mdpi experience survey results introduction

MDPIExperienceSurveyResults

IntroductionThisreportpresentsthefindingsofashortsurveyconductedofexperiencesofMDPIjournals.ThesurveywasdisseminatedbyTwitterinearlyApril2021,andreceived1168usableresponses.ItshouldbereadinconjunctionwithsomeblogpostsandjournalarticleswrittenonMDPI’sgrowth,bymyself(here),andasecondbyChristosPetroufortheScholarlyKitchenandbyPaoloCrosetto(here)Thisreportpresentsthemethods,andthehealthwarningtheseentail(thispage)andthedataanalysisIused(thenext).Iprovideadescriptionofrespondentswhotookpartonpages3-4.TheanalysispresentsrespondentsviewsaboutMDPI’scommunicationsandcomparesresponsesaccordingtorespondents’priorandplannedengagementswithMDPI(page4-5).OnthebasisoftheseengagementsIproposefivecategoriesofexperience,rangingfromHostiletoEnthusiastic,allofwhicharewellrepresentedamongtherespondents(page7).Ithenexplorepatternsinthosegroupingswithrespecttodiscipline,careerstage,institutionandlanguage.Ithenexaminepatternsinthebrandassociationsofthesegroupings(10),andaddtotheseinsightsfromthequalitativecommentsofsomerespondents(570)whotookthetimetoprovidethem(page13).FinallyIpresentsomepreliminaryobservationsabouthowthesedatamightbeinterpreted(page15).MethodsandaHealthWarningIcreatedashortsurveyinGoogleForms(showninAppendixOne,page18)thatcouldbecompletedinlessthanthreeminutes,thatexploredrespondents’previousengagementswithMDPI,theirintentionswithrespecttofutureengagements,theirexperienceofcommunicationsfromMDPI,andtheirviewsaboutthereputationofMDPIasawhole.ThesurveywasscrutinisedbyresearchethicsreviewproceduresattheUniversityofSheffieldbeforebeingreleased.IthendisseminatedthesurveyusingTwitterfrom1stApril.Itweetedit,requestedcontactstoretweet,andrepliedtotweetswhichmentionedMDPIaskingpeopletocompletethesurvey(from25thMarchto6thAprilandon9th-10thApril).IalsopostedlinkstoitontwoblogsthatIhavewrittenaboutMDPIthatreceiveoverahundredweeklyvisits.ThesurveycirculatedwidelyonTwitter(over350retweets,Figure1)andinterestinitwassuchthatMDPIalsochosetopromotethesurveyfrom8thAprilontheirLinkedandFacebookpagesandonTwitter.Iclosedthesurveyon11thApril.Thelimitationsofthissurveyarediscussedindetailattheendofthedocument.SufficetosayherethatTwittermentionsofMDPItendeithertobecomplaintsorqueriesaboutthecompany,peoplecelebratingthepublicationofpapers,orpeopleappealingforpapersintheSpecialIssuesthattheyareediting.ThereforetargetingthesegroupsonTwitterislikelytobringpolarisedresponses.Howeverthedatasuggestthatextensiveretweetingbypeopletotheirnetworksclearlybroughtinanumberofmoreambivalentrespondents.

reviewer

Highlight

https://paolocrosetto.wordpress.com/2021/04/12/is-mdpi-a-predatory-publisher/

reviewer

Highlight

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/08/10/guest-post-mdpis-remarkable-growth/

reviewer

Highlight

https://danbrockington.com/2021/03/29/mdpi-experience-survey-3-mins-completion/

2

Thesemethodsplaceconstraintsonthewiderrelevanceofthesample.Inthefirstinstanceacademicswhoarenotontwitterareunlikelytohavetakenpart.Inthesecond,whileIhavestrongresponsesfromnaturalandsocialscientists(inwhichIamwell-networked),medics,engineersandthehumanitiesarelesswellrepresented.Asweshallsee,thelatterthreegroupstendtohaveadifferent,andbetter,opinionaboutMDPIthantheformertwo.Figure1:TweetImpressionsofSurveyDissemination

Ithereforecautionagainstextrapolatingfromthissurveytoconclude,forexample,thatX%ofacademicslikeordon’tlikeMDPIjournals.Mymethodsdonotallowthatsortofgeneralisationbecausewecannotreliablyweightthesample.Itisanywayunhelpful,asoneofthemainfindingsisthatMDPIjournal’sreputationsvarybetweendisciplines.Howeverthissurveycanexplorewhatdifferentsetsofviewsmightexistandwhatsortofrespondentsholdthesedifferentviews.AsIwillshowbelow,IamabletoidentifygroupsofpeoplewhoenjoyengagingwithMDPI,whohaveengagedwithMDPIinthepastandnolongerwanttodoso,andthosewhodonotwanttoengagewiththematall.Furthersurveyworkwouldberequiredtoexplorehowtypicalthesepatternsareoftheresearchcommunitymoregenerally,andhowtheyaregrowingordecliningamongdifferentdisciplines.DataAnalysisThesurveycollectedinformationonrespondents’careerstage,institutionandcountryofinstitution.ItaskedabouttheirpastengagementswithMDPI,andplannedfutureengagements.Itaskedthemaboutwhatcommunicationstheyhadreceivedfromthejournals.ItaskedthemabouttheirperceivedassociationsbetweenMDPI’sbrandand9keywords.Finallyitgaveanoptionofenteringfreetextcomments.RawanswerstothemainsurveyquestionsarepresentedinaseriesofgraphsinAppendixTwo(page21).IanalysedthedatausingExcelandSPSS.Icleanedthemtoremovesubstantiallyincomplete,andexactlyduplicated,responses.Respondents’countrieswereallocatedtoRegions.Institutionswereallocatedarank(1-100,101-200etc)accordingtothe2020QSUniversityrankings.AsignificantminorityofrespondentswerepartofinstitutionsthatwerenotpartoftheQSrankings.Thisdoesnotmeanthattheseareweakresearchinstitutions.ForexampletheZoologicalSocietyinLondon,USGeologicalSurveyand

reviewer

Highlight

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2021

3

CentreNationaldelaRechercheScientifiqueinFranceareallunrankedintheQSlistings,butdoexcellentresearch.IfrespondentsfromthoseinstitutionshadansweredbysurveythentheywouldappearasoutsidetheUniversitysystem.IcreatedindicesofpreviousandfutureengagementwithMDPI.Ialsoproduceda‘CommunicationAppreciationIndex’,creatingasinglescorefromrespondents’reactionstoinvitationsthattheyhavereceivedfromMDPIjournals.Thesurveydidnotenquireaboutthefrequencyofinteractions(howmanyemailsreceived,reviewsundertaken,paperssubmitted)oraboutwhentheseinteractionstookplace.Measuresofengagementandcommunicationarethereforeameasureofthevarietyofengagementsundertakenandcommunicationsreceived,nottheirintensity.FinallyIcreatedabrandscore,byconvertingrespondents’viewsabouttheassociationofMDPI’sbrandwithparticularwordsintoasinglenumber.The‘brandscores’thisgeneratesarenotageneralassessmentofMDPIbrand,astherewerediverseaspectsofthebrandwhichwerenotmentionedinmysurvey(forexampleassociationswithwordslike‘Speed’,‘Breadth’,‘Diversity’,‘Basic’or‘Responsive’etc).MysurveyfocussedonspecificdimensionsthatIbelievedtobecontestedandthatIwishedtoexplore.Datacollectedforthissurveyareavailablehere.DetailsofallindexcalculationsarepresentedinAppendixThree(page26).WhorespondedtotheSurvey1168peoplerespondedtothesurvey.MostcamefromEurope,withasizeableminorityfromNorthAmerica,reflectingconcentrationsofMDPIauthorsfromtheseregions,butveryfewfromAsia,asmysurveywasnotavailableinChina(Table1).ApluralityofrespondentswereEarlyCareerResearchers,onethirdweremid-careerandafifthwereseniorscientists.Intermsofdisciplinesthebestrepresentedcategorywasnaturalscientists,withlargenumbersofsocialscientistsalsoparticipating(

