From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 23:00:17 -0500

I can't speak for science publishing, but for the dozen humanities
journals published by Penn State Press, the copyediting done was
indistinguishable from that done for the scholarly books the Press
published.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:32:57 +0100
>
> I think I've asked before but how much copyediting does your average
> (not Nature or Science, but average) scholarly paper get?
>
> David
>
>
> On 26 Jul 2012, at 22:43, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
>>  From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
>>  Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:12:48 -0500
>>
>>  And one reason "a repository-based infrastructure would be more
>>  cost-effective" is that it would forego some quality control that the
>>  traditional system ensured, such as copyediting. I see no emphasis
>>  anywhere in the literature on repositories that copyediting is a
>>  function that needs to be preserved in that infrastructure.  Green OA
>>  is, in this respect, a less than optimal approach to disseminating
>>  knowledge, and it is unfair to claim that a repository-based
>>  infrastructure is more cost-effective when it is so only in part
>
>  > because it is content to offer a lower level of service.
>  >
>  > Sandy Thatcher