Questionnaire on eco.mont

Evaluation eco.mont

Dear Sir or Madam,

Our Journal eco.mont - Journal on protected mountain areas research and management has now been published regularly for 16 years. During this time eco.mont has covered a wide range of topics concerning mountain protected areas and has increased its reputation. In order to evaluate the journal’s recognition and to further increase its quality and impact, we – the editors of eco.mont – would like to critically assess the journal’s contents, contributions and overall set-up.

Duration of the questionnaire: 5-10 min

Participation is voluntary. You can cancel at any time by closing your browser. In this case, the data you entered will be deleted and will not be use.

Your answers are completely anonymous and will be evaluated anonymously. All data will be treated confidentially and in accordance with data protection regulations. They will only be evaluated in the context of this survey and will not be made available to third parties. By pressing the "submit" button at the end of the questionnaire, you agree to these conditions.

1) What is your relation to eco.mont?

Editorial board member *

yes

no

Author of a scientific article *

yes

no

Author of a report *

yes

no

Author of a case in point *

yes

no

Reviewer *

yes

no

Follower / user / reader *

yes

no

In the following, we ask you to evaluate some statements. The evaluation criteria are built on a 1 to 5 scale, 1 standing for the minimum satisfaction and 5 for the maximum. 0 stands for no comment.

2) Satisfaction with the quality of the articles in the journal

Do you find the journal interesting to read? *

Are you satisfied with the overall quality of the journal? *

Are you satisfied with quality of the presented research articles? *

Are you satisfied with quality of the presented management and policy articles? *

Are you satisfied with quality of the presented case in points? *

Is the ratio of scientific to non-scientific articles balanced? *

Any other points / suggestions:

3) Satisfaction with the structural quality of the journal

Are you satisfied with the overall composition of the editorial committee? *

Are you satisfied with the overall composition of the editorial board? *

Are you satisfied with the overall quality of the editorials? *

Is the information available on the eco.mont website sufficient for submitting an article? (https://ecomont.mountainresearch.at/) *

Are the journal’s aims and scope clearly stated? *

Are the guidelines sufficiently explained? *

Any other points / suggestions:

4) Satisfaction with the reviewing process (only for authors)

Are you satisfied with the reviewing process? *

Are you satisfied with the choice of reviewers? *

Any other points / suggestions:

5) Scientific and practical relevance

Are the topics presented relevant for your work? *

Are the topics presented relevant for mountain protected areas? *

Is the content appropriate for you in terms of language? *

Is the content appropriate for you in terms of complexity? *

Any other points / suggestions:

6) Further issues

What do you think about the quality of the online presentation of the articles? *

Suggestions for improvement

Evaluation eco.mont

1) What is your relation to eco.mont?

2) Satisfaction with the quality of the articles in the journal

3) Satisfaction with the structural quality of the journal

4) Satisfaction with the reviewing process (only for authors)

5) Scientific and practical relevance

6) Further issues

7) Any other messages for the editors of eco.mont?

New issue, January 2024

Questionnaire on eco.mont

Special issue 2025

Paper submission

Journal Metrics

Footer V2