2. Open access journals At submission, often not really aware which journals are open access Different searches –BMC n=7 –PMC n=16 (including 5 of BMC + BMJ, CMAJ) –Pubmed flagged as free full text AND free in PMC n=14 (including all 7 of BMC + 7 from PHC search) –Pubmed flagged as free full text n=33 (additions from JAMA, Pediatrics, HTA, Archives Disease in Childhood, CMAJ, BMJ, IJE, Annals Internal Med) Confusing (at least to me as author!)

3. Concentrate on BMC publications 2003-06 5 research papers –Trials 2006 (x2) –BMC Medical Research Methodology 2003, 2004, 2005 2 protocols for trials –BMC Health services research 2006 –Nutrition Journal 2006

4. Reasons for choice (1) How do I usually choose a journal? Relevant to subject area Appropriate audience High repute Types of paper published High impact factor Likely to be accepted Reasonable turnaround Length restrictions Previous good experiences Don’t usually consider whether open access

5. Reasons for choice (2) Earlier, not many BMC journals in existence for long enough to have –High repute or impact factor –Experience about turnaround or likelihood of acceptance My choices initially therefore based on Relevant subject area and audience –Often papers potentially hard to place in other journals, especially trials methodology Lack of major length restrictions –More to do with electronic medium than open access per se

6. Was visibility of articles noticeably improved? In terms of more/different people reading –Don’t know In terms of more transparent processes –Yes: open publication of submission history including referees’ reports and authors’ responses Implications for editorial openness too

7. Was the quality of articles affected in any way by decision to publish in open access? No –Except perhaps allowed more opportunity to ensure lack of clarity not a function of lack of space More to do with electronic medium than open access per se

8. Reasons for deciding to publish in open access journals again In earlier years, not first choice –Now, more likely to be a first choice Previous good experiences Higher repute Especially for methodology and study protocols

9. Concluding comments Personal experience only In general, positive experiences from my chosen journals Perceived benefits for my work may be more to do with types of papers encouraged and factors related to electronic publication than open access per se For clinical audiences, still more likely to aim first at general clinical journals (eg Lancet) and then specialist clinical journal (eg Pediatrics) This may change