michael_nielsen

If I'd understood better what I was doing I could easily have doubled or tripled those numbers. But it wasn't about making money -- it was a hobby/curiosity project that was about developing my understanding of a subject I find fascinating. The money has been a nice bonus.

An unexpected personal benefit has been a steady flow of Paypal donations through my inbox, often accompanied by thankyou notes. You better believe I read and appreciate them.

Dozens of people have told me the book helped them change careers.

Would any of this have been possible closed access? Of course some of it would have. I might have made more money. But on nearly every other metric, I suspect being open access was a 100x or more multiplier on the impact.

A common problem in open science is that unconventional forms of publication don't "count" in the traditional ways, for tenure etc.

(I get occasional emails from people looking to cite the book, telling me some journal editor wants to know where "Determination Press" is located. I've so far resisted replying "Everywhere", and just demurely tell them "San Francisco".)