[Reading behavior and preferences regarding subscriptions to scientific journals : Results of a survey of members of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery].

BACKGROUND

The purpose of surgical literature is to publish the latest study results and to provide continuing medical education to readers. For optimal allocation of resources, institutional subscribers, professional societies and scientific publishers require structured data on reading and subscription preferences of potential readers of surgical literature.

OBJECTIVES

To obtain representative data on the preferences of German general and visceral surgeons regarding reading of and subscription to scientific journals.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All members of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) were invited to participate in a web-based survey. Questions were asked on the affiliation and position of the member, individual journal subscriptions, institutional access to scientific journals, preferences regarding electronic or print articles and special subscriptions for society members. Answers were descriptively analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 630 out of 4091 (15 %) members participated in the survey and 73 % of the respondents had at least 1 individual subscription to a scientific journal. The most frequently subscribed journal was Der Chirurg (47 % of respondents). The institutional access to journals was deemed insufficient by 48 % of respondents, predominantly in primary care hospitals and outpatient clinics. Almost half of the respondents gave sufficient importance to reading printed versions of articles for which they would pay extra fees. A group subscription for society members was perceived as advantageous as long as no relevant extra costs were incurred.

CONCLUSION

This structured survey among members of the DGAV provides data on preferences regarding reading of and subscription to scientific journals. Individual subscriptions to journals are still common, possibly due to suboptimal institutional access particularly at smaller non-academic institutions. In an age of online publications it seems surprising that many respondents place a high value on printed versions. The results are relevant for potential institutional subscribers, professional societies and scientific publishers.