On 17-Jan-10, at 2:39 PM, Sally Morris wrote: > > Those who look beyond the abstract will find that we did, indeed, ask > where they looked for articles >
As one who has indeed looked beyond the abstract (read the whole paper in fact), I have some difficulty understanding what the authors mean precisely by "using", "accessing" "identifying" self-archived articles, as well as by "whenever possible", so that it is somewhat difficult to sort out the various numbers and percentages stated in p. 230-231, including those quoted in previous posts. Perhaps the exact wording of the questionnaire would help clarify the issue, but unfortunately the DOI-based hyperlink to Appendix 1: Text of survey (http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/2009318) don't seem to work. What I think I can deduce is that close to 50% of those who didn't have access to the published version didn't even look for a self-archived version (but I'm not sure if I my reasoning is right, because the paper refers to those who "did not [never?] use self-archived versions"). And we don't know how often those who did look for such a version were able to find one. What I found most interesting though - and more useful, from an OA-advocacy standpoint - is the fact that there was much confusion among participants about what is a repository, and whether an article (or journal) is OA or not. As to the latter issue, one can argue that institutionally-provided Internet access and use of proxies do blur the distinction. For instance, I have no obvious way to determine if Morris & Thorn's paper, which I freely accessed from home (with proxy) on the publisher website, is OA or not (a Google Scholar search seems to indicate it isn't). Marc Couture
