<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
"Diagnosis first, therapy second":<br>
<br>
1. Diagnosis: Scholars need recognized publication, not out of
"vanity", but because publication (and also citation) is the
currency in which we measure success – and when publication labels
are owned by private companies, this is like a license to print
money.<br>
<br>
2. Therapy: Publication labels need to be in the hands of scholars.
ALT was founded (in part) in order to create a prestigious
publication label – and thanks to Frans's admirable efforts, LT is
such a label, but it is owned by a private company (because De
Gruyter learned from Robert Maxwell). Thus the next generation's
task is to re-create a label that is fully owned by ALT.<br>
<br>
The issue is no longer paper vs. online, but scholarly control vs.
outside control: If De Gruyter were willing to give us the same deal
that Ubiquity is giving Glossa, then we could even stay with De
Gruyter. But they are in control (as demonstrated also by their logo
on every page of each LT paper), so they don't have to ask us.<br>
<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04.07.17 22:52, Frans Plank wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:FF4449BC-50FB-4927-8080-3F44528D25F0@ling-phil.ox.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
I'm not sure whether the recent Editorial Report in LT 20(3) (my
last; "un-published", but here is a quote) helps Martin at least
with diagnosing our predicament.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Times; font-size: 17px;"><span
class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>[...]
Scholarship does not perforce</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Times; font-size: 17px;"><span
style="font-size: 16px;">NEED </span>journals. You can have
an idea, make a discovery, defend an analysis,</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Times; font-size: 17px;">develop
an argument and discuss it with friends and colleagues,
correspond</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Times; font-size: 17px;">about
it, privately or in your blog, report it at scholarly
meetings, write it up and</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Times; font-size: 17px;">put
it on your own internet platform. The hearing you thus get in
your discipline</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Times; font-size: 17px;">may
be of a magnitude most journal publications cannot hope to
rival: only</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Times; font-size: 17px;">think
of the audiences conference presentations sometimes attract
even in our</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Times; font-size: 17px;">own
modest typological circles. You may get acknowledged and even
receive</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Times; font-size: 17px;">formal
recognition – except, unless you are published, the record you
are on is</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Times; font-size: 17px;">that
of individual or collective memory. The way we scholars are,
creatures of</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Times; font-size: 17px;">yesterday’s
habit, we would much rather see our precious words preserved
in</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Times; font-size: 17px;">black
and white. But the last word on whether circulation in cold
print, or</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Times; font-size: 17px;">eternal
storage in one or another repository, is called for is really
the reader’s.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(I quote out of context; the context is that in debates
about publishing models it would be good to know more about
readers.) </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The GUARDIAN article Martin refers to offers another (though
perhaps related) diagnosis, implying that it was not so much our
"lack of organization", but, ulitmately, our vanity that enabled
Robert Maxwell and his copycats at Elsevier to fundamentally
change the ways of scholarly publishing. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Diagnosis first, therapy second. (If vanity is involved,
there are many who have considered it a therapy-resistant
folly.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Frans</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On 04 Jul 2017, at 21:35, Martin Haspelmath <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" style="font-family:
LucidaGrande; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">On 04.07.17 19:36, Wu
Jianming wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:KL1PR0201MB208756ABD8CEB3634A66BCAFE0D70@KL1PR0201MB2087.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">Dear colleagues,<br>
...<br>
I am wondering whether there is another way to
spread good ideas freely and efficiently, which,
nontheless, is equally recognized by the authority, just
like journals.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Good ideas (or bad ideas) can be published easily these
days (e.g. you can easily<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.frank-m-richter.de/freescienceblog/2017/02/24/what-should-what-do-i-do-with-my-draft-paper-hide-it-upload-to-academia-or-upload-to-zenodo/">upload
your paper to Academia or Zenodo</a>, at no cost), but
for professional recognition, one needs a well-organized
social mechanism.<br>
<br>
Scholars have not been well-organized in the past: As
Stephen Buranyi explains in a fascinating recent<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science">Guardian
article</a>, over decades they left the initiative to
commercial companies, who own the titles and who make huge
profits (or waste our money because of inefficient
organization). If standard business criteria were
employed, then publishing a scholarly article would cost
between<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bjoern.brembs.net/2016/12/should-public-institutions-not-be-choosing-the-lowest-responsible-bidder/">$100
and $500</a>, not $5000 as is currently the case.<br>
<br>
So how do we get out of the current predicament? I don't
know, but we first need to recognize that we are in a
disastrous situation.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
Maybe we could have a typology journal that is published
with a model similar to that of Glossa (with optional
fees,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.openlibhums.org/journals/">supported
by OLH</a>). Maybe we could find a university that gives
"<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.frank-m-richter.de/freescienceblog/2017/02/21/we-dont-need-open-access-but-scholar-owned-publication-brands/">tenure</a>"
to a typology journal, the way most universities give
tenure to researchers. Any ALT members out there with
connections to librarians who want to secure their future
by moving into publishing?<br>
<br>
In any event, using ALT's money for "publication" (in
fact, un-publication) behind a paywall is not sustainable
in the longer run, so we desperately need new good ideas.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Martin<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath (<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a>)
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10
D-07745 Jena
&
Leipzig University
IPF 141199
Nikolaistrasse 6-10
D-04109 Leipzig
</pre>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a>)
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10
D-07745 Jena
&
Leipzig University
IPF 141199
Nikolaistrasse 6-10
D-04109 Leipzig
</pre>
</body>
</html>