This paper has already been thoroughly criticized:

Basically, Goodwin et al. claim that any IDed name which has become a synonym since the specimen was collected is now "wrong", or names which have subsequently otherwise become invalid, or which were typos. This accounts for at least half of what they are referring to, not actual errors in IDs. They also appear to have counted as "wrong" any IDs applied to species that they described as new while doing their revision (and therefore unknown to the people who did the original ID), or not IDed to species at all. The title implies misidentifications, but much of their data set refers instead to correct IDs that need to be updated. Very misleading and alarmist, and potentially very damaging to the global museum community.

Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82