Table 2.
Journal practices in contacting authors
| Journal | Number authors contacted during submission (mechanism) | Number authors contacted during review (mechanism) | Number authors contacted during acceptance (mechanism) | Participation rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal of Neuroscience | 1175 (letter to author) | 163 (letter to author) | 25 (letter to author) | ~12% |
| Journal of Comparative Neurology | (direct author assist) | (direct author assist) | (direct author assist) | >90% |
| Brain and Behavior | ~100 (letter to author) | ~25% | ||
| Neuroinformatics | (staff looks up RRIDs) | 100% | ||
| F1000 Research | ~50 (letter to author) | ~12% | ||
| Brain Research | 671 (letter to author) | 1% | ||
| Journal of Neuroscience Methods | 314 (letter to author) | 1% | ||
| Neurobiology of Disease | 291 (letter to author) | 3% | ||
| Experimental Neurology | 297 (letter to author) | 3% |
Different journals chose to contact authors at different stages of the publishing cycle and assist in the addition of RRIDs via different mechanisms. The participation rate was by far the lowest with only instructions to authors; these journals are not included in this table (for example BMC) and had <1% participation rates. When authors were asked by a blanket mailing containing instructions, participation rates ranged between 1 and 15%. Participation was very high if the editorial staff asked authors directly or suggested identifiers for their manuscript. Note that in some cases only an approximation could be made by the participating journals.