From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 16:59:25 -0800

Well, Mark, I began wondering how many scientists are on the list.

Commas? Ephesus?

The "high editorial standard" is to find the right group of referees,
to hear their conclusions, to give the authors opportunity to respond
and again to weigh these against those and, finally, to make a
responsible decision.

"Copy-editing" rests on top of this as cream in coffee mocco.

Ari Belenkiy

SFU, Canada



On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:24 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Mark Kurtz <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:56:03 -0500
>
> At the risk of eliciting the ire of this list, I think you may be
> interested in an appropriately redacted comment from a major
> researcher, who is wonderfully open to new thoughts she/he is hearing
> from his/her graduate students and younger colleagues:
>
> I re-examined a paper that I co-authored in PLoS One that did not
> receive any copy-editing (as I am only now realizing, thanks to xxx's
> email).  I am relieved to see how well the system worked.  In this
> case, the first author did not have English as his first language, so
> several of us had worked closely with him to get things properly
> stated.  I had nevertheless simply assumed that a copy-editor had
> double-checked us and made sure that all was well.  The light-bulb
> moment for me is realizing that it was not copy-edited and yet is well
> presented.  My intent is not to pat us on the back for this effort,
> but simply to recognize (as xxx points out) that authors do indeed
> bear the responsibility for clear and accurate communication and that
> we do (or can) indeed rise to this occasion.
>
>
> Gold OA may indeed point to "lower" editorial standards, as Joe
> asserts. The pertinent question, from my experience, is: What was the
> value of those "higher" editorial standards? Are we to insist, as I
> have in my traditional past, that we are utterly consistent about,
> say, series commas? The spelling of Ephesos/Ephesus in a
> multidisciplinary examination of a critical Old World archaeological
> site--for the sake of, what, fastidiousness? If we don't so insist,
> does that--in the vast majority of cases--diminish meaning? And if
> not, why insist, and why disparage those who do not?
>
> I don't think so. I'm a heavy user of both SSRN, ArXiv, PLoS One,
> Scientific Reports, etc. etc. I have not experienced a loss of meaning
> on these platforms.
>
> The burden of proof is on the affirmative--those who assert value.
>
> Mark Kurtz
>
> On Feb 28, 2013, at 6:05 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 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