From: Andrew Odlyzko <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 23:25:51 -0600

That is a very questionable claim (that "lower editorial standards are
part of the basic architecture of Gold OA").

First of all, let's not confuse editorial standards, which are enforced
primarily by the unpaid editors and referees, who are research experts,
and copyediting standards, which are enforced primarily by paid employees
of the publishers.

Copyediting standards have been (as far as I can tell, based on my personal
experience) declining just about everywhere, part of the general cost reduction
pressures.  I can even see it, fairly dramatically, at the New York Times.
This thread has been exclusively about copyediting standards, it seems.
[As I explained in my recent paper:

http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/libpubcomp.pdf,

I do not see too much value in modern levels of copy editing, but I know
I am an outlier, even among my closest colleagues and collaborators.]

Editorial standards are a different matter.  There the editors (and to
some extent referees, although those do not have the same degree of
involvement with the journal) continue to have an incentive to maintain
standards, and this does not depend much on whether the journal is Green OA,
Gold OA, or traditional subscription.  (At least that is how I feel about
the dozen+ journals I am on the editorial boards of, and how my editor
colleagues that I have talked to feel.)  However, having rigid page budgets
helps maintain the discipline, in that there are lots of papers that are at
the fuzzy boundary of acceptability, and so if there is space, the inclination
is to accept.  The publishers can make yielding to such temptation easier,
by removing those page budgets, something that is easier to do with online-only
publishing.  So yes, there might be an incentive to lower editorial standards
with Gold OA.  But the same incentive already exists with subscriptions
"Big Deals."  There the unit of selection is not a journal whose editors
might want to maintain their high standards and prestige, but a huge bundle,
and the incentives are to make the bundle as large as possible, as opposed
to making a few tiny pieces of it ultra high quality.  So my guess is that
the incentives to lower editorial standards with Gold OA are no different
than they are with traditional subscriptions, now that those are mostly
parts of "Big Deals."

Andrew Odlyzko

------------------------------
From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:54:08 -0500

I think that many of the commenters on this thread are missing the
point. The point is not that mistakes happen.  The point is not that
you can find mistakes even in traditionally published work.  And the
point is not that you can find errors in Gold OA publications (as I
did).  The point is that lower editorial standards are part of the
basic architecture of Gold OA.  That's a fundamental shift.  We don't
know where it will lead, but when you build a road, don't you get the
urge to ask where you are driving?

Joe Esposito