This article compares the response rates for obtaining journal reprints from colleagues when the requests are made using postcards with or without a self-addressed return label. Higher response rates were obtained from the cards with the self-addressed return labels, and more women responded than did men, but these differences were not statistically significant.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
TenopirC. and KingD. W., Towards Electronic Journals: Realities for Scientists, Librarians and Publishers, Special Libraries Association, Washington, D.C., 2000.
2.
HartleyJ., Postcard, Letter or E-Mail? What's the Best Way to Obtain a Reprint?Science Communication, 19, pp. 56–61, 1997.
3.
HartleyJ., Obtaining Reprints—Does Color Help?Science Communication, 22, pp. 212–218, 2000.
4.
GrovesB. W. and OlssonR. H., Response Rates to Surveys with Self-Addressed Stamped Envelopes versus a Self-Addressed Label, Psychological Reports, 86, pp. 1226–1228, 2000.
5.
CookC.HeathF., and ThompsonR. L., A Meta-Analysis of Response Rates in Web and Internet Surveys, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, pp. 821–836, 2000.
6.
MitchellV-W., Improving Mail Survey Responses from UK Academics: Some Empirical Findings, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23, pp. 59–70, 1998.
7.
SummersJ. and PriceJ. H., Increasing Return Rates to a Mail Survey among Educators, Psychological Reports, 81, pp. 551–554, 1997.
8.
YammarinoF. Y.SkinnerS. J., and ChildersT. L., Understanding Mail Survey Response Behaviour: A Meta-Analysis, Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, pp. 613–639, 1991.
9.
CzuchryM. and DansereauD. F., The Generation and Recall of Personally Relevant Information, Journal of Experimental Education, 66, pp. 293–325, 1998.
10.
MorenoR. and MayerR. E., Engaging Students in Active Learning: The Case for Personalized Multi-Media Messages, Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, pp. 724–733, 2000.
11.
MooneyD. K., Requests for Convention Manuscripts: On-Site versus Letter Response Rates, American Psychologist, 50, pp. 727–728, 1995.
12.
HartleyJ.SottoE., and PennebakerJ. W., Style and Substance in Psychology: Are Influential Articles More Readable than Less Influential Ones?Social Studies of Science, 32 (in press), 2002.
13.
HartleyJ.HoweM. J. A., and McKeachieW. J., Writing Through Time: Longitudinal Studies of the Effects of New Technology on Writing, British Journal of Educational Technology, 32: 2, pp. 141–151, 2001.
14.
HartleyJ., Clarifying the Abstracts of Systematic Literature Reviews, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 88: 4, pp. 332–337, 2000.
15.
HartleyJ. and GanierF., Which Do You Prefer? Some Observations on Preference Measures in Studies of Structured Abstracts, European Science Editing, 26: 1, pp. 4–7, 2000.
16.
HartleyJ., Could This Be Easier to Read? Tools for Evaluating Text, in The Applied Psychologist (2nd Edition), HartleyJ. and BranthwaiteA. (eds.), Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 113–125, 2000.
17.
HartleyJ., What Does It Say? Text Design, Medical Information and Older Readers, in Processing of Medical Information in Ageing Patients, ParkD. C. (eds.), Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 233–248, 1999.
18.
HartleyJ., Return to Sender. Why Written Communications Fail, The Psychologist, 11: 10, pp. 477–480, 1998.
19.
HartleyJ., Applying Psychology to Text Design: A Case History, International Forum for Information and Documentation, 22: 1 pp. 3–10, 1997.
20.
HartleyJ., Designing Instructional Text, Nichols, East Brunswick, New Jersey, 1994.
