It might be possible to take this distinction into account in our data
analysis - thanks for the suggestion
Sally
NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR RECORDS. THANKS!
Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Phone: +44 (0)1903 871686 Fax: +44 (0)1903 871457
E-mail: chief-exec_at_alpsp.org
ALPSP Website
http://www.alpsp.org
Our journal, Learned Publishing, is included in the
ALPSP Learned Journals Collection, www.alpsp-collection.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leslie Chan" <chan_at_UTSC.UTORONTO.CA>
To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights
> If we agree that the goal of open access is to maximize research impact,
> then are you suggesting that the two definitions of open access will have
> differential results on research impact? Clearly we need some empirical data
> and it is simply too early to tell. For now, I prefer to see the BMC and
> PLOS definition as the deluxe model, while the one clearly enunciated by
> Stevan as the economy model. Both will get us from point A to point B, but
> not everyone could travel in first class. For low impact journals,
> particularly those originating from developing countries, the economy mode
> will do fine.
Received on Fri Jan 16 2004 - 11:42:02 GMT