[HPSG-L] Do not work for / publish with Elsevier, please (like Stanford, Harvard and so on)
Vlado Keselj
vlado at cs.dal.ca
Thu Aug 27 11:12:28 UTC 2020
I just wanted to mention that this is a very interesting discussion.
Many authors in Computer Science publish pre-prints in the open archive
arxiv.org. It seems that publishers are okay with it.
Regards,
Vlado
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020, Stefan Müller wrote:
> Just realized that the list server throws away images. There was an
> image after
>
> > Everybody else has non-permanent positions. Germany
> > is worst here:
>
> The image is Figure 3 here:
>
> https://hpsg.hu-berlin.de/~stefan/Pub/oa-jlm.pdf
>
> The figure compares non-permanent staff in various university systems.
>
> The screenshot showing the income of Wiley's CEOs is here:
>
> https://hpsg.hu-berlin.de/~stefan/PS/Salary-Wiley-COEs-2019.png
>
> $1,67 Mio per year minimum, $5,5 Mio per year maximum.
>
> Of course such salaries are "normal" given the size and the success of
> the company. But the question is whether we need such companies for our
> publication business.
>
> Best
>
> Stefan
>
>
> Am 25.08.20 um 09:52 schrieb Stefan Müller:
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > Am 24.08.20 um 22:56 schrieb chris brew:
> >> What, in your view, is the action that would best serve the authors of
> >> the paper? Remember that they may not be aware
> >> of the history, and may have submitted good work in good faith.
> > Yes, this is why I wrote this email. We had Glossa/Lingua discussions
> > before but this was a long time ago. Somebody replied to my mail: "I did
> > not know all that. One should discuss this on the Linguist List or
> > somewhere else more visibly."
> >> Assuming that, what the authors need is whatever will cause them to
> >> withdraw the
> >> work and submit a revised version, elsewhere, to a journal that will
> >> do them more credit. I am not sure what action that is, but I am dead
> >> sure that
> >> it is NOT a long-drawn-out refusal to review.
> > You are right. This is why I wrote this email. I got the invitation to
> > review on Saturday right before the HPSG conference (15.08.2020). I
> > wrote first emails on this issue on Sunday. After the HPSG conference I
> > finalized typesetting two books (Thursday-Sunday) and waited on some
> > replies to my emails. On Monday I finalized the mail and sent it off. So
> > we are talking about a week here. I know of colleagues who do not even
> > touch there computers for several weeks ...
> >> Personally (not that Lingua is likely to ask me) I would choose a fast
> >> refusal, because I think that would
> >> be the best way of avoiding unnecessary harm to the authors.
> > Nobody should submit there. I hope that HPSG people agree and remember
> > this for a while and also tell younger researchers.
> >
> > But, yes, maybe I change this (but see next mail). When asked to review
> > for Syntax (Wiley), I immediately wrote to the editors explaining to
> > them why I would not work for Wiley (and why they should not work for
> > Wiley either). Their editorial system kept sending me reminders for some
> > while, which shows that the journal is not run properly.
> >
> >> I realize that your goal in posting this may be that the authors will
> >> read the post, understand the history and more rapidly withdraw the
> >> paper. But still,
> >> I don't think a drawn-out delay serves them well.
> > Honestly, I think this issue is overrated. If you look at reviewing
> > times in theoretical linguistics you find reviewing times between half a
> > year and one and a half year. I think Language holds the record here. I
> > forgot the exact numbers ...
> >
> > The bottleneck are the reviewers not the one to four weeks to find one.
> > There will be more on reviewing in the next mail.
> >
> > Delaying the review process at this point is more for those who run the
> > journal. They should think about what they are doing and for whom they
> > are working. They should know that the community is not with them and
> > makes their lives miserable as they are making our lives miserable on a
> > much bigger scale.
> >
> > Let's talk about careers. Some say it is very bad that careers are
> > delayed (by not answering review emails for three weeks). There are
> > different academic systems and the US differs from Europe. I tell you
> > about the situation here. All this is discussed in here:
> >
> > https://hpsg.hu-berlin.de/~stefan/Pub/oa-jlm.html
> >
> > Countries with the habilitation system have very few professors with
> > permanent positions. Everybody else has non-permanent positions. Germany
> > is worst here:
> >
> > Now, I tell you why German universities "love" non-permanent positions.
