[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Maximising research access vs. minimizing copy-editing errors

However, the very requirement of registration is probably enough to affect significantly the number of patients and public who are trying to access the information. As a librarian, if I'm seeking professional information and a free site requires registration, I will probably go ahead and do it. However, if I'm seeking information on what computer or TV to buy for myself, and a site requires registration, I'm not going to do it. I submit this same process applies for registration at the BMJ. Basing policy decisions on these numbers is probably not reliable.

Mark Funk
Head, Collection Development
Weill Cornell Medical Library
New York, NY 10021

At 12:01 AM -0400 8/3/06, Electronic Content Licensing Discussion wrote:
From: "Sally Morris \(ALPSP\)" <sally.morris@alpsp.org>
To: "Liblicense" <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Subject: Re:  Maximising research access vs. minimizing copy-editing errors
Date: Wed,  2 Aug 2006 18:06:39 EDT


Have a look at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/aboutsite/quest2004/
(and the same questionnaire for previous years)

For 2 weeks, users accessing the free primary content have to
register and provide some details about themselves.  Year on
year, the figure for 'patients' and 'general public' has been
pretty consistent at around 2% and 4% respectively

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
Email: sally.morris@alpsp.org