Figure2).Smallernumbersofotherdisciplinestookpart.MostrespondentsfromAnglophonecountriesworkedinUniversities,andespeciallyhigherrankedUniversities.Therewasmorediversityofinstitutionaloriginamongnon-Anglophonecountries(Table2).Table1:Respondents’RegionandCareerStage,andallpublishedAuthorsfor2020

Region Junior Mid-Career Senior Total AllAuthorsNoResponse 19 14 8 41 AustralasiaPacific 19 16 11 46 5,852Asia 25 14 10 49 91,778Europe* 275 273 178 727 103,155LatinAm&Caribb 9 13 5 27 8,701NorthAmerica 139 72 41 252 25,975AfricaandME 14 8 4 26 10,576

Total 500 410 257 1,168 246,037*OneEuropeanrespondentdidnotprovidetheircareerstage.AuthorDataprovidedbytheMDPI

reviewer

Highlight

https://danbrockington.com/2021/04/18/mdpi-experience-survey-results/

4

Figure2:Respondents’Disciplines

Respondentscouldentermultipledisciplinaryidentities.Onerespondentprovidednoanswer

Table2:UniversityRankandMainCountryLanguage

QSRank Anglophone NotAnglophone Total1-100 158 32 190101-200 43 115 158201-300 49 21 70301-400 26 34 60401-500 9 13 22501-600 7 22 29601-700 11 18 29701-800 19 7 26800+ 10 16 26NoResponse 84 82 166NotinQSRankings 74 277 351Total 490 637 112741respondentsdidnotprovidecountrydetails.

5

ResultsWhenIanalysedpatterns,twoaxesofdifferenceappearedinthesurvey.ThefirstpertainstodifferencesinpreviousandintendedfutureengagementswithMDPI.FromtheseengagementsgroupingsofexperiencewithMDPIjournalsemerged.Ishalladdresseachaspectinturn.

CommunicationsfromandAppreciationofMDPI’sBrandManyrespondentstothissurveyreportedreceivingemailsfromMDPI,regardlessoftheircareerstage(Table3).952ofthe1167whoprovidedcompleteresponseshadreceivedthreeormoredifferenttypesofinvitation(toreview,submitapaper,readapaper,editaspecialissueorserveonaneditorialboard).Mysurveydidnotaskaboutfrequencyofemails,justaboutthevarietyofemailrequests,buttheresultsclearlyshowthatthegreatervarietyofrequestsreceived,thelowertheappreciationofMDPI’semails.Mostdidnotwanttoreceivetheseinvitations.ThisdoesnotmeanthattheydidnotwanttoengagewithMDPI–manydid.Itmeansthattheinvitationsweremisplaced.Respondents’appreciationofthesecommunications,asmeasuredbytheappreciationindex,waslow.OnestrikingfeatureofthedataishowfewpeoplehadreceivedalowvarietyofcommunicationsfromMDPI.Only18%hadreceivedtwosortsofcommunicationorfewer.Mostofthosewhohadreceivedtwoorfewertypesofinvitationwerejuniorresearchers.Only11%ofseniorrespondentshadreceivedasfew.Table3:AverageCommunicationAppreciationIndexandtheVarietyofInvitations

CareerStage0-2typesofInvitationto

engagewithMDPI3+typesofinvitationstoengagewithMDPI

Junior -1.3 -3.9 Mid-Career -0.3 -4.6 Senior 1.0 -3.1 CareerStage No.ofRespondents No.ofRespondents TotalJunior 141 359 500Mid-Career 46 364 410Senior 28 229 257Total 215 952 1,167ScoresintheAppreciationIndexrangefrom-10(nodesiretoreceiveanycommunication)to10(wantstoreceiveeverycommunication)DissatisfactionaboutMDPI’semailswasmentionedinthefreetextcomments.19%offreetextcomments(thejointlargestcategory)complainedaboutexcessiveand/orinappropriateemails.Ihavereproducedsomeofthesecomments,selectingonlythosesubmittedfromrespondentswhowereMDPI’smostenthusiasticsupporters(Box1,‘enthusiastic’isdefinedonpage7).ThecommentsfromMDPI’scriticsaboutthecompany’semailpracticesusedlessparliamentarylanguagethanthoseinBox1.

6

Box1:IssueswithemailraisedbyMDPIEnthusiasts

Toomanyemails,itislikespam.Itislikeapredatoryjournalinthisregard.Someinterestingjournalsandpublications,butsomepoliticsshouldchange.Ihaveworkedwithonethatisamongthestrongeroftheirjournals...But,IgetanumberofrequestsfromMDPIfromjournalsthatarenoteveninmyareaofexpertise.Sosomerequestsforourworkdonotseemwellthoughtout.They are relatively cheap and it’s easy to publish inthem . . . But I hate the nagging, the angry emailsbecause on Monday you haven’t replied to the emailtheysentonSaturday. . .Ihatebeingaskedtoreviewirrelevantandoftenincomprehensiblepapers

Waytoomanyunsolicitedemails.

Toomanyinvitationsforservingasguesteditorsonspecialissuesandsubmittingtospecialissues...WhilellikeMDPI'spublishingspeedandmodel,thesekindsofpracticeslowersitsreputationinmy(andothers')minds.Thepublisherisfine-it'sthoseannoyinge-mailsthatreallytarnishtheirreputation.Reviewedmanytimesinthepastforthem,publishedwithtoo.Butbecametoomuchofanuisance...Haveaskedthemtotakemeoffreviewerlist,whichtheyignoredandcontinuouslyhoundme.Shame-asgoodjournal'swithstrongacademicside.Theysendmelotsofemailaskingtoeditaspecialissue.Lots!

PastandFutureEngagementsPreviousengagementwithMDPIamongtherespondentscanbesplitintofourcategoriesofincreasinglevelsofengagement

1. ThosewhohavedonenothingwithMDPIjournals;2. Thosewhohaveonlyreviewedforthem;3. Thosewhohavesubmittedpapers,;4. Thosewhohaveundertakeneditorialwork,asSpecialIssueEditorsorserving

onEditorialBoardsIgroupedintendedfutureengagementsintosimilarcategories,butaddedan‘Ambivalentcategory’whichreferredtorespondentswhowerenotsureiftheyweregoingtoengagewithMDPIinthefuture.Asubstantialmajorityofrespondents(82%)hadengagedwithMDPIjournalsinsomeway,with62%havingsubmittedapaperand/orundertakeeditorialduties(Table4).65%ofrespondentswerepossiblyordefinitely,goingtoengagewithMDPIinthefuture,with32%sayingthattheywoulddefinitelysubmitapaperand/orundertakeeditorialdutiesinthefuture.TheminorityoftherespondentswhohavedonenothingforMDPIjournalstendedtohavethelowestopinionofthejournalsasawhole.TheserespondentstendednottobepleasedtoreceiveemailsfromMDPIjournals.TheyhadalowopinionoftheMDPIbrand(Table5).12%ofthosewhohadhadnoengagementwithMDPIjournalsthusfardefinitelyintendedtoengagewiththeminthefuture(Table4).RespondentswhohadonlyreviewedforMDPIdidnot,ingeneral,wanttodosoagain.57%saidthattheydidnotintendtoreviewagain.TheyalsodidnotwanttoreceiveemailsfromMDPIjournalsandhadalowopinionoftheMDPIbrand(Table5).