> > All German universities run on 80% of their positions. When a
> > non-permanent position gets free, there is a ban on hiring new people
> > for half a year or longer. There are financial cuts now and then.
> > Professor positions are cut, research fields are closed (Indogermanistik
> > and other subjects with few students), research staff positions are cut.
> >
> > So, the fight I am leading here is a fight for young people, for
> > resources, to be able to pay their positions, to maybe get permanent
> > positions for them. We can choose: either we fix our publication system
> > and keep our money for research or we throw it away and there are no
> > positions to hire somebody (with or without paper in Lingua).
> >
> > Lingua is the extreme case since there is Glossa, the very same journal
> > with the original board and editors and with the same name in a
> > different language. Lingua is dead now. There may be reasons to publish
> > with Springer and Wiley. But there is no reason to publish in Lingua.
> >
> > More soon.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> >
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:26 AM Stefan Müller
> >> <St.Mueller at hu-berlin.de <mailto:St.Mueller at hu-berlin.de>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear colleagues,
> >>
> >> Yesterday I got a request to review an HPSG paper for the Zombie
> >> journal
> >> Lingua. I am sort of shocked by this and I was tempted to reject this
> >> request right away, but here is what I will do: I will delay the
> >> review
> >> as long as possible and reject to review the paper then.
> >>
> >> Background: In 2015 the complete editorial board of Lingua
> >> resigned (31
> >> people) and founded a new (fair) open access journal Glossa with the
> >> same editorial board and the same output of papers since.
> >>
> >> https://www.rooryck.org/lingua-to-glossa
> >>
> >> I will not hire people with publications in Lingua after the Glossa
> >> transition. I will argue against people with Lingua publications in
> >> their CV in any search committee I am in since I consider
> >> publishing in
> >> Lingua unethical and against the scientific community.
> >>
> >> Furthermore, due to the status as Zombie journal the number of
> >> submissions to Lingua went down considerably, which of course has also
> >> an influence on competition and quality. (details below)
> >>
> >> Here are some further information on why working for Elsevier is
> >> unethical and against the scientific community: Elsevier is a billion
> >> dollar company that is basically killing academia. A parasite.
> >> They have
> >> profit margins of 37% in 2018. For comparison, the German bank once
> >> declared that they have a profit margin of 25% and this resulted in a
> >> huge outcry in German society. Labels like "turbo capitalism" were
> >> coined back then. Normal companies have profit margins of 5 or 7
> >> percent. The food sector even less. About 3%.
> >>
> >> 37%! If a university pays 1Mio for journal access 370.000 go to share
> >> holders. We can choose: Do we want to hire people or give our research
> >> money to the share holders of Elsevier? (Springer is similar and Wiley
> >> is even worse >70%!!)
> >>
> >> And note, we are not just paying the profit margin, we are also paying
> >> the income of the CEOs. I do not know the income of Elsevier's
> >> COEs, but
> >> I know the income of Wiley's CEOs:
> >>
> >> CEO salery
> >>
> >> This is $16 Mio for five people. Per year.
> >>
> >> These are quotes from the English Wikipedia:
> >>
> >> > In 2018, Elsevier accounted for 34% of the revenues of RELX group
> >> > (₤2.538 billion of ₤7.492 billion). In operating profits
> >> >
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Earnings_before_interest_and_taxes>,
> >> > it represented 40% (₤942 million of ₤2,346 million). Adjusted
> >> > operating profits (with constant currency) rose by 2% from 2017 to
> >> > 2018. Profits grew further from 2018 to 2019, to a total of £982
> >> > million.
> >> >
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Elsevier#cite_note-RELX_2018_Report-1>
> >>
> >>
> >> > In the 21st century, the subscription rates charged by the
> >> company for
> >> > its journals have been criticized; some very large journals
> >> (with more
> >> > than 5,000 articles) charge subscription prices as high as
> >> £9,634, far
> >> > above average, and many British universities pay more than a million
> >> > pounds to Elsevier annually. The company has been criticized not
> >> only
> >> > by advocates of a switch to the open-access publication model, but
> >> > also by universities whose library budgets make it difficult for
> >> them
> >> > to afford current journal prices.
