Results

There were 293 responses of which 92% were from the members of the Association of British Neurologists. The responses from various age ranges were: 26–34 years, 15%; 35–54 years, 62%; 55–64 years, 18% and 65+ years, 5%. Most respondents regularly read the print version: 68% once a month or more; 17% once a quarter; 14% less often or online only. Seventeen per cent said they read all of it, 45% most of it, 30% a few articles and 7% did not read the print journal.

We asked readers how often Practical Neurology impacted on their work, research or practice, with 46% answering ‘frequently’, 33% ‘sometimes’, 20% ‘occasionally’ and 1% ‘never’ (figure 1). The 92 related free-text comments emphasised the journal's practical aspects; common terms included ‘relevant’ (14 times) and daily, clinical or current ‘practice’ (22 times).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1

How often has something you read in Practical Neurology impacted on or been reflected in your work, research or practice?

Readers recognised the journal as providing reliable information; on a 10-point scale from ‘not at all’ to ‘extremely’, 83% scored over 8. The 169 free-text comments here (figure 2) are divided into four domains: very negative (none), negative, such as ‘does not publish clinical trials or original research and has no impact factor’ (3 (1.8%)); neutral, such as ‘I believe it is reliable’ (13 (7.7%)); positive, such as ‘I find it useful and reflects real-life neurology’ (79 (46.7%)) and very positive, such as ‘excellent journal and highly relevant to clinical practice’ (74 (43.8%)).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 2

Word cloud generated using Wordle (http://www.wordle.net/create) of 168 responses from readers when asked why they would recommend Practical Neurology.

We also asked readers if they found different article types interesting, useful or relevant. All article types were considered interesting, each getting between 127 and 183 positive responses—‘A difficult case’ and ‘Neurological rarities’ scored highest. ‘Reviews’ and ‘How to do it’ articles were the most useful (158–193) and relevant (137–175). Unusual case-based articles, such as ‘Neurological rarities’, ‘Clinicopathological conferences’ and ‘Test yourself’ articles were slightly less useful (100–145) and less relevant (70–97). Other less formal articles, such as ‘Neurological letter from…’, ‘Me and my neurological illness’, ‘Carphology’ and ‘Book club’ were less useful (35–40) and less relevant (29–54).

The free-text comments here were very positive: reviews received the most positive comments, followed by case reports of different sorts, and many highlighted the journal's humour and readability. When asked specifically which parts were least enjoyed, the free text again reflected the numerical scores, with over 20 responses saying they liked it all. However, the less formal article types—‘the bits and bobs bits’ as one respondent put it—were least enjoyed.

The editorials were scored as interesting (165), modestly useful (87) and relevant (85), but did prompt one specific comment: ‘the editorial—it's just flannel’.

The survey requested suggestions for new features. Over 100 specific responses to this ranged from specific topics for review, to suggested series (controversies in neurology), to cartoons and a crossword.