From: "Peter B. Hirtle" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:38:44 +0000

So one example of poor fact-checking in a peer-reviewed Gold OA
article is evidence that "Gold OA...structurally requires lower
editorial standards."  That must mean that there has never been an
error in a Toll-Access journal.

Or is the problem not one of data but rather ideology: "Gold OA
requires lower costs because the burden of paying for the work rests
with the producer instead of being spread across all the readers"?
One could just as easily argue that "Toll Access requires lower costs
because of its burden of delivering obscene profits to private equity
owners, and the past decade has taught us that the surest way of
increasing profits is by lowering costs."

So let's get real: how about looking at real data?  For example, what
are the kind of corrections that occur between preprints in arXiv and
the final published version - and are those corrections worth the
millions that it costs to produce them?  Does anyone know?

Peter Hirtle