An electronic survey instrument was developed using the 2002 survey template as a framework. A four-point Likert-like scale was employed, to which respondents could either "strongly agree", "agree", “disagree", or "strongly disagree". If respondents wished to express uncertainty/neutrality to an individual question, they were instructed to leave that item blank. Sixteen questions addressed demographics, journal content, special features, the on-line journal, and the peer-review process. Free-text categories also provided the opportunity for individual comments. The survey instrument was tested on a sub-group of the Editorial Board, and ambiguous questions were either revised or deleted. The tested survey was then posted on-line from April 1^st – 25^th 2005, in both English and French, with a special link from The Journal's website (www.cja-jca.org). Survey posting and data management for descriptive statistics were provided using the commercially-available software from SurveyMonkey™ . Further dissemination to readers was provided via announcements in The Journal, the quarterly Newsletter of the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS), and a "pop-up" announcement on The Journal's website during the period of data collection. Data are presented in summary and descriptive form.

Respondents
A total of 450 completed responses were received. Three hundred sixty four of the respondents were members of the CAS (CAS response rate = 25.4%). The majority were male (male/female respondents = 350/100); and the number of specialists vs non-specialists was 306/125. The percentage of certified specialists from Canada (members of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada) was 69.3%; 7.1% were family practice anesthetists, 10.1% were residents and fellows, 1.8% were allied health professionals, and the remainder were “other”

Summary Data
The majority of respondents (93%) strongly agree or agree they are satisfied with The Journal’s content relevance, and 90% either strongly agree or agree that they are satisfied with content quality. The break-down of responses by category is presented in Table I.

Readers were questioned regarding interest in types of articles presented in The Journal. The following percentages indicate the proportion of respondents who regularly (rather than occasionally, or never) read the following features: Review Articles (78%); Editorials (68%); Case Reports (52%); Correspondence (44%); Best Evidence in Critical Care Medicine (43%); Original Research (31%); New Media (19%). With respect to special features, 63% of respondents either strongly agree or agree that industry-sponsored supplements are of interest; 71% strongly agree or agree that the CJA accredited learning module is of value [Editor’s note: This new feature was launched only one month prior to the survey]. The Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) Download feature was launched in 2003. To date, the uptake of this feature has been low, as only 14% of respondents indicated their strong agreement or agreement that they regularly download CJA materials onto their PDA’s. The Journal publishes in both official languages of Canada, and 52% of readers either strongly agree or agree that translations are an important aspect of The Journal.

Many readers of The Journal are also regular contributors/authors. Respondents who had submitted manuscripts to The Journal were invited in this survey to provide feedback regarding The Journal’s peer review process. Summary data are presented in Table II. Ninety three percent either strongly agree or agree that the review process is fair and transparent. While 16% did not agree that reviews are conducted in a timely manner, 93% of those who responded either strongly agree or agree that they value Reviewer’s Comments.

In the free-text response section, many positive comments regarding The Journal were expressed. Five respondents requested that The Journal move to online submission and peer review. [Editor’s note: On-line submission and peer review will be implemented as of September 1^st, 2005].

While the overall response rate was only 25%, the majority of respondents clearly are pleased with the content and relevance of The Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. The interest in review articles, CME features, editorials and case reports reflects a strong clinical orientation of the readership. A lower proportion of readers who regularly read original research is understandable, given the focused and area-specific content information which reports of original research generate. The Board views it a priority to carefully balance the types of articles to ensure appropriate evolution of The Journal in fostering the knowledge base of the specialty, while also providing an important educational tool.Since the future of the specialty is dependant on the generation and dissemination of new knowledge related to clinical practice, The Journal will continue to play an important role in this area.

The e-journal is increasingly embraced by the readership, the majority of whom reglarly access CJA Online. While a significant number of readers wish to continue receiving the print copy of The Journal, it appears that these two formats serve different roles. Readers may prefer to read from the print copy, but like the unique advantages of the online journal which provide for electronic searching and archiving capabilities. Other special features including on-line CME, will likely serve a growing role in the future. It is also gratifying to observe the favorable responses regarding the Journal’s peer-review process. Online manuscript submissions and peer review will be implemented in September 2005, and it is anticipated that this conversion will reduce both peer review lag time and publication lag time.

The pleasing survey results, which reflect to a great extent the past contributions of the previous editors, were studied by the Editorial Board at a special strategic planning exercise held in Vancouver this past June. The data will be used to help chart the course for The Journal over the next five years, and to plan several new features and enhancements to appear, beginning in January 2006.

Donald R Miller MD, Editor-in-Chief