2) Publishing scientic papers online is fast, and the papers can be long. Publishing in a paper journal means that the paper will live forever in libraries. The British Medical Journal combines the two: it prints short and readable versions, with longer versions available online. Is this OK with authors? The journal asked a random sample of 104 of its recent authors several questions. a. One question was \"Should the journal continue using this system?" In the sample, 7'2 said \"Yes." i. What proportion of all authors would say \"Yes\" if asked? (Estimate with 95% condence). ii. Do the data give good evidence that more than two-thirds (6?%) of authors support continuing this system? b. Another question in the survey asked whether authors would accept a stronger move toward online publishing: \"As an author, how acceptable would It be for us to publish only the abstract of papers in the paper journal and continue to put the full long version on our website?\" Of the 104 authors in the sample, 65 said \"Not at all acceptable." i. What proportion of all authors feel that abstractonly publishing is not acceptable? (Estimate with 95% condence.) ii. Do the data provide good evidence that more than half of all authors feel that abstract-only publishing is not acceptable