Retraction Watch recently discussed why PLOS ONE's correction rate is higher than average---authors do not review page proofs.
Everyone in scholarly publishing understands that mistakes are made along the publishing process and the bright side of digital publishing allows for quick redaction and updates to scholarly papers. However, when correction rates are higher than what's typically considered acceptable, which is about 1.5%, it's time to look into the workflow to determine what exactly is going on.
Mark Dingemanse, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics has been reviewing PLOS ONE correction rate since May 2015. He recently updated his analysis in August 2016:
PLOS ONE makes it very clear that it is against the journal's policy to provide authors with page proofs. Head over to Retraction Watch and read the full story along with the comments and associated links.
At Cenveo Publisher Services, our workflows are built on the trifecta of people-process-technology with the "people" part first. We end with people as well---in the form of author proofs!