> >> >
> >> > For example, a resolution by Stanford University's senate
> >> singled out
> >> > Elsevier's journals as being "disproportionately expensive
> >> compared to
> >> > their educational and research value", which librarians should
> >> > consider dropping, and encouraged its faculty "not to contribute
> >> > articles or editorial or review efforts to publishers and journals
> >> > that engage in exploitive or exorbitant pricing". Similar guidelines
> >> > and criticism of Elsevier's pricing policies have been passed by the
> >> > University of California, Harvard University, and Duke University.
> >> >
> >> > In July 2015, the Association of Universities in the Netherlands
> >> > announced a plan to start boycotting Elsevier, which refused to
> >> > negotiate on any open access policy for Dutch universities. In
> >> > December 2016, Nature Publishing Group reported that academics in
> >> > Germany, Peru, and Taiwan are to lose access to Elsevier journals as
> >> > negotiations had broken down with the publisher.
> >> >
> >> > A complaint about Elsevier/RELX was made to the UK Competition and
> >> > Markets Authority in December 2016. In October 2018, a competition
> >> > complaint against Elsevier was filed with the European Commission,
> >> > alleging anticompetitive practices stemming from Elsevier's
> >> > confidential subscription agreements and market dominance.
> >> The whole scientific world is kept busy by finding ways to deal with
> >> ever increasing prices and with the unethical practices by
> >> Elsevier. You
> >> would think you can save money by cancelling one subscription of a
> >> journal you do not need? No, Elsevier sells bundles and next year you
> >> pay as much as last year but you have some journals less. Elsevier
> >> uses
> >> non-disclosure agreements for making it impossible to compare prices.
> >> Ask your librarian if you do not believe me. They will burst into
> >> tears
> >> if you name Elsevier.
> >>
> >> Librarians, research founders, university administrations spend hours
> >> and hours to deal with the publication crisis. Publishing with
> >> Lingua in
> >> such a situation is a sign of ignorance or uninformedness. Both
> >> are bad
> >> for job opportunities.
> >>
> >> If you want to publish in a responsible way, submit your papers to
> >> Language, the Journal of Linguistics or the Journal of Language
> >> Modelling. These are journals run by scholars or societies. The German
> >> journal Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft is published by De Gruyter
> >> but run by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft. It is
> >> open
> >> access (free for authors, fees are payed by us, the DGfS members) and
> >> the journal accepts English contributions as well.
> >>
> >> This is a list of journals I reviewed for and which are judged as
> >> OK or
> >> not OK. Elsevier, Wiley, Springer are not OK.
> >>
> >> https://hpsg.hu-berlin.de/~stefan/gutachter.html
> >>
> >> So, summing up:
> >>
> >> People who work for and publish in Lingua behave unethical and harm
> >> their field.
> >>
> >> Authors who submit there submit to a zombie journal with low
> >> competition
> >> since good and responsible authors boycott the journal.
> >>
> >> Authors who submit there get low quality reviews since high profile
> >> academics do not review for Lingua or Elsevier in general.
> >>
> >> The reviewing process will be delayed since it is difficult to find
> >> reviewers and people asked for reviews do not reply in time.
> >>
> >> Please check the English Wikipedia entry to find more reasons for not
> >> publishing with Elsevier.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Academic_practices
> >>
> >> One is this:
> >>
> >> > In 2018, Elsevier reported a mean 2017
> >> >
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Elsevier#cite_note-20>gender
> >> > pay gap
> >> >
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Gender_pay_gap> of
> >> > 29.1% for its UK workforce, while the median was 40.4%, more than
> >> > twice the UK average and by far the worst figure recorded by any
> >> > academic publisher in UK. Elsevier attributed the result to the
> >> > under-representation of women in its senior ranks and the prevalence
> >> > of men in its technical workforce.
> >> There is also racism, manipulation of citation indexes and so on.
