comments on the abstract

[qgroom]

We find that a minority of vascular plant names are published in open access literature. The most common open access model used is gold (or “author pays”), which may exacerbate global inequalities.

Shouldn't we say "...which may exacerbate global inequalities as much as closed access". Obviously closed access is not a good alternative either.

We find that 31% of taxa are represented by a type specimen mobilised from within the continent of their natural range. As spatial precision increases, representation diminishes: 20% of taxa are represented by type material mobilised from within the region of their natural range; 12% from within the area (or “botanical country”).

I find this confusing. I'm sure it will be clear if I read the paper, but in the abstract it needs to stand alone. What is the "the region of their natural range"? Also not clear is "from within the area" and the mentioning of the botanical country, doesn't really help.

We recommend clear publisher guidelines on waivers for authors from low income countries

I think we should say low to middle income countries. Low income countries are few and so poor they contribute almost no new taxa by themselves. Also, Middle income counties still find APCs too high

Nomenclators should also more clearly indicate the open access status of containing literature, and mobilise type citation data as material citations to aggregators like GBIF.

Perhaps we could just say GBIF

I'll make some suggestions and push them tomorrow, but I thought I'd raise an issue incase we want to discuss these points.