---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:57:45 -0400
From: Peter Suber <peters_at_earlham.edu>
Subject: Re: Mandated Self-Archiving and the "Open Choice" Option
> > Perhaps I should have prefaced the question with a recitation and
> > recognition of the fact that while the purpose is not to help publishers
> > -- nonetheless, what I'm asking is, are there any such benefits to
> > be realized; have you formulated any indirect benefits that may be
> > anticipated?
>
>I believe I replied to that:
>
> (2) benefits to publishers in the form of increased
> visibility and impact for their journals, which can also draw more
> subscribers and more authors.
>
>There has been reported evidence of both of these. (Perhaps others will
>be able to cite the sources.)
Here's one bit of evidence. When _Molecular Biology of the Cell_ adopted
the policy to provide OA to all its articles within two months of
publication (a comparatively short embargo), it saw both its submissions
and its subscriptions increase. It's impact factor apparently rose as
well. The editor's only explanation is the increased visibility of the
journal. Here's the interview in which she discusses it.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/archive/?page=features&issue=6
The cause of this effect wasn't self-archiving, but it's clearly equivalent
to self-archiving at a rate of 100% after a two month delay.
Peter Suber
Received on Thu Jun 29 2006 - 16:38:50 BST