> >>
> >> Thanks for reading this far and it would really make my day if I saw
> >> this paper published in another journal and no further submissions to
> >> Lingua. =:-)
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Stefan
> >>
> >> Recommendations to deal with Zombie Lingua
> >>
> >> 1) Do not submit there.
> >>
> >> 2) If asked for review, do not reply via their editorial system.
> >>
> >> After some time send the editor an email explaining why you do not
> >> work for Lingua/Elsevier.
> >>
> >> 3) If you cite work that appeared after January 17th 2017 in Lingua,
> >> cite it as Zombie Lingua, eg:
> >>
> >> Lin, Francis Y. 2017. A refutation of Universal Grammar. Zombie Lingua
> >> 193. 1–22. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.04.003.
> >>
> >>
> >> Appendix:
> >>
> >> Proof that Lingua is a low quality journal
> >>
> >> Lingua was ranked 7th in Google Scholar’s h5-Index Top Publications –
> >> Humanities, Literature & Arts, and 3rd in the subsection Language &
> >> Linguistics in October 2015
> >> (https://www.rooryck.org/lingua-to-glossa).
> >>
> >> Now it is not contained in Humanities any longer and it is ranked
> >> 14 in
> >> Language & Linguistics, but all papers with a high number of citations
> >> that are responsible for this listing were published by the old
> >> editorial team (they had contracts for volumes till beginning of
> >> 2017).
> >>
> >> https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=hum_languagelinguistics
> >>
> >> In 2021, Lingua will be gone since the 2015 items will not be counted
> >> for the h5 index and there aren't any new ones.
> >>
> >> I also had a look at stuff published there. One piece is open access:
> >>
> >> Lin, Francis Y. 2017. A refutation of Universal Grammar. Zombie Lingua
> >> 193. 1–22. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.04.003.
> >>
> >> I had a look since the title caught my attention and I have to say
> >> it is
> >> below any scientific standards. I am not a fan of UG, but the paper is
> >> really bad. For example it argues that Chomsky is wrong in making
> >> claims
> >> about languages since he has not seen/cannot examine all existing
> >> human
> >> languages. (p.4)
> >>
> >> Another pet peeve of mine is infinitely long sentences. The author
> >> goes
> >> into some detail expalaining why we could in principle process
> >> infinitely long sentences:
> >>
> >> > A couple of clarifications are in order. First, one might object
> >> that
> >> > an infinitely long sentence, e.g.:
> >> > (11) John believes that Peter believes that Bob believes . . .
> >> > is a sentence in a human language but the brain, being a finite
> >> > substance, cannot process it. In fact there is no contradiction
> >> here.
> >> > To say that (11) is a sentence in a human language is to say that
> >> > speakers of that language can speak or understand it. In a strict
> >> > sense, a human being cannot speak or understand an infinitely long
> >> > sentence. So, what is going on here is that when saying that
> >> (11) is a
> >> > human sentence we mean something like this: if there were no
> >> > limitation on memory and other relevant factors, then humans
> >> would be
> >> > able speak or understand it. In this sense, (11) is a human
> >> sentence;
> >> > and in the same sense, it can be processed by the brain.
> >> Note that no formally trained syntactician (in the Chomskyan
> >> tradition)
> >> ever claimed that we can formulate or process infinitely long
> >> sentences.
> >> We can't. And PSGs do not license infinitely long sentences. This is
> >> easy to see if you consider Merge-based systems. If we combine
> >> words or
> >> roots with a binary operation, we have objects of length two. We can
> >> combine these with other simple or complex objects but all of
> >> these have
> >> a finite length. So there is no way to get objects of infinite length.
> >>
> >> Apart from formally and conceptually flawed content, the language is
> >> week (even I with my limited command of English could spot this)
> >> and you
> >> will find an example of this in the quote above. So, our high price
> >> publisher does not even care for copy editing.
> >>
> >> Conclusion: Do not submit there.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Stefan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> HPSG-L mailing list
> >> HPSG-L at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >> <mailto:HPSG-L at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> >> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/hpsg-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > HPSG-L mailing list
> > HPSG-L at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/hpsg-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> HPSG-L mailing list
> HPSG-L at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/hpsg-l
>
More information about the HPSG-L
mailing list