No, not astounding: deceptive. What do people do when they
come
to a site? When I mistakenly set a Google search for all
languages instead of just English and get hits across a
dozen or
more languages, what does it mean if I do not understand
more
than a few words of Spanish or French? Can we assume that
everyone who accesses Joyce's Ulysses reads and comprehends
it?
Is an article on medical science intelligible to someone who
is
not trained in the field? These numbers that are being
tossed
around are ridiculous. Access means nothing. Understanding
is
everything. We have no measurement for that.
Joe Esposito
On 8/26/07, David Goodman <dgoodman princeton.edu> wrote:
> The significance depends on how carefully you look at
it:
>
> Some arithmetic:
>
> Corrected for response rate, that's 35,254 unique
individuals
> during a single week. Approximately 2/3 of them are
visiting for
> the first time, which gives 36,111 new visitors, which
amounts to
> 960,000 new visitors a year. This figures are for what
has been
> deliberately selected as the slowest week of the year,
July
> 13-20. Assuming that average activity is twice that,
this is 2
> million people a year.
>
> About half the total visitors (including the medically
related
> 80%) did not have subscription access---either personal
or
> institutional-- to the full site.
>
> If we add "other", which seems reasonable in
this context, that
> would be another 50%. (Journalists are a separate
category, not
> included)
>
> 2 to 3 million people a year. A twofold increase per
year would
> mean 4 - 6 million next year. These numbers are about
double what
> I would have guessed.
>
> The amount of the demand looks a little different when
you look
> at people instead of percentages.
>
> 2-3 million a year. One single journal. Astounding.
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
> dgoodmanprinceton.edu
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sally Morris <sallymorris-assocs.demon.co.uk>
> Date: Thursday, August 23, 2007 3:05 pm
> Subject: RE: e: PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access
> To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
>
>> Apologies for this much delayed response (due to
temporary
>> unavailability of the BMJ statistics during their
website revamp)
>>
>> Peter Banks (whose sound good sense we all miss
sadly) may not
>> have interviewed 'homemakers in Houston', but
anyone can have a
>> look at the usage information on the British
Medical Journal's
>> website (see
>> http:
//resources.bmj.com/bmj/about-bmj/visitor-
>> statistics/questionnaire).
>> Year after year, just 2% of usage has been from
patients, and 4%
>> from the general public; this year the figures
jumped to 6% and
>> 5% respectively. However, this still does not
exactly look like
>> overwhelming demand to me...
>>
>> Sally
>>
>> Sally Morris
>> Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing
Consultancy)
>> South House, The Street
>> Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
>> Tel: +44(0)1903 871286
>> Fax: +44(0)8701 202806
>> Email: sallymorris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu
>> [mailto:owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Peter
>> Banks
>> Sent: 30 January 2007 01:55
>> To: American Scientist Open Access Forum
>> Subject: Re: e: PR's 'pit bull' takes on open
access: excerpts
>> from article
>> in Nature Magazine
>>
>> Mr. Banks has not interviewed homemakers in
Houston. Instead, I
>> spent 20 years in patient education. I've looked at
the
>> statistics that show 90 million Americans have
limited health
>> literacy; considered the 40 million Hispanic
patients for whom
>> English is often a second language; considered the
fact that 47
>> million Americans have no health insurance and
therefore no
>> opportunity to discuss health information with a
physician. I've
>> created low-literacy health publications, Spanish
language
>> publications.
>>
>> I have also been a cancer patient and used the
Internet. In the
>> search for information, NIH's MedLine Plus, the
American Cancer's
>> Society page, and many other patient-oriented pages
were
>> extremely useful. PubMed Central was largely
useless, since I do
>> not happen to be a cultured cell or a rat.
>>
>> At the same time, we made virtually all the content
of the
>> journal Diabetes Care freely available (after a
3-month delay).
>> I/we did this not because it would help very many
patients--from
>> usage statistics, it very clearly didn't--but not
to inhibit
>> those few who might use the information
productively.
>>
>> What we didn't do is to adopt the reprehensible
tactic of some OA
>> advocates or Sen. Cornyn and suggest that a
treatment for breast
>> cancer or diabetes was locked behind subscriptions
barriers. OA
>> may be a good idea on some grounds, but patient
education is not
>> one of them.
>>
>> Those who know little about patient education and
empowerment
>> shouldn't presume to lecture others.
>>
>> Peter Banks
|
