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

[Mark Funk <mefunk@med.cornell.edu>]

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
mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu

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
>
> Peter:
>
> 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
--