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