(Figure 1 - 16k)
(Figure 1 Legend - 16k)
The responses to each survey question are summarized on page 9. A total of 105 surveys were returned, 61 from Directors, 39 from Associates, and 5 from Corporate Sponsors. Although this response was larger than anticipated, it was considerably smaller than the responses for the two most recent surveys conducted by the Survey Committee: 323 responses were received to the 1994 survey on compensation sent to all ABRF members, and 210 responded to the 1995 survey on instrumentation sent to Directors only. Newsletter survey respondents have been ABRF members for an average of 4 years. Nearly all (82%) work in facilities that provide peptide and protein services; nucleic acids services are provided by 41%, and carbohydrate analysis services by 12%.
The most frequently read newsletter features are Tips Articles, News and Notices, and Methods and Reviews articles: 75 to 80 of the 105 respondents indicated they always read these features. The Training and Workshop Course Announcements, Classified Advertisements, and the Dates-to-Remember features are used less frequently and were the only features to have more responses in the "sometimes read" than "always read" category.
The survey requested that the readership rank each newsletter feature according to its perceived importance. However, 35 respondents completed this section of the survey incorrectly by giving the same ranking to more than one newsletter feature: their responses were omitted during analysis of this section. The remaining 70 responses were used to generate "rank scores", where 70 represents the most important feature (all respondents assigning a ranking of 1) and 700 represents the least important feature (all assigning a ranking of 10). The rank scores for each feature are plotted in Figure 1.
(Figure 1 - 16k)
(Figure 1 Legend - 16k)
As expected, the four newsletter features addressing specific scientific topics were highly ranked, along with News and Notices features, which communicate the activities of the Association.
The remaining survey questions addressed satisfaction with current editorial policies, newsletter layout, and size and were overwhelmingly positive.
We are grateful to all members who responded to the survey and who provided detailed comments on how the newsletter can be improved. We also appreciate the Survey Committee's help drafting the survey and collecting and analyzing the responses.
These are some of the responses received to "Please comment on how the newsletter could be improved":
- If it gets too big, then I probably won't have time to read it.
- This is one of the most informative and useful publications I receive. I use it as a teaching tool to introduce junior staff to analytical issues. Please stay practical and devoted to applications, don't get too theoretical.
- You're my lifeline! I work with two people who would really rather not be here and I can get a jolt of energy if I read the E-mail discussions or the newsletter. Thanks!
- Less "chat" and more news, more methods, more advice on how-to.
- Better typography and layout--need more white space.
- Put the detailed results of ABRF workshops here, not in Protein Science. Consider a new journal, Practical Protein Analysis, for real nitty-gritty of actually working with samples.
- It has a very sterile, institutional look; like something the Army would produce. The graphical presentation could be modernized.
Part A of the ABRF News Survey Summary (16K)
Part B of the ABRF News Survey Summary (16K)
Return to the The ABRF Home Page