> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Gerritsma, Wouter wrote:
> We ought to get the numbers straight. You used to quote 20,000 peer
> reviewed journals, based on Ulrich.
Correct. That was the (rounded-off) figure I was given by Ulrich's a few
years ago. The new (exact) figure from Ulrich's is 24,116 (see reply
[Forwarding reply from Yvette Diven of Bowker's: 24,000 is
apparently the total number of peer-reviewed journals covered (as
determined by Ulrich's/Bowker criteria that are not described here)
and 18,000 is apparently the number that are self-decsribed by the
publisher as "acade
[Further corroborative data from Carol Tenopir that Ulrich's
covers 24K peer-reviewed journals, of which 18K are
self-described as "scholarly/academic." Still a mystery what
fields the other 6,000 peer-reviewed journals are in! -- SH]
-- Forwarded message --
List
[I liked Peter Suber's paper on "The taxpayer argument for open
access." https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OANews/Message/97.html
The following was written earlier, after I saw his draft, but Peter
asked me to wait till his paper appeared before posting mine. Our
positions agree,
