From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 15:31:34 +0000 Does this situation reflect a problem with OA megajournals generally, or a problem with PLOS One in particular? And actually, does it reflect a serious problem with PLOS One, or does it represent an anomalous poor decision on the part of PLOS One? How does PLOS One’s batting average with regard to problems like this stack up to the industry average? In order to accept this as evidence of either the inferiority of megajournals in general or of PLOS One itself, I would need much more data than the anecdote below. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott Library, University of Utah [log in to unmask]