7

Respondentswhohadsubmittedpapersand/orundertakeneditorialwork,tendedtohaveamorepositiveviewoftheMDPIbrand,andtowelcometheircommunicationsmore(Table5).Theyweremorelikelytocontinuetoengagewiththecompany.46%reportedthattheywoulddefinitelybesubmittingpapersandortakingoneditorialwork(Table4).ThosewhowerepreparedtoserveasaneditorweremostappreciativeofemailsfromMDPIandhadthehighestopinionoftheirbrand(Table5).Table4:PriorandFutureEngagementwithMDPIJournals

PriorEngagement

FutureEngagement

NoneAmbi-valent

WillReviewOnly

WillSubmitaPaper,noEd.Work

WillserveasEditor Total

None 123 54 12 7 4 200

ReviewOnly 109 61 11 2 7 190SubmitaPaperOnly 118 123 50 100 69 460

EditorialWork 41 43 14 41 116 255

Total 391 281 87 150 196 110536Respondentsprovidedincompletedataaboutpriorengagementsandafurther27incompletedataonfutureengagementsTable5:CommunicationAppreciationandBrandScorebyPriorEngagement

PriorEngagement AverageCommIndex AverageBrandScoreNone -5.7 -7.9ReviewOnly -5.7 -7.1SubmitaPaperOnly -2.2 -2.5EditorialWork -0.5 0.8

Total -3.0 -3.5 CategoriesofEngagementBasedonthedifferencesabove,fivegroupingsofrespondentsemergedfromthissurvey:

1.Hostile:HavenothadandwillnothavedealingswithMDPI.2.Put-Off:HavehaddealingswithMDPIandwillnotdosoagain.3.Ambivalent:MayengagewithMDPIinthefuture.4.Engaged:Preparedtoreviewand/orsubmitMSes.5.Enthusiastic:Preparedtoundertakeeditingwork.

Thebrandappreciationandcommunicationappreciationscoresvaryinpredictablewaysacrossthesegroups.Communicationtoallgroupsisgenerallyhigh.Thisagainindicatesthatasignificantvarietyofrequestsarebeingmadetoresearchersinthissurveywhichareunwanted,especiallythoseinvitationsgoingtoresearchersintheyellowboxes.

8

Table6:MDPIEngagementCategoriesAverageIndexScoresandInvitationsReceived

Values Hostile Put-Off Amb’lent Engaged EnthusiasticNumberofRespondents 123 268 281 237 196PastEngagementIndex 0.0 11.3 10.3 14.9 21.1FutureEngagementIndex 0.0 0.0 2.3 5.4 9.2CommunicationsIndex -9.6 -9.3 -5.7 1.3 5.8InvitationsReceived 3.5 3.8 3.3 3.0 3.1BrandScore -7.0 -6.4 -4.4 -0.6 2.6PastEngagementscoresrangefrom0(none)to35(maximumpossible).FutureEngagementscoresrangefrom0(none)to10(maximumpossible).CommunicationsAppreciationscoresrangefrom-10(noemailswanted)to10(allemailswelcome).InvitationsReceivedrangefrom0to4typesofinvitationreceived.BrandScorerangesfrom-10(worstpossiblerating)to10(bestpossiblerating)Therelativesizeofthecategories(theNumberofRespondentsrow)cannotbetakentoberepresentativeofresearchcommunitiesasawhole.Inthesegroupingsanumberofpatternsemerged.First,withrespecttoDisciplineNaturalandSocialscientistsweremorelikelytobeinthehostileorput-offcategoriesthanotherdisciplines(Table7).RespondentsdescribingthemselvesasMedicsorEngineersweremorelikelytobeengagedorenthusiastic.RespondentsfromArtsandHumanitiesweretoofewforpatternstoemerge.IngeneralMedics,EngineersandscholarsfromtheHumanitiestendedtohavemorepositiveviewsofMDPI’sbrandthanscholarsinnaturalsciencesandsocialsciences.WecanseethisinFigure3.ThisportraysthebrandassociationswithRigourandImportanceofrespondentswhoidentifiedasonlyMedics,EngineersorfromtheArtsandHumanitiesagainstrespondentswhoidentifiedasonlyNaturalorSocialScience(orbothofthese).Theaxesshowpositiveassociationstotherightandtop,andnegativeassociationstothebottomandleftinbothcases.RespondentswhowereNaturalorSocialScientiststendtofeaturefurtherdown,andfurthertotheleftofthegraphs.

Table7:CategoriesofMDPIEngagementbyDiscipline

Hostile Put-Off Amb’lent Engaged Enthusiastic Total

ArtsandHums 5 5 7 9 8 34SocialScience 63 123 102 87 38 414NaturalScience 57 149 164 134 94 599MedicalSciences 4 19 24 36 41 125Engineering 11 27 37 32 55 163

Total 140 323 334 298 236 1335Respondentscouldindicatemorethanonedisciplinaryidentity.

9

Figure3:BrandAssociationbyDiscipline:‘Rigour’(Xaxis)and‘Important’(Yaxis)

Medics,EngineersandHumanitiesinPeach;NaturalandSocialScientistsinPlum.AxesrangefromStrongDisagreement(farleft,bottom),throughDisagreement,Neutral(centre),Agreement,andStrongAgreement(farright,top)Thelargestpeachrepresents27respondents(agreeingtobothassociations),thelargestplum150(stronglydisagreeingwithbothassociations).OtherassociationsareshowninTable8.Theseindicatethat,withrespecttoCareerStage,thereisnodiscernabledifferenceincareerstageongroupingmembership.ConcerningInstitution,therewasnodiscernabledifferenceamonggroupingsduetoUniversityrankings.RespondentsfromhigherrankedUniversities(<200)seemedtothinksimilarlytothoseinlowerranks(>200).ThereissomeindicationthatrespondentsfromoutsidetheUniversitysystemweremoreengagedandenthusiasticaboutMDPIthanthoseinUniversities.ConcerningLanguage,thereissomeindicationthatrespondentsfromAnglophonecountrieswerelesssupportiveofMDPIthanrespondentsfromnon-Anglophonecountries.Table8:CategoriesofMDPIEngagementandRespondentCharacteristics

AverageScores Hostile Put-Off Amb’lent Engaged Enthusiastic TotalCareer 19.1 18.1 16.9 17.0 19.1 34QSRankings 18.1 17.2 18.4 19.8 20.9 414OutsideQSRankings 2.4 2.4 2.8 3.8 3.6 599Language 5.4 5.0 4.6 3.5 3.5 125Careerscores:Junior=10,Med=20,Senior=30;QSRankings:<201=10,>200=30;OutsideQSRankings:NotQS=10,QSranked=0;Language:Anglophone=10,NotAnglophone=0.Exploringpatternsinindividualfactorshowevercanbemisleadingbecausewecannotseehowtheyarerelatedtoeachother.Iconductedanordinallogisticregressionto

