The desire to publish one’s research cuts across all scientific fields. Whatever the recipe for one’s motivations: 1 teaspoon promotion, 3/4 cup tenure, 2 tablespoons salary, 1/4 cup communication, and a dash of enlightenment, researchers primarily rely on specialty journals to accomplish their publication goals. And in a relatively recent trend, they are increasingly turning toward online versions of specialty print journals to accelerate the publication process.

This concentration by discipline coincides with the observation that while Nature, Science and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) enjoy widespread readership, researchers primarily read journals that focus on their narrow area of research.

“Researchers are attracted to the “prestige-factor” of a particular journal, which is assessed both by its impact factor and reputation,” observes Zemlo. The primary attraction of the online versions of print journals is their immediacy: an overwhelming 88% of researchers want peer-reviewed articles posted online before the print version appears.

Although a newer format, the future of the online versions of print journals appears to be secure. In fact, about 25% of the researchers indicated that it was “not at all” important to receive the print edition of a journal if they have access to the online version. Additionally, increasing use of online resources in recent years has lessened the importance of promoting new online journals in paper journals; instead, respondents typically learn about new journals through references in other articles or by searching the Internet for articles on a certain topic.

While there appears to be increasing acceptance of the online versions of print journals by the scientific and medical communities, researchers indicated that the specific features unique to online journals can potentially be improved. Overall, 50% of researchers are highly satisfied with the additional information and search features of online journals. In contrast, 75% of researchers are highly satisfied with the content of online journals.

Notwithstanding their affinity for electronic publishing, scientists and clinicians do not want cost to constrain their ability to publish papers or review others’ work. Researchers indicated that fees related to these services should be nominal (less than $5/page). This value-consciousness influences scientists’ opinions regarding the open access publishing system where there was a negative bias towards authors’ fees. However despite these objections, fees are not a key determinant for authors when deciding where to submit their papers. This perception also holds true for how they access information. For instance, the acceptance of pay-per-view is growing–from 4% of researchers in a 2001 electronic journals study to 18% in this study.