1. Are you a member of ABRF?
 Response PercentResponse Total
  Yes
84%252
  No
16%48
Total Respondents  300
(skipped this question)  0
2. A) Do you read or examine portions of JBT?
 Response PercentResponse Total
  often
48%135
  sometimes
47.3%133
  never
4.6%13
Total Respondents  281
(skipped this question)  19
3. B) Do you find JBT articles useful?
 Response PercentResponse Total
  often
28.7%79
  sometimes
67.6%186
  never
3.6%10
Total Respondents  275
(skipped this question)  25
4. C) Have you recommended a JBT research article to a colleague?
 Response PercentResponse Total
  yes
64.3%178
  no
35.7%99
Total Respondents  277
(skipped this question)  23
5. D) Have you cited a JBT research article in a publication?
 Response PercentResponse Total
  yes
17.9%49
  no
82.1%224
Total Respondents  273
(skipped this question)  27
6. E) Will you consider publishing a methods paper in JBT in the near term?
 Response PercentResponse Total
  yes
25.3%70
  no
12.6%35
  maybe
49.5%137
  not applicable
12.6%35
Total Respondents  277
(skipped this question)  23
7. A) The frequency of JBT issuance (quarterly) has a negative effect?
 Response PercentResponse Total
  agree
16.1%44
  disagree
50%137
  no opinion
33.9%93
Total Respondents  274
(skipped this question)  26
8. B) Inconsistency of JBT delivery (skipped issues) has a negative effect?
 Response PercentResponse Total
  agree
53.3%145
  disagree
24.6%67
  no opinion
22.1%60
Total Respondents  272
(skipped this question)  28
9. C) A fully electronic version (no hardcopy) of JBT would be preferable?
 Response PercentResponse Total
  agree
40.1%110
  disagree
42.7%117
  no opinion
17.2%47
Total Respondents  274
(skipped this question)  26
10. D) Emailing the current JBT table of contents to ABRF members would be useful/welcome?
 Response PercentResponse Total
  agree
75.4%205
  disagree
11.8%32
  no opinion
12.9%35
Total Respondents  272
(skipped this question)  28
11. A) Relevance to my work:
JBT is BetterJBT is SimilarJBT is WorseNo OpinionResponse Average
Analytical Chemistry
9% (22)25% (59)27% (65)38% (91)2.95
Analytical Biochemistry
11% (25)39% (93)14% (34)36% (85)2.76
Journal of Proteome Research
5% (12)26% (61)22% (52)47% (113)3.12
Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry
9% (22)23% (54)18% (42)50% (116)3.08
Electrophoresis
12% (29)26% (62)12% (29)49% (116)2.98
J. Chromatography
11% (26)24% (56)12% (28)53% (122)3.06
Nature Methods
10% (24)28% (65)33% (77)29% (69)2.81
Biotechniques
35% (85)38% (91)11% (26)16% (39)2.08
Total Respondents  244
(skipped this question)  56
12. B) Scholarly quality of articles:
JBT is BetterJBT is SimilarJBT is Worseno opinionResponse Average
Analytical Chemistry
1% (3)31% (73)27% (63)41% (95)3.07
Analytical Biochemistry
3% (8)42% (99)14% (33)40% (93)2.91
Journal of Proteome Research
2% (4)27% (63)20% (45)51% (118)3.20
Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry
7% (16)28% (64)11% (26)54% (126)3.13
Electrophoresis
3% (8)34% (78)11% (25)52% (119)3.11
J. Chromatography
6% (13)35% (81)6% (13)53% (123)3.07
Nature Methods
2% (5)30% (70)34% (79)34% (78)2.99
Biotechniques
30% (71)46% (109)3% (8)21% (50)2.16
Total Respondents  239
(skipped this question)  61
13. C) Standard/Consistency of Manuscript Reviewing Process:
JBT is BetterJBT is SimilarJBT is Worseno opinionResponse Average
Analytical Chemistry
1% (3)17% (40)7% (16)74% (172)3.55
Analytical Biochemistry
2% (4)18% (41)4% (9)77% (177)3.55
Journal of Proteome Research
1% (2)15% (34)5% (11)80% (184)3.63
Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry
2% (4)15% (34)5% (11)79% (181)3.60
Electrophoresis
1% (3)14% (32)5% (12)80% (183)3.63
J. Chromatography
2% (4)16% (37)3% (8)79% (181)3.59
Nature Methods
2% (4)13% (30)10% (23)75% (175)3.59
Biotechniques
9% (21)21% (50)2% (5)68% (158)3.28
Total Respondents  234
(skipped this question)  66
14. How important is JBT as an ABRF activity?
 Response PercentResponse Total
  critical/essential
24.6%61
  useful
60.9%151
  unimportant and should be dropped
6.9%17
  no opinion
7.7%19
Total Respondents  248
(skipped this question)  52
15. I feel that JBT’s focus on providing method-oriented papers and ABRF news is correct.
 Response PercentResponse Total
  agree
92.7%227
  disagree
1.2%3
  no opinion
6.1%15
Total Respondents  245
(skipped this question)  55
16. If you had to pay for the journal, what yearly subscription rate would you feel is reasonable? (note: currently ABRF members receive the journal as part of their membership package)
 Response PercentResponse Total
  $80-100
4.9%12
  $60-80
10.6%26
  $30-50
31.7%78
  $10-20
12.2%30
  I wouldn’t pay for it
40.7%100
Total Respondents  246
(skipped this question)  54
17. How are you alerted to current scientific literature? Please check all that apply.
 Response PercentResponse Total
 I read the “Article Watch” section in JBT.
43.9%104
 Journal(s) received as personal subscription (not necessarily yours).
54.4%129
 I view hard copies of journals in a library/reading room/common area.
19.4%46
 I access journals on-line.
78.9%187
 I receive tables of contents electronically distributed by a publisher or library.
36.7%87
 I receive keyword search results electronically distributed by an in-house or library service.
20.7%49
 I rely on bibliographic indexing services e.g., Current Contents, Scifinder, SPS digest, J. Mass Spectrometry’s “Current Awareness” Column, etc.
23.6%56
Total Respondents  237
(skipped this question)  63
18. Additional Comments on JBT (All comments welcome!)
 Total Respondents  
54
(skipped this question)  246