10

examinewhataspectsweremoststronglyassociatedwithdifferentcategoriesofMDPIengagementfor739respondentsforwhichcompletedatawereavailable.Ididthisincrementally,addingfactorstoexploretheirpowerinexplainingengagementdecisionsandtheirstatisticalsignificance.FullresultsarereportedinAppendix4.Inthisanalysisthemostimportantfactorisbrandscore.Thisisnotquiteasbanalassayingthatourdecisionstopublishinajournalareinfluencedbywhatwethinkaboutit.AfterallIdidnotcaptureafullpictureofwhatpeoplethinkaboutMDPI’sbrand,Ionlyaskedabout9aspectsinwhichIwasinterested.Ratheritshowsthattheaspectsofbrandthatinterestedmewereindeedimportantinexplainingdecision-makingforalargenumberofpeople.Astrongermodelmightbeobtainedbyaskingfurtherquestionsaboutbrand,orbymakingthequestionsspecifictoparticularjournals,ratherthanthebrandasawhole.Thereisalsothepossibilitythatsomepeoplearechoosingajournaldespitetheirmisgivingsaboutit,forexampleinordertohelpoutacolleaguewhoisconveningaSpecialIssue.Thenextmostimportantfactoristhecommunicationsindex.Thisindicatesthat,forexample,excessivecommunicationmightdiscouragepeoplefromengagingeveniftheyapprovedofthejournal.Disciplinewasalsosignificantwhenaddedtothemodel(asabinaryvariable,eitherMedic/Engineer/Arts&HumsorNat/SocScience),withNaturalandSocialScientiststendingtowantlessengagementthanpeoplefromotherdisciplines.Howeverdisciplinedoesnotreallyincreasethemodelsexplanatorypowermuch.Thismayreflecttherelativelysmallnumbers(123)ofMedics,EngineersandHumanitiesscholarsinthatanalysis,asopposedtothelargernumber(616)ofNaturalandSocialScientists.Itmayreflectthefactthatattitudestobrandandcommunicationsalreadydifferbydisciplinesoaddingdisciplinedoesnotmakethemodelmorepowerful.Oftheotherfactors(Careerstage,Language,andInstitution),beinganEarlyCareerorJuniorresearcherhadaveryslightpositiveimpactonengagement,thatwasjustsignificant.Respondents’institutions,andthelanguageofthecountrywheretheseinstitutionswerebasedprovedinsignificant.BrandAssociationsThebrandassociationsbetweenengagementgroupingsfollowedsomepredictablepatterns.TheseareshowninFigure4.EachgraphfollowsthesamestructureasFigure3.Agreementwitheachwordisshownonasingleaxis,withstrongagreementtopositivebrandassociationsontheright/top,andnegativebrandassociationsonthebottom/left.Responsescanappearatfivepointsoneachaccess(StrongAgreement,Agreement,Neutral,Disagreement,StrongDisagreement).Theresponseofdifferentcategoriesofengagementareshownseparatelyineachrow,movingfromhostile(purple,ontheleft)toenthusiastic(red,ontheright).Theyshowclearpatternsofrespondentsmovingfromthebottomleftoftheboxplots(negativeassociations)totopright(positiveassociations)asengagementwithMDPIincreased.HencePurpleandGreencirclesappearinthebottomleftoftheplots,indicatingthatHostileandPut-offrespondentshavelowopinionsofthejournals.Orangecircles,

11

(Ambivalent)aremoreapproving,andEngagedrespondents(bluecircles)moreso.Redcircles,showingthemostEnthusiasticrespondents,appearonthetopright.Thesefigureshavetobecomparedwithcare.Thesizeofeachcirclevariesaccordingtootherdataineachgraph,notbetweendifferentengagementgroups.Thisinthefirstrow,thelargepurplebubbleofHostilerespondentsrepresentstheviewsof53people.ThelargegreenbubbleofPut-offrespondentsintheadjacentgraphrepresents91people.Howeverthefiguresservetomakeasimplepoint.Thefirstthreerowsshowstheconcentrationofrespondentsmovessteadilyupfromthedisapprovingbottomleftcorneruptotherightasengagementincreases.ThustheydemonstratethatBrandassociationswiththewordsRigour,Importance,ValueforMoney,ExploitationandNuisancefollowpredictablepatterns.Thereaftersomesurprisesappear.First,withrespecttoperceptionsofHasteandPrestige(thefourthrow),MDPIjournalstendedtodopoorly,evenamongthe‘Ambivalent’and‘Engaged’groups.Thisisvisibleinthelargerorangeandbluecirclestowardsthebottomleftofthegraphs.Onlythemostenthusiasticsupportersweredistributedtowardsthetopright.Thissuggeststhat‘Haste’isgenerallyassociatedwithMDPIjournals,but‘Prestige’isnot.Converselywhenwecompareattitudesto‘Convenience’adifferentpatternemerges.Themosthostilerespondentsmightthinkthatthejournalswereunprestigious(row5),orpredatory(row6),butsomewerestillpreparedtorecognisetheirconvenience.Othercategorieswereevenmoreappreciativeofthejournals’Convenience.Enthusiastsstronglydisagreedwiththeideathatthejournalswerepredatory.

Figure4:Agreement/DisagreementwithwordsassociatedwithMDPI’sbrand,dividedaccordingtoEngagementCategory

FirstwordlistedistheXaxis,secondwordtheYaxis.AxisscaleasperFigure3.Circlesinthebottomleftcornerindicatenegativebrandassociations,toprightindicatespositiveassociations.Circlesizeiscalculatedseparatelyforeachgrouping.So,forexample,purplecirclescannotbecomparedtoredorbluecircleswithineachrow,butredbubblesizesindifferentrowscanbecompared.Key:Purple–Hostile;Green–Put-Off;Orange–Ambivalent;Blue–Engaged;Red–EnthusiasticRigour:Importance

Importance:GoodValueforMoney

Exploitative:Nuisance

Haste:Prestigious

Prestigious:Convenient

Predatory:Convenient

13

VariationandChangeinEngagementasreportedinQualitativeData570respondentsaddedfreetextcommentsabouttheMDPIandtheseremarksmostlyfallintopairedcategoriesoftopics.Therearethosewhocelebratethejournals’efficiencyandconveniencewhileothersweresuspiciousofthefastturnaroundtimesorcomplainedofexpensiveAPCcharges.Somereportedgoodpapersandrespectedcolleaguesworkingwiththejournals,otherspoorqualitywork.Andsomecomplainedofpoorexperienceseithergivingorreceivingreview,andothersreportedexcellent,highqualityservicethatwasprovidedquickly.IhaveprovidedillustrativecommentsofexperiencesofgoodandbadreviewinBox2toshowthediversitythatthissurveycaptured.Box2:ExperiencesofReview,withRespondent’sEngagementCategoryshown.

PoorReviewExperience GoodReviewExperienceReviewprocesscanbesomewhatrandom,witheditorsandreviewerswithoutenoughexpertise.(Enthusiastic)Ihadagoodexperiencewithtwoofthemandtheyaredeemedtobereputableinmyfield.However,thequalityofpeerreviewandpublishedpapersisquestionableforthreeotherjournalsIwasinvitedtowriteforortodoapeer-review.(Enthusiastic)Ipublished2papers,bothhadgoodreviews,butthewholeexperienceseemedlessrigorousthanwithotherjournals.Theemphasisofpeerreviewseemedtobeonaboxcheckedratherthanimprovingthepaper.(Engaged)Iwaspleasedbytheefficiencyandsimplicityofpublishingwiththem.Ididhoweverfindthereviewprocessveryhasty,withthereviewersprovidingverylittlemeaningfulcomment.Theeditorseemedfinewiththisanddidnotraiseanyissues.(Engaged)Reviewsdonotseemtobedonebyresearchers.Isubmittedapaperand3outof5reviewerswerefocusedonthepaperformat(e.g.referencestyle).(Ambivalent)Ihavehadnormalpapersaccepted.Thereviewerswerepoorlychoseninmostcases,andthereviewswerepoor(short,lackofdetail...).(Ambivalent)

Submittedonlytwoarticlessofar.Sonotmuchtosay,exceptgotsomelengthyfourreviewsforonearticlethatwasrejectedaftermajorrevisions,astworeviewerswerenotsatisfiedwithrevisions.(Enthusiastic)Onepaperwassubmittedthereandreceived4reviews-total17pagesofcomments!Ittooklotaoftimetoreviseandrespondtoreviewerscomments.Oneofthereviewersdisclosedtheiridentityandwasanexpertinthatfield.Itwasacceptedaftertworoundofrevisions.(Enthusiastic)IhavehadgoodexperienceswithMDPI.Fastandrigorouspeerreview(fourreviewers,excellentandchallengingreviews,10daysaftermysubmission).(Engaged)Sofarinmy2firstauthorpapersI’vehad4reviewerseachtimeandtheyweregenerallycompetent.Thereisalwaysa“reviewer2”butI’vebeenhappywiththerigoursofar.(Engaged)Ipublishedwiththemasanearly-careerresearcherbecausetheyofferedtowaiveopen-accessfeeswhichforanECRisratherconvenient.Itdidgothroughafairlythoroughpeerreview(2rounds,6reviewersintotal).(Ambivalent)Ihadagoodexperiencewithmyoneandonlypaperpublishedwiththem.4reviewers,providedusefulandpromptreviews.(Ambivalent)

Reflectingthisdiversity,asignificantproportionofrespondents(19%ofcomments)saidthatthejournals’reputationswerehighlyvaried,andthatitwasdifficulttocomeupwithasingularopinionaboutthem.TheserespondentswerefoundinallcategoriesofengagementwithMDPI.

