Reader Survey Results
by Lois Carter Fay [ Center for International Stabilization and Recovery ]
(Click image to enlarge)
Do you read most of the articles in each issue of The Journal?
The staff of The Journal of ERW and Mine Action wants to thank you, our subscribers, for telling us what you think about our publication. We want you to know, “We heard you!” Over the next few issues, we will implement several changes as a result of this feedback. For instance, we plan to do the following:
- Create a discussion-driven forum rather than a topic-driven publication
- Redesign and relaunch the CISR website, better integrating it with the MAIC website
- Emphasize popular content (Notes from the Field, R&D and more articles about victim assistance)
- Create new sections (several ideas were given) and publish some of the less popular sections (Book Reviews, Unsung Heroes) online-only
- Target specific authors to provide in-depth content from experienced field personnel
- Limit or eliminate the student-written articles
 (Click image to enlarge) Which sections of The Journal do you tend to read? (More than one answer is okay.) |
 (Click image to enlarge) Do you share your copy of The Journal with others? |
|---|
In total, 176 readers completed the survey, which is an outstanding 10-percent response rate. Contrary to what we believed, we discovered that The Journal is being delivered in a timely manner, with 64 percent of the respondents saying they receive it within one month of mailing. In addition, although we do not plan to implement a subscription fee, we were pleased to learn that 59 percent of those responding would be willing to pay US$10 or more to continue receiving The Journal.
(Click image to enlarge)
Which format do you prefer when reading The Journal - hard copy or online?
When asked, “Which topics do you find most helpful?” several sections/topics were listed multiple times. In particular, many readers noted they like the R&D articles, Notes from the Field, and articles dealing with risk education and victim assistance. Case studies, hero profiles and organization profiles were also mentioned repeatedly, with some respondents loving them and others not liking them at all.
On the other hand, when asked, “Which sections provide the least value?” readers again repeatedly said hero profiles. Book reviews, country profiles and “sob stories” were also mentioned. One respondent said, “I think every now and again, you have an ‘odd’ article that could have been approached from a different perspective; however, overall, any article that makes it to publication is worth the time to read it.”
We found that many of our readers are sharing their Journal copies with others; some share it with as few as one other person while others share it with as many as 20 people. Several readers mentioned that they never let their printed editions out of their offices because they find the content too valuable to lose and they refer to past articles frequently. One respondent commented, “I cite the article and make a photocopy of the article. I don’t want to lose my copy.”
Below are selected responses* to the question, “What do you like best about The Journal?”:
- The focus on various regions and topics of current concern or interest.
- Accuracy and details.
- Some useful articles, like a recent issue on ERW had one very good article from Arms Control people. Top quality paper.
- Electronic availability and maintenance of links; also historic links (i.e., online links to archived articles).
- Good mix between text and pictures; easy to read.
- Focus on content relating to mine action and its various pillars of engagement (clearance, mine-risk education, survivor assistance, program development, etc.).
- It’s keeping the community together, allowing us to share experiences.
- It’s all industry-related. No distractions and nothing too political.
- Articles on actual experiences in mine action and explosive remnants of war.
- I feel The Journal presents a balanced and technical response regarding the issue of demining.
- Guest editorial or op-ed, trends, “Where Are They Now?,” historical essays, victim assistance, more integration of conventional weapons destruction
- New developments in standards and procedures; new equipment developments
- Things from a social-scientific perspective, incorporating an understanding of how politics, economics and social issues impact the manner in which mine action is carried out
- Straightforward articles dealing with successes and failures
- Updates on the global landmine/ERW situation
- Personal stories of people in the field; this is an unforgiving business and it’s nice to read stories about others whom I have met
“What do you like least about The Journal?” elicited these (selected) responses:*
- Sometimes the articles are a little irrelevant and self-promotional. Time lag between article development and publication.
- The Journal’s use of the term “mines” is inexact, considering the amount of UXO and also improvised explosive devices encountered.
- I miss the discussion of the future need for MA and the discussion of how to integrate MA in development and reconstruction.
- The lack of discussion forum.
- The lack of editorial rigour or peer review. It appears more like a magazine than a journal.
- Articles are too theoretical.
- Sometimes, I see some articles that are written in a very high level of literacy and technical language that is not easy to understand.
- Same sources for articles.
We also received several interesting ideas from our readers regarding what new sections or topics they would like to see. One reader suggested adding more photo essays to the printed edition and more video on the website. Another said he would like to see more topics related to the betterment of deminers’ lives (working conditions, problems, benefits, etc.), and topics exposing sloppy UXO removal work. Other suggestions were:
- Guest editorial or op-ed, trends, “Where Are They Now?,” historical essays, victim assistance, more integration of conventional weapons destruction
- New developments in standards and procedures; new equipment developments
- Things from a social-scientific perspective, incorporating an understanding of how politics, economics and social issues impact the manner in which mine action is carried out
- Straightforward articles dealing with successes and failures
- Updates on the global landmine/ERW situation
- Personal stories of people in the field; this is an unforgiving business and it’s nice to read stories about others whom I have met
All in all, we feel we have received valuable survey feedback. We will take your suggestions to heart and evaluate which ones are feasible as we chart our future course. Thank you for your time and ideas!
*Note: All responses have been edited for grammar, spelling and clarity. 
Biography
Lois Carter Fay, APR, is Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of ERW and Mine Action and Project Manager on other publishing projects, including To Walk the Earth in Safety. Prior to joining the MAIC in 2005, Carter Fay was self-employed with MarketingIdeaShop.com, a consulting and publishing company, and today she continues this activity part-time.
Contact Information
Lois Carter Fay, APR
Editor-in-Chief
The Journal of ERW and Mine Action
Mine Action Information Center
Center for International Stabilization and Recovery
James Madison University
800 South Main Street, MSC 4902
Harrisonburg, VA 22807 / USA
Tel: +1 540 568 2503
Fax: +1 540 568 8176
E-mail: carterlx(at)jmu.edu
Website: http://cisr.jmu.edu or http://maic.jmu.edu
