 Well, it's benefited me enormously in the sense that what I do is targeted towards not only members of the profession, my profession, the academic area, but also to the public in general. And having published a number of papers in open access, the audience that you reach is far, far greater than you would reach in, say, a professional society journal that doesn't have open access. So if your interest is to get your work better known in the larger community of both scholars and non-scholars, I think open access is the way to go. Well, we got started by, I was invited to the inaugural meeting supporting the nutrition and metabolism, which is a biomed central journal, and it was new to me at that time. That was back in 2002, I believe, and at that time we didn't know much about open access. So I was very pleasantly impressed with how the work that we presented at that meeting was published in the open access biomed central at that time. I thought that was a very well organized journal that was pleasing to the eye. The data charts and graphs were done exceptionally well, and the paper received a tremendous amount of recognition. So that was my initial, it was nutrition and metabolism. Our first paper was 2004, and since then we've published several more papers in other open access journals. Well, it depends on who on the faculty you speak to, and it depends on what faculty that you speak to. We don't have a medical school at Boston College. Some of the older professors and professionals will sometimes discourage younger faculty from publishing open access, because these open access journals are not held in the same esteem as some of the long traditional society journals. As a matter of fact, younger professors, not only, I'm not so sure about Boston College, but many schools discourage strongly young faculty from publishing open access, because they feel this doesn't allow the prestige that you would have in the more established society journals. And this is primarily for promotion and grants. So if grant reviewers or the promotion committee sees open access versus society journals, they'll figure that, well, this is an easier course than going through the society journal. This is unfortunate, because they're essentially discouraging young faculty from getting their work to a broader audience, just so that they can be viewed as having accomplished more or having their work considered more prestigious by the professionals in the field who adhere to the society journals. So as a professor, and I don't have to worry about that anymore, I prefer open access, because I don't care what these others think any longer. It's no longer relevant to me. But the issue of getting the work recognized by a far greater audience, that to me is more important. Well, I mean, the open access fund has been essential for us. I mean, we've published several papers with the open access fund here at Boston College. As I said, I may not have been able to afford those publication charges if it weren't for the fund at Boston College, and therefore I would have had to publish these papers in society journals, which would have been very prestigious, but they wouldn't have targeted the broader audience. So the open access fund that we have here is an unbelievable resource that not all universities have. Many medical schools do not have this kind of a fund. So you have to get those monies off of your federally sponsored projects, which takes away then funds from reagents and supplies or salary support for those technicians that are working with you. So BC makes it very easy for us to do this. But I also think if you're in the business of wanting the research of your faculty to be seen by a broad audience, then the support from their funding, open access fund, is definitely an excellent resource for us. So I've benefited tremendously from this.