14

Inadditiontotheseratherpredictablepatterns,twootherthemesareworthnoting.Firstseveralrespondents(10%ofthoseprovidingcomments)wrotethatMDPIwasnotfundamentallydifferentfromotherpublishers.Allpublishersexploittheresearchcommunity.Therootofanyproblemslienotwiththepublisher,butwiththebrokensystemthatrewardsbehaviourfromwhichpublisherscanprofitsohandsomely.Second,therewasarepeatedconcernwiththedirectionoftravelthatMDPIappearedtobetaking.ThislendssupporttoPaoloCrosetto’sargumentthatthegrowthofMDPIjournalsisunsustainable.Theconcernisevidentinthecategoryofrespondents(24%ofmysample)thatIdescribeas‘PutOff’.Butdoubtsoverrecenttrendsandfuturetrajectorieswasexpressedacrossallcategories.AnumberofpeoplecommentedthattheyhadhadchangedtheiropinionofMDPIovertheyears,eitherbecauseofpoorexperiences,orbecausetheywereconcernedthatthecompany’spracticeswerenotmaintainingstandards.Arepeatedissuefortheserespondentswasthebewilderingabundanceofpapersandspecialissues.Box3:ChangingOpinionsaboutMDPIovertime

Inmyperception,MDPIoverallhasaneutralorevenslightlynegativereputation.MDPIjournalsareveryheterogenous,withthequalityofjournalsdependingalotontheirrespectiveEiCsandEditorialboardmembers.Iamthe[redacted]ofanMDPIjournal,trytokeeprigorousstandards,andregularlyhavetodealwithnegativespilloversarisingfromproblemswithotherMDPIjournals.(Enthusiastic)MDPIcouldimproveit'sreputationbycuttingbackonthenumberofjournalsandspecialissues(sothatspecialissuesareactuallyspecial),avoidingsendingirrelevantinvitationsandotherpredatorypractices.ThepoorreputationofMDPIasawholeisdamagingthemorereputableMDPIjournalsthataretryingtopublishqualityresearchwhilealsoofferingauthorsagoodservice.(Enthusiastic)Ihaveeditedtwospecialissuesandservedontheeditorialboardof[redacted].Isteppeddownin[redacted]becauseIfeltuncomfortableabouttheveryrapidincreaseinno.ofassociateeditors,no.ofpaperspublished,no.ofspecialissues.(Engaged)MDPI..isspammingspecialissues,someofwhichdocontainverygoodpapers.Myownexperienceasreviewerwasgoodsofar,andasauthormixed.Iwouldn'tconsideritpredatoryyet,butitismovinginthatdirection..MDPIisrapidlydegradingitsreputationandthesympathytheyhadinmyfieldasOA-publishersatthemoment.(Engaged)IstronglydisagreewiththeMDPIpolicyoflaunchinginnumerablespecialissues.Ihaverefusedmanyinvitationstoeditspecialissues(Idonotevenreplytotheseinvitations),thesearereallyanuisanceforme.(Engaged)AlthoughmyexperienceinpublishingandreviewingforMDPIhasbeengoodoverall,newsandopinionbypeopleinacademiathatitisapredatorypublisher(despitesomejournalsbeingreallygoodandsomestillbeingnotandhaveroomtoimprove)canaffecttheviewofmyinstitutionandsuperiorstoo,andmaynotallowustopublishinMDPIjournalsasitaffectsthereputationnotjustoftheinstitutionbutaffectsmyperformanceevaluationtooandsorecentlyIoptnottopublishorreviewinMDPIjournals.(Engaged)WhenIstartedmyPhDandthentransitionedtoapostdoc,myopiniononMDPIjournalwasverygood.Ilikedtheopenaccesspartofitandthatpaperswerepublishedquickly...[it]wasajustfantastic.ThenIwasinvitetoreviewapaper,thenanotherone,thenthelistgrew.ThenIbecameaguesteditor,thenamemberoftheeditorialboard.ThisallowedmetoseeMDPIfromtheinsideandIquicklyrealizedwhattheirrealprioritiesare.Everythingisdoneasquicklyaspossible,everythinghasashortduedate,andeverythingisapartofaspecialissuesothattheguesteditorsdoallthework.Forfree,ofcourse.IdonotregrethavingmypaperspublishedinMDPIbefore,anddonotsayIwillnotsubmitmypaperstoMDPIagain.However,theirjournalswillneverbemyfirstchoice.Further,everytimeIreadapaperpublishedbyMDPIIamextracarefulandsuspiciousofthequalityofthepresentedresearch.(Ambivalent)

reviewer

Highlight


15

DiscussionResearchcommunitiesarediverse.TherearesignsthatdifferentdisciplinesrespondindifferentwaystoMDPI.SocialandNaturalScientistsaremorecritical,MedicsandEngineersmorewelcoming.ItisnotclearifthesedifferentdisciplinarystoriesarisebecauseresearchersfromdifferentdisciplinesgotodifferentMDPIjournals.Thiswouldbethecase,forexample,ifEngineersencounteradifferentsetofjournalsthandoSocialScientists.Oritcouldbebecausebehavioursandnormsindifferentdisciplinesvarywithrespecttothesamejournal.Thiswouldhappenif,forexample,everyoneisworkingwiththejournalSustainabilitybutdifferentdisciplinesthinkaboutitspracticesindifferentways.BecauseofthelimitationsofmysampleitisdifficulttomakepredictionsaboutwhatEngineers,MedicsandresearchersfromtheArtsandHumanitiesthinkaboutMDPIjournals.Morespecificresearch,withlargersamplesfromthosedisciplinesandaboutdisciplinespecificjournals,wouldberequired.IcanspeakwithmoreconfidencewithrespecttoSocialscientistsandNaturalscientists.Butevenherethereisawiderangeofviews.TherearesomewhoneverhaveandneverwillengagewithMDPI;therearethosewhowillnotdosoagain.Othersareuncertain.Somehaveengagedandarekeentointhefuture.Buthowwillmembershipofthesedifferentgroupschangeovertime?IftheengagedgroupremainkeenonMDPIjournals,and/oriftherearelargenumbersofauthorswhohavenotyettriedtopublishinMDPIandwantto,thenMDPI’ssuccess(intermsofthenumbersofarticlespublished)willcontinue.Butifscepticismmounts,ifMDPIpapersarenothighlyrated,ifengagementwithMDPIistakentobeablotonaCV,thenitwillbecomeharderforthejournalstorecruitauthors,reviewersandeditors.Twosalientfindingsfromthissurveywillbeimportantasthesepossibilitiesunfold.First,MDPIstaffwritetotoomanypeople,toofrequentlyandwithinappropriaterequests.Theywritetopeopleabouttopicswhicharenotpartoftheirexpertise.Theywritedespitehavingbeenaskednotto.Theychivvyauthorsandreviewers.Theydonotalldothis.Butenoughstaffdosoforthispracticetocauseresentment,evenamongthejournals’supporters.

Second,perceptionsofMDPI’sbrandshowsomeweaknesses,exceptamongitsmoreardentsupporters.Itsjournalsarenotgenerallyconsideredprestigious.Itsperceivedhastedetractsfromitsreputation.Theproblemsseeninsomejournalsmaybeaffectingtheothers.ConsideragainforexampletheproblemsofpeerreviewthatIreportedabove(Box1).Peerreviewis,afterall,notmeanttoworkwellonaverage.Itismeanttoworkwellallthetime.Deficienciesinpeerreviewinsomejournalsmayerodesupportintheothers.ItmightbepossibleforMDPItosustainitsgrowth,regardlessoftheseissues,becauseitappealstodeep-rootedveinsdesiresintheresearchcommunitytopublish,toconvenepublicationsandtosupporttheircolleaguesastheytrytodoso.Thelackofcheapandappealingalternativeswithinthebrokenpublishingmodelofacademiamayprovideacontinualstreamofcustomerstryingtopublishtheirwork.Itsroleinprovidingaroutearounddisciplinarygatekeepersisalsoimportant.

16

AlternativelyitispossiblethatenoughpeoplehavepositiveexperiencesofMDPI’spublicationandspecialissuesthattheywillcontinuetoreturntothepublisher.ThiswasVolkerBeckmann’sargumentinhiscommentrespondingtoPaoloCrosetto’sblog:

‘AsaGuestEditorforMDPIjournalsyougetextraordinarysupportfromthein-houseAssistantEditors,butalsofromEditorialBoardMembers.FrommyexperienceIwouldsaythat’sthemainreasonwhySpecialIssuesatMDPIjournalsaresopopularanddevelopedintothegrowthengineofmanyMDPIjournals.’

Source:Commentpostedon13thAprilhereThisimpliesthatthegrowthofSpecialIssuescomesfromreturningcustomers,ratherthanneweditors,whichisempiricallytestable.AnditisalsopossiblethatMDPIitmayneedtoalteritsbehaviourtocounteradverseperceptionsthatmaydetractfromthebrand.Thismightentail:

1. Sendingfeweremails.Itwouldprobablyrequiremonitoringthe‘hitrate’ofreviewandSpecialIssuerequestscarefully.Thisislikelytorequireachangeintheincentivesandmanagementofjournalsupportstafftoencouragethemtosendfeweremails.

2. LongerMSprocessingtimes.Thismightmeanofferingauthorsmoretimetorevisepapersand/orlongerreviewingtimesforthepaperthattheyhavesubmitted.Itmightmeanhigherrejectionrates,especiallyformorepopularjournals.Againthisislikelytorequirechangestothetargetsthatjournalsupportstaffhavetomeet.

3. FewerpapersandSpecialIssues.Thisislikelytomeanreducingthecompany’srevenues.Itwillalsorequirechangestothetargetsthatjournalsupportstaffhavetomeet.

ThesefindingspromptanumberofrecommendationsandchallengesforMDPIstaff,andfortheresearchcommunitywhoarewriting,reviewingandediting.HoweverfirstIwouldlikefirsttoinvitefurthercomment,reflectionsandquestionsontheanalysisthusfar.PleasesendyourcommentsbeloworjoinintheTwitterdebates.Afinal,thirdblogwillfollowinduecourse.

DanBrockington,

Glossop,April2021

reviewer

Highlight


17

MethodsandDatainmoredetailThedatawhichIusedintheanalysisaboveareavailableonthispage.IcreatedashortsurveyusingGoogleforms,andcommunicateditintwoways.First,IpostedlinkstotheformonmyblogsaboutMDPI,whichregularlyreceiveover100visitsperweek.SecondIdisseminateditusingTwitter.Ididthispartlybeaskingpeopleinmynetworktotweettheinvitation.Itaggedinand‘DM’edpeoplewhohadengagedwithmeonthistopicandaskedthemtoretweet.Ialsosystematicallycontactedanyonewhohadused‘mdpi’intheirtweetsbetween25thMarchand5thApril,andon9th–10thApril.ThisdrewthesurveytotheattentionofpeoplecomplainingaboutMDPIontwitter,peoplewhowerecelebratingpublishingpapersinMDPIjournals,andpeoplewhowereannouncingspecialissuelaunches.SomewhattomysurprisethetwitteroutreachblewupovertheEasterWeekendasfartoomanyresearcherswereusingholidaytimetochecktheirfeeds.Asaresultmyrequeststotakepartwereretweetedover350times,andsometimesrepeatedlybyenthusiasts.Theseretweetsreachedover900ktwitterfollowers.BecauseofthisinterestIwasthencontactedbytheCEOofMDPI,DeliaMihaila,withwhomIhadcorrespondedonblogsIhavepreviouslywrittenabouttheMDPI.SheobservedthatMDPIsupporterscouldbequietonTwitter,andcriticsmorevocal.SheofferedtouseMDPI’splatformstopromotethesurveytoresearcherswhopublishedwithMDPI.Ididnotexpressapreferenceeitherway.InsteadIsuggestedthat,ifMDPIdidpromotethesurvey,thattheyshouldnotuseemail,andthattheywaituntiltheinitialTwitterinteresthaddieddown.MDPIpromotedthesurveyusingdiverseplatforms(Twitter,FacebookandLinkedin)on8thApril.Thetimingofdifferentrespondents’participationsuggeststhatmorepeoplehostiletoMDPItookpartinthefirstdaysofthesurvey.Butthereaftermypracticeofreplyingtothetweetsofpeoplewhowerecelebratingtheirengagementwiththejournalsbroughtinalargenumber(hundreds)ofresponsesfrommorerespondentswhoweremorepositiveaboutthejournals.MDPI’spromotionofthesurveydidnotresultinaflurryofpositiverespondents.Indeeditseemedtohaveincreasednumbersengagingbyonlytwentyorsoonthatday(8thApril).Iclosedthesurveyon11thAprilbecauseIhadalimitedtimetoworkonpromotingit,andbythenthedifferentsortsofgroupswhoweretakingpartwereobvious,andwellpopulated.Giventhelimitationsofthedisseminationmethodenoughrespondentshadtakenpartforpatternstobecomevisible.Therearemultiplelimitationstothismethod.First,mychoiceofsurveysoftwareanddisseminationtechniquemeantthatnoonebasedinChinacouldaccessthesurvey.Second,itispossibleforpeopletoreturnmultipleresponses.IdidnotuseGooglesign-ins,orCaptcha’storeducethissortofabusivebehaviour.Iwashoweverabletotrackhowmanypeoplefromdifferentcountrieswerevisitingthewebpageonwhichtheformwasposted,andcomparethattothecountryoftherespondents.Iwasalsoabletotrackmentionofthissurveyontwitterandmatchthesetoresponserates.NothingintherateoftheresponsesIreceived,ortheirorigin,suggesteddeliberatesurveyabuse.Third,thesurveyismostobvioustopeoplewhoareonTwitter,orwhoaresearching

reviewer

Highlight

https://danbrockington.com/2021/04/18/mdpi-experience-survey-results/

18

forinformationaboutMDPIandcomeacrossmyblogs.ItisnoteasilyfoundbypeoplewhoarenotonTwitter,andwhoarenotaskingquestionsaboutMDPI.Table9:TimingofRespondents’Participation

Date HostilePut-Off

Ambiv-alent Engaged

Enthu-siastic

Med/Eng/Hum

Nat/Soc

Inter-disc

April1 20 35 28 27 5 10 104 4April2 21 52 50 32 13 13 138 25April3 24 42 38 32 23 20 129 21April4 10 24 43 23 18 24 92 16April5 21 48 58 47 33 36 160 28April6 11 27 28 28 28 9 93 23April7 4 8 7 6 9 5 26 4April8 4 7 10 12 21 19 30 6April9 3 13 12 24 22 26 42 8April10 5 12 7 6 24 17 32 8Total 123 268 281 237 196 179 846 143

IhavenotputresponsestoquestionsaboutInstitution,noranyfreetextcomments,inthepublicdomaintoensurerespondents’completeanonymity.AfterconsultingwiththeethicalreviewcommitteeIhavealsonotputrespondents’institutionscountriesinthepublicdomain,reportingjusttheregioninwhichtheirinstitutionsarefound.Ihaveincludedcareerstageinformation,againafterconsultingwiththeethicalreviewcommitteebecausethisinformationcannotcompromiserespondents’anonymity.AcknowledgementsManythankstoallwhotookpartinthesurvey.ThankstocolleaguesinGeographyattheUniversityofSheffieldforapromptreviewofthisresearch,toJevgeniyBluwsteinandJensLundforcommentsonthesurvey,JohanOldekopandCalebGallemoreforstatisticaladvice,DeliaMihaila,StefanTochevandFacundoSantoméfordataonMDPIauthorshipandfordisseminatingthesurveyandtoPaoloCrosettoforinsightsandchallengesthroughout.

Appendix1:TheMDPIExperienceSurvey

21

ThelistofwordsinQuestion8wasrandomlyorderedforeachrespondent.

Appendix2:AnswerstotheMDPIExperienceSurvey

PreviousengagementwithMDPIjournals:A–ReviewedaPaper;B–EditedaSpecialIssue;C–SubmittedaPaper;D–HadaPaperRejected;E–PublishedaPaper;F–ServedonanEditorialBoard.Blue=Yes;Red=No.

23

FutureplanswithMDPIjournals:A–ReviewaPaper;B–EditaSpecialIssue;C–PublishaPaper;D–ServeonanEditorialBoard.Blue=Yes;Red=No;Green–Uncertain

24

EmailInvitationsReceived:A–ToReview;B–ToEditaSpecialIssue;C–ToSubmitaPaper;D–ToReadaPaper;E–ToJoinanEditorialBoard.Orange:IhavebeeninvitedanddonotmindifIreceiveanotherinvitation;BlueIhavebeeninvitedandIwanttobeinvitedagain;GreenInvitationreceivedandIdonotwanttoreceiveanother;BlackNoinvitationreceived;YellowNoinvitationreceived,andIwouldlikeone;RedNotinvitedandIdonotwanttobe

Agreement/DisagreementwithWordsAssociatedwithMDPI’sbrand

Appendix3:CalculationofIndices

PreviousEngagement:TotalofthefollowingscoresEngagement Yes NoReview 5 0SubmitaPaper 10 0EditaSpecialIssue 10 0ServeonanEditorialBoard 10 0Respondentswhoindicatedthattheyhadnotengagedinsomeactivities,butleftactivitiesblank,wereexcludedfromtheanalysis.Whererespondentsindicatedthattheyhadundertakensomeactivities,butleftothersblankIassumedthatnon-responsesmeant‘No’andcodedaccordingly.Scoresrangedfrom0(nopreviousengagement)to35(everypreviousengagement).Thedistributionofscoresforrespondentswithcompletedataisshownbelow.Score Total0 2045 19410 19215 31620 725 14530 135 73Total 1132FutureEngagement:AverageofthefollowingscoresFutureAction Yes No MaybeReview 10 0 5SubmitaPaper 10 0 5EditaSpecialIssue 10 0 5ServeonanEditorialBoard 10 0 5Respondentswhodidnotprovidefourresponseswereexcludedfromtheanalysis.Scoresrangedfrom0(nofurtherengagement)to10(maximumfurtherengagement).Thedistributionofscoresforrespondentswithcompletedataisshownbelow.Score Total0 404

28

1.3 1352.5 1093.8 875.0 936.3 527.5 928.8 4910 118Total 1139Communications:Averageofthefollowingscores

Invitation No

invitationreceived,andIwouldlikeone

NotinvitedandIdonotwanttobe

IhavebeeninvitedanddonotmindifIreceiveanotherinvitation

IhavebeeninvitedandIwanttobeinvitedagain

InvitationreceivedandIdonotwanttoreceiveanother

Review 10 -10 5 10 -10SubmitaPaper 10 -10 5 10 -10EditaSpecialIssue 10 -10 5 10 -10

Noinvitationreceivedregisteredasblank.Iomittedfromthisindexresponsesconcerninginvitationstoreadapaperandserveonaneditorialboardbecauseoftherelativelyhighproportionofpeoplewhohadreceivednoinvitation.Scorerangefrom-10(allcommunicationsareunwelcome)to10(allcommunicationswelcome).Thedistributionofscoresforrespondentswithcompletedataisshownbelow.IcreatedcategoriesofCommunicationsAppreciationfortheOrdinalLogisticRegressionasfollows:-10StronglyNegative,>-10to<0Negative,0Neutral,>0-5Positive,>5StronglyPositive.Score Total-10 61-9.4 28-8.8 44-8.1 32-7.5 45-6.9 66-6.3 55-5.6 60-5.0 71-4.4 63-3.8 64

29

-3.1 47-2.5 53-1.9 38-1.3 46-0.6 440 510.6 291.3 321.9 232.5 213.1 233.8 274.4 185.0 145.6 96.3 136.9 137.5 148.1 48.8 310 1Total 1112Brand:AverageofthefollowingscoresWord StronglyAgree Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagreeRigour 10 5 0 -5 -10Important 10 5 0 -5 -10Prestigious 10 5 0 -5 -10GoodVal.ForMoney 10 5 0 -5 -10Haste -10 -5 0 5 10Nuisance -10 -5 0 5 10Predatory -10 -5 0 5 10Exploitation -10 -5 0 5 10AssociationswithConveniencedidnothelpdistinguishbetweenrespondentsandwereexcludedfromthebrandscore.Incompleteresponses,whichdidnotscoreallthewordsabovewereexcluded.Thedistributionofscoresforrespondentswithcompletedataisshownbelow.Scoresrangefrom-10(allassociationsstronglynegative)to10(allassociationspositive).IcreatedcategoriesofCommunicationsAppreciationfortheOrdinalLogisticRegressionasfollows:StronglyNegative(<-5),Negative(<-0.7to-5),Neutral(-0.6to0.6),Positive(0.601to5),StronglyPositive(>5).Score Total

30

-10 61-9.4 28-8.8 44-8.1 32-7.5 45-6.9 66-6.3 55-5.6 60-5.0 71-4.4 63-3.8 64-3.1 47-2.5 53-1.9 38-1.3 46-0.6 440 510.6 291.3 321.9 232.5 213.1 233.8 274.4 185.0 145.6 96.3 136.9 137.5 148.1 48.8 310 1Total 1112OtherchangesAfewrespondentsindicatedambiguouscareerstages(bothJuniorandMid,orbothMidandSenior).Iallocatedallsuchrespondentstothemorejuniorcategory.

31

Appendix4.ResultsoftheOrdinalLogisiticRegression

1.PLUM-OrdinalRegression.BrandAlone

Notes

OutputCreated 12-APR-202110:58:16Comments Input ActiveDataset DataSet14

Filter <none>Weight <none>SplitFile <none>NofRowsinWorkingDataFile

739

MissingValueHandling

DefinitionofMissing User-definedmissingvaluesaretreatedasmissing.

CasesUsed Statisticsarebasedonallcaseswithvaliddataforallvariablesinthemodel.

Syntax PLUMGroupingBYBrandScoreCategory/CRITERIA=CIN(95)DELTA(0)LCONVERGE(0)MXITER(100)MXSTEP(5)PCONVERGE(1.0E-6)SINGULAR(1.0E-8)/LINK=LOGIT/PRINT=FITPARAMETERSUMMARY.

Resources ProcessorTime 00:00:00.02ElapsedTime 00:00:00.00

32

CaseProcessingSummary

NMarginalPercentage

Grouping 1Hostile 91 12.3%2PutOff 191 25.8%3Ambivalent 187 25.3%4Engaged 159 21.5%5Enthusiastic 111 15.0%

BrandScoreCategory

1StronglyNegative

291 39.4%

2Negative 254 34.4%3Neutral 74 10.0%4Positive 94 12.7%5StronglyPostive 26 3.5%

Valid 739 100.0%Missing 0 Total 739

ModelFittingInformation

Model-2Log

Likelihood Chi-Square df Sig.InterceptOnly

607.664

Final 89.383 518.281 4 .000Linkfunction:Logit.

Goodness-of-Fit Chi-Square df Sig.Pearson 42.887 12 .000Deviance 24.371 12 .018Linkfunction:Logit.

PseudoR-SquareCoxandSnell .504Nagelkerke .527McFadden .223Linkfunction:Logit.

33

ParameterEstimates

Estimate

Std.Error Wald df Sig.

95%ConfidenceInterval

LowerBound

UpperBound

Threshold

[Grouping=1Hostile]

-6.551 .468 195.593

1 .000 -7.469 -5.633

[Grouping=2PutOff]

-4.684 .454 106.410

1 .000 -5.574 -3.794

[Grouping=3Ambivalent]

-2.899 .440 43.336 1 .000 -3.763 -2.036

[Grouping=4Engaged]

-.649 .409 2.522 1 .112 -1.450 .152

Location

[BrandScoreCategory=1StronglyNegative]

-5.471 .467 137.310

1 .000 -6.387 -4.556

[BrandScoreCategory=2Negative]

-3.764 .455 68.326 1 .000 -4.656 -2.871

[BrandScoreCategory=3Neutral]

-1.481 .467 10.050 1 .002 -2.396 -.565

[BrandScoreCategory=4Positive]

-.262 .458 .329 1 .566 -1.159 .634

[BrandScoreCategory=5StronglyPostive]

0a . . 0 . . .

Linkfunction:Logit.a.Thisparameterissettozerobecauseitisredundant.

34

2.PLUM-OrdinalRegression.BrandandCommunicationsIndex

NotesOutputCreated 12-APR-202110:58:38Comments Input ActiveDataset DataSet14


739




Syntax PLUMGroupingBYBrandScoreCategoryCommsIndexcategory/CRITERIA=CIN(95)DELTA(0)LCONVERGE(0)MXITER(100)MXSTEP(5)PCONVERGE(1.0E-6)SINGULAR(1.0E-8)/LINK=LOGIT/PRINT=FITPARAMETERSUMMARY.


35


NMarginalPercentage


BrandScoreCategory 1StronglyNegative

291 39.4%


CommsIndexcategory

1StronglyNegative

389 52.6%

2Negative 101 13.7%3Neutral 48 6.5%4Positive 114 15.4%5StronglyPositive

87 11.8%



Model-2Log


952.582



PseudoR-Square

36

CoxandSnell .638Nagelkerke .667McFadden .323Linkfunction:Logit.

ParameterEstimates

Estimate



LowerBound

UpperBound

Threshold

[Grouping=1Hostile]

-8.332 .530 247.334

1 .000 -9.371 -7.294

[Grouping=2PutOff]

-6.217 .513 146.950

1 .000 -7.223 -5.212


-3.583 .473 57.282 1 .000 -4.511 -2.655

[Grouping=4Engaged]

-.895 .428 4.365 1 .037 -1.735 -.055

Location


-3.265 .501 42.483 1 .000 -4.247 -2.283


-2.259 .482 21.979 1 .000 -3.203 -1.315


-.882 .486 3.292 1 .070 -1.836 .071


-.129 .472 .075 1 .785 -1.053 .795


0a . . 0 . . .

[CommsIndexcategory=1StronglyNegative]

-4.147 .363 130.329

1 .000 -4.859 -3.435

[CommsIndexcategory=2Negative]

-1.523 .346 19.383 1 .000 -2.202 -.845

[CommsIndexcategory=3Neutral]

-1.162 .387 9.044 1 .003 -1.920 -.405

[CommsIndexcategory=4Positive]

-.469 .297 2.502 1 .114 -1.051 .112

[CommsIndexcategory=5StronglyPositive]

0a . . 0 . . .


37

3.PLUM-OrdinalRegression:Brand,CommsIndexandDiscipline



739




Syntax PLUMGroupingBYBrandScoreCategoryCommsIndexcategoryPureDiscRedone/CRITERIA=CIN(95)DELTA(0)LCONVERGE(0)MXITER(100)MXSTEP(5)PCONVERGE(1.0E-6)SINGULAR(1.0E-8)/LINK=LOGIT/PRINT=FITPARAMETERSUMMARY.


38


NMarginalPercentage



291 39.4%


CommsIndexcategory

1StronglyNegative

389 52.6%


87 11.8%

PureDiscRedone Med/End/Hum 123 16.6%Nat/Soc 616 83.4%



Model-2Log


1027.499



39


ParameterEstimates

Estimate



LowerBound

UpperBound

Threshold

[Grouping=1Hostile]

-8.169 .534 234.216

1 .000 -9.216 -7.123

[Grouping=2PutOff]

-6.045 .518 136.397

1 .000 -7.059 -5.030


-3.407 .479 50.501 1 .000 -4.346 -2.467

[Grouping=4Engaged]

-.699 .437 2.561 1 .110 -1.555 .157

Location


-3.192 .504 40.048 1 .000 -4.181 -2.203


-2.193 .485 20.413 1 .000 -3.144 -1.242


-.850 .490 3.016 1 .082 -1.809 .109


-.092 .475 .037 1 .847 -1.023 .840


0a . . 0 . . .


-4.095 .364 126.430

1 .000 -4.808 -3.381


-1.496 .347 18.589 1 .000 -2.176 -.816


-1.093 .388 7.923 1 .005 -1.853 -.332


-.462 .298 2.398 1 .121 -1.046 .123

40


0a . . 0 . . .

[PureDiscRedone=Med/End/Hum]

.496 .202 6.035 1 .014 .100 .892

[PureDiscRedone=Nat/Soc]

0a . . 0 . . .


41

4.PLUM-OrdinalRegression:AllFactors



739




Syntax PLUMGroupingBYBrandScoreCategoryCommsIndexcategoryPureDiscRedoneCareerstagecleansedTop200QSRankingLanguage/CRITERIA=CIN(95)DELTA(0)LCONVERGE(0)MXITER(100)MXSTEP(5)PCONVERGE(1.0E-6)SINGULAR(1.0E-8)/LINK=LOGIT/PRINT=FITPARAMETERSUMMARY.


42


NMarginalPercentage



291 39.4%


CommsIndexcategory

1StronglyNegative

389 52.6%


87 11.8%

PureDiscRedone Med/End/Hum 123 16.6%Nat/Soc 616 83.4%

Careerstagecleansed Junior 309 41.8%Mid-Career 267 36.1%Senior 163 22.1%

Top200QSRanking >200 207 28.0%1-200 274 37.1%NA 258 34.9%

Language Anglophone 333 45.1%NotAnglophone 406 54.9%



Model-2Log


1664.095


43

Goodness-of-Fit

Chi-Square df Sig.Pearson 986.664 1086 .986Deviance 632.359 1086 1.000Linkfunction:Logit.


ParameterEstimates

Estimate



LowerBound

UpperBound

Threshold

[Grouping=1Hostile]

-8.350 .552 228.630

1 .000 -9.432 -7.268

[Grouping=2PutOff]

-6.196 .535 134.080

1 .000 -7.245 -5.148


-3.528 .497 50.371 1 .000 -4.503 -2.554

[Grouping=4Engaged]

-.804 .454 3.134 1 .077 -1.693 .086

Location


-3.332 .509 42.794 1 .000 -4.330 -2.333


-2.326 .489 22.587 1 .000 -3.286 -1.367


-.935 .493 3.601 1 .058 -1.902 .031


-.135 .478 .080 1 .778 -1.071 .802


0a . . 0 . . .


-3.963 .366 117.346

1 .000 -4.680 -3.246


-1.343 .350 14.726 1 .000 -2.029 -.657

44


-.965 .392 6.070 1 .014 -1.733 -.197


-.395 .301 1.725 1 .189 -.985 .195


0a . . 0 . . .

[PureDiscRedone=Med/End/Hum]

.492 .204 5.844 1 .016 .093 .892

[PureDiscRedone=Nat/Soc]

0a . . 0 . . .

[Careerstagecleansed=Junior]

.378 .192 3.897 1 .048 .003 .754

[Careerstagecleansed=Mid-Career]

-.046 .194 .057 1 .811 -.426 .333

[Careerstagecleansed=Senior]

0a . . 0 . . .

[Top200QSRanking=>200]

-.323 .189 2.936 1 .087 -.693 .046

[Top200QSRanking=1-200]

-.338 .179 3.549 1 .060 -.689 .014

[Top200QSRanking=NA]

0a . . 0 . . .

[Language=Anglophone]

-.131 .155 .723 1 .395 -.435 .172

[Language=NotAnglophone]

0a . . 0 . . .

Linkfunction:Logit.a. Thisparameterissettozerobecauseitisredundant.

mdpi experience survey results introduction

Documents