From: "Peter B. Hirtle" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:38:44 +0000 So one example of poor fact-checking in a peer-reviewed Gold OA article is evidence that "Gold OA...structurally requires lower editorial standards." That must mean that there has never been an error in a Toll-Access journal. Or is the problem not one of data but rather ideology: "Gold OA requires lower costs because the burden of paying for the work rests with the producer instead of being spread across all the readers"? One could just as easily argue that "Toll Access requires lower costs because of its burden of delivering obscene profits to private equity owners, and the past decade has taught us that the surest way of increasing profits is by lowering costs." So let's get real: how about looking at real data? For example, what are the kind of corrections that occur between preprints in arXiv and the final published version - and are those corrections worth the millions that it costs to produce them? Does anyone know? Peter Hirtle