedback Journal Readers Survey |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

All this, and a new logo too

Writing about web page https://anchor.fm/exchangesias

Lovely to hear back from one of our recent Exchanges Discourse podcast guests that their episode's been getting a lot of traction among their peers and colleagues.

'Just thought I'd share that this podcast [episode] received one of the most views on my LinkedIn page after I posted it on my feed'

I will confess our two recent episodes were among some of the most enjoyable and informative it's been my pleasure to host. Possibly slightly due to the fact that I've reworked the questioning structure that we use to shape each show, but mainly I would agree due to the generosity and sparkle of our guests themselves. Fingers crossed our future guests can keep this high standard up!

On the back of these recordings going live though, I decided the time was due for a light refresh of the podcast's branding. We've had the same default logo based on the cover of an old issue of Exchanges since we launched in mid-2020. I had also been reading an article from our hosting site about improving your podcast's impact with its audience by keeping your descriptive text brief, on point and engaging. So in case you hadn't had a chance yet to visit us yet - here's what the new logo looks like.

Click on it to visit the podcast site and you'll be able to read the updated mission statement/description too. (also available on Spotify).

Gareth Johnson : 03 Mar 2022 09:21 |  Tags: Branding Feedback Logo Podcast Updates |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem