What do marine and freshwater researchers think about the New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research?

Summary of an email opinion survey

Sandra Stanislawek, July 2002

Introduction

In July 2002, an email survey was conducted by the Editor with assistance from the Editorial Advisory Board members. Questions were emailed to staff at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited, other Crown Research Institutes, Government agencies (e.g., Department of Conservation), New Zealand universities, private institutions (e.g., Cawthron Institute), members of New Zealand Marine Sciences Society and the New Zealand Limnological Society, contacts and colleagues of the Editorial Advisory Board members, as well as journal authors and referees (chosen at random) overseas.

A copy of the email sent out was as follows:

Email survey questions

(1) Does a research journal such as NZJMFR (in its present form) meet the needs of the kinds of aquatic science with which you are involved?

If not, why not, and how could this be rectified?

(2) NZJMFR  perceptions:

How do you (and your institution/colleagues - could overseas respondents please respond to this query in particular) feel about NZJMFR?

International standing (ranking/distribution/readership)?

Scope (topics you value/broaden/specialise)?

Target audience?

Procedures (refereeing/editorial)?

Format (print/electronic)?

Speed of publication?

(3) Future submissions: do you intend to submit any papers to NZJMFR within the next year or so?

Yes or possibly - why?

No - why not?

(4) Suggestions for improvement: how can NZJMFR be improved to better meet your needs?

Scope?

Procedures (how about electronic submission/handling of manuscripts)?

Format (print and electronic copy of published papers/journal)?

(5) Other comments:

Responses

Ninety-five responses were received  (New Zealand, 69; Australia, 11; elsewhere 15). All respondents were thanked and additional information was provided as required. This included information on the scope, electronic submission of papers, availability of Abstracts and full text on the Internet, citation data, costs and quality of colour reproduction, refereeing, funding, subscriptions, and page charges.

Summary of responses

Question 1—Does a research journal such as NZJMFR (in its present form) meet the needs of the kinds of aquatic science with which you are involved? If not, why not, and how could this be rectified?

New Zealand respondents

NZJMFR meets the needs of the majority (86%) of New Zealand marine and freshwater researchers that responded to the survey. The journal partly meets the needs of 10% of respondents and does not meet the needs of 4% of the respondents.

Respondents whose needs are met by NZJMFR consider it to be a good quality journal that has a wide enough scope to be a potential outlet for most aquatic science work carried out in New Zealand. The range of papers published in NZJMFR is wide and the presentation of these papers together in one journal makes NZJMFR a useful reference. Respondents like the multidisciplinary nature of the journal and its New Zealand focus specific to New Zealand species and locales. NZJMFR is the main vehicle for publishing research with particular relevance to New Zealand and it is considered to be essential and does a good job. Respondents consider that there is a need for this type of journal to keep an overview of research done in New Zealand as well as to provide a forum for local research results. NZJMFR publishes research specific to New Zealand that may be of little interest to overseas journals yet presents the New Zealand side of the story on international research issues.

NZJMFR is regarded as an important vehicle for biological and ecological research. It also publishes a good range of practical/applied and environmental research. Fisheries and fish taxonomic work are considered important. However, although NZJMFR meets the general needs of scientists in New Zealand it probably only meets their specific needs in a few areas i.e., it does not meet a specific niche. It was suggested that some specialist areas could be encouraged. Some respondents consider NZJMFR to lack papers on taxonomy, animal physiology, aquaculture, and toxicology. Other journals provide more coverage of quantitative resource management issues (e.g., fisheries modelling). Respondents consider that more management aspects of marine and freshwater research and more applied research in general would be appreciated. One respondent commented that the scope needs to be broader, as it is currently highly biological in nature and specialises in fish. The scope needs to take in the continuum of fisheries and aquatic management, conservation management, marine farming and exploitation management, monitoring and survey techniques, social interaction/dynamics within the marine environment, impacts and opinions of recreational users, interaction between coastal ecosystems and marine ecosystems and the impacts and demands on each etc.

Respondents acknowledged that as NZJMFR tends to publish only topics relevant to New Zealand it is limited in the audience that it reaches. Researchers also try to publish in specialist journals overseas because of the ease of targeting the right audience. Some research is more suitable for publication in other journals that target a more specific audience and other research is published in journals with a wider audience rather than the local audience.

The needs of New Zealand aquatic researchers were spelt out by one respondent as: a place to publish research that will be read by lots of New Zealanders; a place to publish student research and research of regional importance; a source of information on the New Zealand aquatic environment and that indicates the latest research advances in New Zealand aquatic ecology; and a source of conceptual and theoretical information that relates specifically to the New Zealand aquatic environment. NZJMFR is considered to only partly meet these needs because although it publishes a lot of papers on the New Zealand aquatic environment, the quality of the papers tends to be average. In addition, work published in NZJMFR is sometimes the repetition of old work.

One respondent suggested that the two components (marine and freshwater) could be separated as they are quite distinct and marine researchers are not interested in freshwater research and vice versa.

NZJMFR is considered to be "picky". Delays in publication of papers give the perception that the journal is a little out-of-date. NZJMFR could also have a larger page size to accommodate large figures.

Overseas respondents

Half of the overseas respondents feel that NZJMFR meets their needs. They consider NZJMFR to be a fundamentally sound regional journal with a broad scope publishing timely and very applied papers. It is considered to provide an appropriate forum for Australasian marine and freshwater science as it is now more difficult for Australian researchers to publish in their own "local" journal now that it is striving to be more "international" in nature. However, NZJMFR does not have a strong presence in the areas of marine chemistry/chemical oceanography, physical oceanography, and marine modelling. NZJMFR does not come up in literature searches presumably because it has a local (and primarily fisheries) focus. It is thought to be appropriate for New Zealand research but not for work beyond New Zealand's marine waters. One respondent considers that NZJMFR is becoming increasingly dominated by river papers that are of less interest to this particular researcher than lake or estuary research.

The local focus of NZJMFR allows for the publication of more detail on studies that is allowed in more internationally-oriented journals and this is appreciated by overseas researchers.

Question 2—NZJMFR  perceptions

How do you (and your institution/colleagues - could overseas respondents please respond to this query in particular) feel about NZJMFR?

New Zealand respondents

All New Zealand respondents made positive comments about the journal with the exception of two respondents. Respondents said that they like the journal, it is a well-produced solid journal that publishes good quality research of regional interest (relevant to the temperate South Pacific) and as such it fills a very valuable niche. NZJMFR is an essential and well-regarded and respected vehicle for reporting New Zealand research that may or may not be of interest to the worldwide scientific community. Respondents consider that the journal clearly serves a valuable purpose.

Journal standards and the way that the journal is perceived within New Zealand have been enhanced significantly in recent years and the journal is held in high regard in New Zealand and overseas (by those aware of it). However, there is still the feeling among New Zealanders that NZJMFR is just the local journal and therefore is not their primary or preferred target for publication of their research. One respondent noted that NZJMFR is not widely read or accepted as an international journal by overseas researchers and unfortunately most New Zealand scientists see it in the same light. There is still the perception that New Zealand scientists need to publish in overseas journals in order to be taken notice of internationally. Overseas co-authors are happy to have papers submitted to NZJMFR and prefer it over other journals because of its high rating and fast turnaround time. The reputation of NZJMFR is continuing to grow, on the back of good quality papers and editing, and these standards need to be maintained to keep making inroads into international perceptions of the journal.

NZJMFR is thought to be of particular interest to New Zealand researchers and aquatic ecologists worldwide. It is considered that many researchers starting to research a new topic on New Zealand oceans would start with NZJMFR.

One respondent commented that the journal suffers from a strong New Zealand bias and publishes a lot of "case history" papers. One respondent considers NZJMFR to be very focused and that it mainly publishes papers by NIWA authors. Another respondent is disappointed at the quality of papers currently published in the journal and considers that the journal needs to be more selective and reject papers that are not of high quality (weak scientific rigour, too many tables of raw data, citing too much grey literature, and that there are too many papers on the same old subjects). This respondent also commented that NZJMFR has become a publishing house for FRST project outputs.

Overseas respondents

Australia: Australian respondents consider NZJMFR to be a useful high-quality journal publishing timely research results from New Zealand and on the Southern Ocean. It is equivalent to the Australian journal.  NZJMFR is thought to be an integral part of limnological and oceanographic research in New Zealand and is suspected to fill a useful niche for Australasian research. Although NZJMFR is found in libraries throughout Australia, one respondent questioned how often NZJMFR was actually read by Australian researchers.

Elsewhere: Respondents familiar with NZJMFR consider it to be an excellent quality journal that serves its purpose as an outlet for New Zealand research papers. They consider the format to be okay and believe NZJMFR to be on par with the Australian journal, although the Australian journal may be more international. One North American respondent said that his library doesn't subscribe to NZJMFR primarily because of the perception that it is too regional. Another North American respondent said that no-one at his institution reads NZJMFR and even though it is a good journal it is not of interest to researchers outside New Zealand and Australia. A European respondent said that NZJMFR was much too oriented to New Zealand research. Another European respondent said that his library stopped subscribing in 1997/98 but that he had used NZJMFR in the past and found it useful. Many respondents have only become aware of NZJMFR since being asked to referee papers and some respondents admitted that they have never seen the journal. Some respondents said that more people need to know about NZJMFR as it also publishes international research and is generally worthwhile.

International standing (ranking/distribution/readership)?

New Zealand respondents

Two-thirds of the New Zealand respondents regard NZJMFR has having mid-high international standing, and a particularly high ranking for a regional journal. Respondents commented that NZJMFR has made an impact and is gaining status and is one of the best New Zealand journals. More international material is also being published in NZJMFR. Some respondents admitted that they don't know and a few believe NZJMFR has a low ranking because a significant amount of material published in NZJMFR is in the national interest only.

In the field of physical oceanography, Australian colleagues rate NZJMFR higher than their own equivalent journal. On the other hand, another respondent noted that NZJMFR seems to be a less preferred destination for papers than the Australian journal, presumably because the Australian journal has developed a stronger perception of being truly international and also as they have captured the international conference market to some extent. NZJMFR is thought to be mid range for freshwater journals and is up there with other very good, if not first rank, international aquatic journals. The international standing is not thought to be very high for river, coastal, and ecohydraulics research. NZJMFR is considered to be a third-tier journal behind the general ecology journals (in the same league as the Australian journal).

It was noted that NZJMFR is read and cited by far more than New Zealand scientists and that it has a good reputation outside New Zealand. It is possible that NZJMFR is better regarded overseas than it is in New Zealand as at international meetings the journal is well known and highly thought of. However, other respondents believe that their overseas colleagues don't take much notice of NZJMFR and that the world probably sees it as a regional journal. It was noted that any journal with a country name in its title will immediately be seen as being local and therefore its international standing is coloured by this initial perception whether it is justified or not. NZJMFR needs to be more known internationally as papers published in NZJMFR are not always cited by international researchers, particularly in the United States and Europe.

NZJMFR is widely distributed in New Zealand and in Australia. However, although the journal is highly cited internationally it does not seem to be widely available outside Australasia and therefore suffers from limited readership. Several North American scientists have complained that NZJMFR is not available in their libraries although it does seem to be available at large United States institutions. Respondents noted that they receive a continuous stream of reprint requests from overseas indicating that the journal is widely abstracted but hard to access through their own libraries. Distribution needs to be improved if possible as the current limited distribution gives the perception of limited international impact. Good internet access to the online version of the journal will allow better access and international readers will be able to follow up papers published in NZJMFR.

Overseas respondents

Australia: NZJMFR is thought to publish work of a high standard and is ranked in the middle and on par (if not higher than some other international journals) with most regional aquatic journals and those that started out as being the journal of an individual country. It is too regional to be considered for most overseas researchers and does not have a wide audience outside New Zealand. One respondent described NZJMFR as a specialist journal of low distribution and low readership with the exception of web searches. Another noted that NZJMFR was not widely read in the Northern Hemisphere.

Elsewhere: Most respondents consider NZJMFR to be ranked relatively highly but not widely read outside New Zealand because of its perceived local (New Zealand) content. One respondent believes that NZJMFR has a secondary ranking in the areas of fisheries and fish biology.  NZJMFR has a low distribution and readership in the United States and is not found in many libraries in Europe. Respondents admit that some of their colleagues had not heard of NZJMFR before now. One European respondent commented that NZJMFR has a low impact factor and is too much of a mixture of research targeted at scientists, managers, and conservationists.

Scope (topics you value/broaden/specialise)?

New Zealand respondents

All New Zealand respondents are happy with the scope and consider that although it is very wide (extending to broad Southern Hemisphere), it is about right and that NZJMFR should not specialise in any particular discipline. The interdisciplinary nature of NZJMFR seems to be appreciated. NZJMFR is the primary source of scientific research from the New Zealand aquatic environment and it needs to meet the needs of the audience and researchers and reflect the diverse range of contributors in New Zealand's marine and freshwater research community. The New Zealand focus is considered important as there is a need for a journal to publish papers of local interest to New Zealand freshwater and marine scientists and managers and therefore the lack of international appeal is not really relevant. The equivalent Australian journal has gone from a top-ranked national journal to a middle-ranked international journal that publishes not particularly good papers from overseas at the expense of local material. It was also noted that there a number of very high quality regional journals in North American and Europe that are specifically and confidently regional but their quality and repute is never questioned simply on the basis that they are regional in focus. It was also noted that a broad scope is not necessarily a factor that will enhance citation data as papers of a broad readership are less likely to be sent to a regional journal.

There is likely to be something of interest in each issue of NZJMFR and specialising would decrease readership. The New Zealand scientific community is also too small for a more specialist approach. Most respondents like the combination of marine and freshwater research in one journal as some researchers work in both areas and others like to occasionally read outside their own fields. One respondent suggested that papers be grouped by theme rather than by the marine and freshwater "blocks". However, another respondent likes the split between the two and feels that there is potential for a complete split in the future. One respondent commented that the journal has an ecology and biology focus and it was said that NZJMFR mainly publishes NIWA work and that of a narrow group of authors.

Overseas respondents

Almost all overseas respondents like the wide interdisciplinary scope of NZJMFR although one European respondent considered it to be too wide and suggested that the marine and freshwater components should not be combined into one journal. An Australian respondent also commented that the scope was so broad that there was only a limited chance that a reader would find an article of interest. Although the scope is considered to be broad, NZJMFR has a high scientific content focused on New Zealand but the research is usually put within the broader context. NZJMFR gives the perspective on topics and issues as they apply to Australia and New Zealand.

Some respondents feel that NZJMFR has a bias to biological and physical papers at the expense of chemical, geological, and ecological papers. NZJMFR is relevant to life history and larval fish taxonomy of trans-Pacific species in general. It has excellent coverage of river health, riparian zone work, and hyporheic material. NZJMFR is also good for marine ecology papers. Some respondents feel that NZJMFR is deficient in estuarine papers and also studies on lakes but question if this is a result of the current research climate. One respondent suggested that it would be useful to include (solicit) more contributions from the entire Southern Hemisphere.

Target audience?

New Zealand respondents

Most respondents consider the target audience to be very wide and include freshwater and marine scientists and researchers in the field as well as managers, local authorities, and central government wanting to apply the practical aspects. The target audience is regional (as reflected in the journal title), as we need a national forum, and is also global through indexing/abstracting and current contents. Respondents feel that NZJMFR meets their target audience overseas on the basis of the reprint requests that they receive.

NZJMFR gives a good overview of New Zealand research in the New Zealand area. Authors should be encouraged to publish some of their work in NZJMFR so that the links are made with NZJMFR and overseas journals. NZJMFR also keeps New Zealand readers more aware of research being done in New Zealand.

Some respondents commented that the journal targets ecologists, biologists, and physical oceanographers. It also needs to target more specific audiences, such as the harmful algal bloom audience. One respondent said that the target audience seems to be mainly NIWA researchers and another said that some papers are published in NZJMFR so the FRST output box can be ticked off easily and quickly.

Overseas respondents

The target audience of NZJMFR is considered to be New Zealand academics, scientists, managers, and conservationists. Many respondents consider that although the function of NZJMFR is to publish and disseminate local-based research for and to the New Zealand community, the journal aims to target both regional and international audiences as the articles have at least some relevance outside New Zealand. It is popular in Australia but probably is of little interest to researchers outside Australasia apart from a few overseas researchers that are interested in specialist topics. Although NZJMFR is sometimes overlooked in overseas institutions, many are aware of the key articles published in NZJMFR indicating that it is well abstracted.

Procedures (refereeing/editorial)?

New Zealand respondents

The majority of respondents consider the journal procedures to be fine (of a high standard, very good, excellent, professional). A few consider them to be okay and some do not know. Respondents commented that the procedures had tightened up considerably in the last few years with the establishment of rapid protocols for refereeing and subsequent publication. Procedures are as good as, if not better than, other journals overseas. There is no need to change the current procedures.

Respondents consider the refereeing process to be well managed and efficient. Some respondents noted that the speed of refereeing/turnaround is the best of any journal used. However, some respondents noted that refereeing is slow at times. NZJMFR has a pool of well qualified referees from New Zealand and overseas and the refereeing is as rigorous as for any other journal. Maintaining top quality referees is very important and respondents noted that NZJMFR uses a good number of overseas referees and that at least one referee per paper should continue to be from overseas. However, one respondent noted that overseas referees sometimes miss the regional interest angle (particularly North American referees). Some respondents commented that the standards are more demanding than for higher profile journals. Some are surprised at the stringency of the refereeing process for a regional journal. One respondent said that referees are sometimes pedantic and clutter reviews with editorial marks and changes in the writing style. In addition, NZJMFR is "picky" compared to other journals and demands that authors make changes.

Respondents like the 6-month deadline for revision and one respondent said that it helps authors plan their time commitments. One respondent said that the best thing about the procedures is that authors can "talk to the Editor". Another said that once a paper is accepted, the process is painless.

