From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:13:30 -0800

Peter,

yes, "those corrections" worth "millions" - or rather thousands of
dollars. Someone unbiased looked into your ideas and recognized their
worth.

The proof of their importance can be seen in the fact that almost each
item in the arXiv is corrected by the author after the initial
submission, so  we often see versions "v.2", "v.3" etc. Otherwise why
to bother correcting something already published?

Ari Belenkiy

SFU
Canada


On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:55 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 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