From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 15:31:34 +0000

Does this situation reflect a problem with OA megajournals generally,
or a problem with PLOS One in particular? And actually, does it
reflect a serious problem with PLOS One, or does it represent an
anomalous poor decision on the part of PLOS One? How does PLOS One’s
batting average with regard to problems like this stack up to the
industry average?

In order to accept this as evidence of either the inferiority of
megajournals in general or of PLOS One itself, I would need much more
data than the anecdote below.

---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
[log in to unmask]