RE: Berkeley faculty statement on scholarly publishing

["Matthew Cockerill" <matt@biomedcentral.com>]

My source was a posting to this list from Ken Fulton, publisher of PNAS,
on 13th May 2005.
http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0505/msg01580.html

[I'd certainly be interested to know if PNAS have published any more
details on this.]

Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu]On Behalf Of Richard Feinman
> Sent: 05 June 2005 23:25
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: RE: Berkeley faculty statement on scholarly publishing
> 
> Matthew:  Is there an orginal reference for the comment on PNAS that
> "Evidence for the benefits of Open Access *is* now accruing rapidly.
> e.g. PNAS just reported that their open access articles, no average,
> receive 50% more accesses than their subscription-only articles in the
> first month after publication. This strongly suggests that, even for a
> widely read journal such as PNAS, there is plenty of demand for access
> to scientific research articles that is failing to be satisfied by the
> current subscription model."
> 
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> Richard D. Feinman
> Department of Biochemistry
> SUNY Downstate Medical Center