From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 18:14:55 -0600

> From: Peter Binfield <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:54:32 -0800
>
> Thanks Sandy
>
> Copyediting is not provided (as is the case with many journals, PLoS ONE
> included).

I wonder how many is "many"?  I don't believe there is ANY journal
published by a university press that is not copyedited. I would be
very surprised if at least the major commercial publishers do not
provide copyediting for all of their journals. (Please verify if you
represent a commercial journal publisher.) I would also be surprised
if society publishers do not provide copyediting. I would, however,
not be very surprised if many OA journals not run by regular
publishers but operating out of universities on shoestring budgets are
not copyedited--or at least are not copyedited by professional staff
but rather by student interns. And I do not know whether OA publishers
like Hindawi offer copyediting services.

> The copyright statement is perhaps badly worded. It is simply intended to
> indicate that if an author uses copyrighted material for which they would
> normally need to seek permission, then they should have received permission
> from the copyright owners (that is the " been made available" part) to make
> that material available within a paper which has a CC BY 3.0 license. i.e.
> it doesn't mean that the re-used material must have been originally
> published under that license.

I wonder if this condition on permission will make it difficult for
authors to obtain permission from TA publishers?  Perhaps some
representatives of major commercial STM publishers could offer their
views on this topic.

Sandy Thatcher