From: Carter Glass <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:23:42 -0500

Regularization of things like footnote form, references and author
names has tremendous value. If these are not well-behaved and in a
predictable format, it is impossible for machines to do automated
reference linking.

If a person goes to a library (or online) with an inverted volume
issue reference for a monthly journal, they can probably figure out
that  the author meant 'Vol. 17, Issue 11' instead of 'Volume 11,
Issue 17'.  This in fact actually happened with me.

Computers are doomed in this scenario.


On 2/19/2013 10:35 AM, LIBLICENSE wrote:

> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:06:13 -0500
>
> What is an OA issue is that no or little copy-editing is a matter of
> policy.  That is a big change.
>
> I'm ambivalent about this question.  Some copy-editing is silly (the
> regularization of footnote form).  I think, though, that traditional
> publishing puts greater weight on editorial refinement than do OA
> services.  The question is whether people will insist on that
> refinement and are willing to pay for it.  But even if they say it's
> not worth it (as many are), the decline in refinement is real.
>
> Joe Esposito