  In a recent communication to the cond-mat archives, Suslov [cond-mat/0105325]
severely criticizes a multitude of numerical results obtained by various groups
for the critical exponent $\nu$ of the localization length at the
disorder-induced metal-insulator transition in the three-dimensional Anderson
model of localization as ``entirely absurd'' and ``evident desinformation''.
These claims are based on the observation that there still is a large
disagreement between analytical, numerical and experimental results for the
critical exponent. The author proposes, based on a ``simple procedure to deal
with corrections to scaling'', that the numerical data support nu approx 1,
whereas recent numerical papers find nu = 1.58 +/- 0.06.
  As we show here, these claims are entirely wrong. The proposed scheme does
neither yield any improved accuracy when compared to the existing finite-size
scaling methods, nor does it give nu approx 1 when applied to high-precision
data. Rather, high-precision numerics with error epsilon approx 0.1% together
with all available finite-size-scaling methods evidently produce a critical
exponent nu approx 1.58.
