Nicholas R. Cozzarelli, Kenneth R. Fulton, and Diane M. Sullenberger, Results of a PNAS author survey on an open access option for publication, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 5 (February 3, 2004) p. 1111. I'd love to see this, but it's accessible only to subscribers.
Update. A generous reader just sent me the text. The survey found that about half the respondents (authors of accepted papers in PNAS) were willing to pay an extra fee for immediate open access to their work and half were not. The article includes anonymized quotes from some respondents. All those saying they oppose OA processing fees misunderstood the proposition. Three thought that OA and the fees to cover it would be mandatory, not optional. One thought that institutionally paid access made OA unnecessary. One thought that OA was not very important if "most of my colleagues" already subscribe. Most (including the journal editors) seemed to think the fees would be paid out of authors' pockets rather than by employers, funders, or governments.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 2/04/2004 01:12:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