One respondent feels that some papers are becoming verbose with long tables, results descriptions, discussion, and cite a lot of grey literature. Papers reporting patterns should be rejected and published elsewhere as reports.

Overseas respondents

Most respondents are happy with the current procedures and commented that they are: up to international standards, excellent, well organised, fair, good, pleasant, efficient, professional. Editorial staff are approachable and amenable to suggestions. Respondents are happy with the refereeing process both in terms of communication and follow up of referees to the fast reply from referees and fast publication of papers. Some respondents did not know.

Format (print/electronic)?

New Zealand respondents

Almost all respondents like the format of the journal and considered it to be user-friendly, impressive, straightforward, and easy to understand. Both printed and electronic forms of the journal are considered essential. Respondents like to read the print copy and they are also aware of the necessity of having a hard copy printed on acid-free paper for long-term archival purposes. The electronic version allows publication to be speeded up and access from the internet increases the availability of the journal to overseas readers. Respondents noted that this will increase the citation ranking and therefore the status of the journal. Availability of the electronic version could be advertised over electronic distribution lists (eg., phycotoxins, alga, diatoms - for relevant papers). Full text back issues also need to be available free on the web and authors could be supplied with PDF files in lieu of reprints. However, many respondents were not aware of the existence of the electronic version of NZJMFR.

Although most respondents are happy with the current B4 size of the printed journal, others would prefer single column text or a larger A4 size (for larger figures, ease of photocopying). Some commented that the printed journal is not very attractive and that it is probably constrained by being in the RSNZ suite of journals. A brighter cover design was suggested, also to reflect the uniqueness of New Zealand and its water environment. It was also suggested that the cover design could change for each issue or so, like other journals in this area do.

There is some concern over the quality of colour reproduction in the printed copy and respondents demand that this be improved.

Overseas respondents

Respondents strongly support the continuation of the printed journal but also strongly support the option of online access. The journal must be easily accessed and all papers previously published (or at least those published in the last 5 years) should be available in PDF format on the Internet. Respondents use web searches to pick up articles and consider that an online subscription would be attractive if it was cheap enough. One North American respondent obtains all articles as reprints.

Speed of publication?

New Zealand respondents

Over half of the New Zealand respondents feel that the time to publication is fine as it is. Others feel it is adequate or slow (like other journals) and some respondents don't know. Delays in publication make papers seem out-of-date and the publication delays that occur when a large number of papers are accepted need to be fixed. One respondent suggested that an extra issue be published from time to time to keep the publication delay to a maximum of 6-8 months.

Overseas respondents

The majority consider the speed to be fine with the following comments made: prompt, timely, better than most, normal, great, okay. Some respondents did not know.

Question 3—Future submissions: do you intend to submit any papers to NZJMFR within the next year or so? Yes or possibly - why? No - why not?

New Zealand respondents

Most respondents said that they definitely intend to submit papers to NZJMFR within the next year or so (70%) or probably will do so (15%). Only 15% said that they did not intend to submit papers to the journal.

Reasons for submitting to the journal included:

 Reasons for not submitting papers to NZJMFR:

Overseas respondents

Australia: Half of the Australian respondents are likely to submit papers to NZJMFR over the next year or so. Reasons included: research specific and applicable to New Zealand; speed of publication; need to develop a local profile in New Zealand. Respondents that do not plan to submit to NZJMFR are submitting more specific papers to particular target audiences; plan to publish in the Australian journal for local content; and consider their research too general for a regional journal.

Elsewhere: Half of these respondents plan to submit papers to NZJMFR as their work is relevant to New Zealand, they are collaborating with New Zealand scientists, they like the service, and now consider it as a new publication outlet. Others will not be submitting to the journal as it has a local focus, the distribution is not wide enough, NZJMFR is not appropriate for Arctic research, they have no research relevant to the Southern Hemisphere, and one European referee said that NZJMFR has a low impact factor.

Question 4—Suggestions for improvement: how can NZJMFR be improved to better meet your needs?

New Zealand respondents

Overseas respondents

Make the journal cheaper for New Zealand Postdoc students overseas

Scope?

New Zealand respondents

Overseas respondents

Procedures (how about electronic submission/handling of manuscripts)?

New Zealand respondents

Overseas respondents

Electronic handling of manuscripts speeds things up

Electronic transfer of proofs

Problems occur with the electronic submission of figures to other journals

Format (print and electronic copy of published papers/journal)?

New Zealand respondents

Overseas respondents

Question 5—Other comments?

New Zealand respondents

Overseas respondents