LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:06:12 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:59:59 +0000

Between 10 and 20 years ago I worked for two large journal publishers.
 One a massive commercial publisher, the other a prestigious
university press.

In neither of these organisations would copy-editors routinely
fact-check the articles they were working on, and the type of issue
that Joe has highlighted would not have been picked up.  I know that
it is tempting to view this as a failing of the APC OA business model,
but it really isn't.  The vast majority of publishers have been
striving to push-down costs, including costs for copyediting and
proof-reading.  I'm sure we all have our own lists of favourite
publishing errors (mine is a photo clearly upside-down in an article
put out by the aforementioned massive commercial publisher that made
it past the proof-reader), but let's not pretend this is necessarily
an OA issue.

David Prosser

ATOM RSS1 RSS2