Journal's Editors Resign Over Elsevier Meddling, Budget Cuts, and Errors Introduced by AI (retractionwatch.com) 38
ewhac (Slashdot reader #5,844) writes:
Retraction Watch is reporting that the entire editorial staff (save one) for the Journal of Human Evolution has resigned in protest over creeping harmful changes imposed by its publisher, Elsevier.
In an open letter posted to social media, the editors recount Elsevier's changes to their journal's scientific and editorial processes (inserting itself into those processes) — along with staff and budget reductions negatively impacting their ability to review and publish submissions. The letter alleges that when the editorial board complained of Elsevier's eliminating support for a copy editor, Elsevier responded that the editors shouldn't be paying attention to language, grammar, readability, consistency, or accuracy of proper nomenclature or formatting. When the editors fiercely protested Elsevier's ending of JHE's dual-editor model, Elsevier allegedly responded that it would support a dual-editor model by cutting the compensation rate by half.
But perhaps most damning is a footnote revealing Elsevier's use of so-called "AI" in the publication process. "In fall of 2023, for example, without consulting or informing the editors, Elsevier initiated the use of AI during production, creating article proofs devoid of capitalization of all proper nouns (e.g., formally recognized epochs, site names, countries, cities, genera, etc.) as well italics for genera and species. These AI changes reversed the accepted versions of papers that had already been properly formatted by the handling editors. This was highly embarrassing for the journal and resolution took six months and was achieved only through the persistent efforts of the editors. AI processing continues to be used and regularly reformats submitted manuscripts to change meaning and formatting and require extensive author and editor oversight during proof stage."
Except for one unnamed associate editor, the editorial board for the Journal of Human Evolution determined that the situation with Elsevier was no longer tenable, and resigned.
In an open letter posted to social media, the editors recount Elsevier's changes to their journal's scientific and editorial processes (inserting itself into those processes) — along with staff and budget reductions negatively impacting their ability to review and publish submissions. The letter alleges that when the editorial board complained of Elsevier's eliminating support for a copy editor, Elsevier responded that the editors shouldn't be paying attention to language, grammar, readability, consistency, or accuracy of proper nomenclature or formatting. When the editors fiercely protested Elsevier's ending of JHE's dual-editor model, Elsevier allegedly responded that it would support a dual-editor model by cutting the compensation rate by half.
But perhaps most damning is a footnote revealing Elsevier's use of so-called "AI" in the publication process. "In fall of 2023, for example, without consulting or informing the editors, Elsevier initiated the use of AI during production, creating article proofs devoid of capitalization of all proper nouns (e.g., formally recognized epochs, site names, countries, cities, genera, etc.) as well italics for genera and species. These AI changes reversed the accepted versions of papers that had already been properly formatted by the handling editors. This was highly embarrassing for the journal and resolution took six months and was achieved only through the persistent efforts of the editors. AI processing continues to be used and regularly reformats submitted manuscripts to change meaning and formatting and require extensive author and editor oversight during proof stage."
Except for one unnamed associate editor, the editorial board for the Journal of Human Evolution determined that the situation with Elsevier was no longer tenable, and resigned.
Why do for-profit academic publishers still exist? (Score:5, Informative)
About 15 years ago (back when I was working), I decided to refuse to support the for-profit publishers, particularly Elsevier, because I thought they put profits over dissemination. But I know part of the answer is that not just the publishers, but also professional societies are -addicted- to the profits professional journals bring in. Libraries are willing to pay big bucks, academics need to publish for tenure, and the whole thing is a self-licking ice cream cone. I was particularly critical of the computer science community, because that community should know how to set up free dissemination.
Now I recognize that a lot of work outside of the publisher goes into a peer reviewed journal, and that needs to be funded somehow. But the current model that limits access to information only to those with deep pockets needs be broken/disrupted.
Re:Why do for-profit academic publishers still exi (Score:5, Interesting)
Now I recognize that a lot of work outside of the publisher goes into a peer reviewed journal, and that needs to be funded somehow. But the current model that limits access to information only to those with deep pockets needs be broken/disrupted.
If taxpayers are ultimately funding the “lot of work”, then taxpayers should have access. I know that sounds plain and simple on the surface. Because it is. It just doesn’t create the additional revenue streams that Greed N. Corruption demands.
On a related note, I find it fucking hilarious those documenting the Journal of Human Evolution are pissed AI might be documenting their for-profit demise brought on by Greed a bit too accurately.
Re: (Score:3)
Now I recognize that a lot of work outside of the publisher goes into a peer reviewed journal, and that needs to be funded somehow. But the current model that limits access to information only to those with deep pockets needs be broken/disrupted.
If taxpayers are ultimately funding the “lot of work”, then taxpayers should have access. I know that sounds plain and simple on the surface. Because it is. It just doesn’t create the additional revenue streams that Greed N. Corruption demands.
Agreed. Taxpayers paid for the research because research costs money. Taxpayers also paid for the publication because publishing costs money. So yes, taxpayers should be able to examine what they paid for.
So, what would happen if we eliminated the "Greed N. Corruption" middleman? Setting aside the profits they collect, they do incur expenses publishing things. I'm not sure whether all of that is covered by the page-charges paid by authors. If it isn't, then the cost of publishing would need to be supplement
Re:Why do for-profit academic publishers still exi (Score:4, Informative)
The job the journals are supposed to handle is determining which pieces of text from the "slush pile" are worthy of attention. I.e. which appear to be actual works of merit. Part of the merit if formatting names properly, but that's less important that assuming readers that the work is from who it claims to be from, and attempting to validate the claims (peer review) with actual experts in the field.
If Elsevier has explicitly abandoned that attempt, then their publications should no longer be considered professional journals.
Need circulation, subscriber numbers (Score:2)
Anyone know if this journal's revenue is declining?
Is this a factor of demographics with late and past late career academics retiring resulting in less subscriptions to academic journals?
https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.... [wiley.com]
Open is not forever: A study of vanished open access journals
Mikael Laakso, Lisa Matthias, Najko Jahn - First published: 21 February 2021
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24... [doi.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
academics need to publish for tenure
As long as there is a reward (tenure) for publishing in a journal, the journals will continue to exist (pay to play is an old concept).
Real questions (as I am long removed from the academic community): Without publications and peer review of the work product, how should a tenure committee evaluate an individuals contributions to their field to make a decision on their future with the institution? Or should tenure be eliminated entirely?
Re: (Score:2)
Serious answer? By separating Research from Academia.
If you want to be a researcher, go get a job as a researcher in a laboratory and do what your employer pays you to do. Or get together with a bunch of other researchers and get independent funding (corporate, government, private grants, etc.) to fund some sort of research institute -but do it separately from the teaching institutions.
That is not to say that teachers should not do research -as long as the primary purpose of the research is for the educat
Re:Why do for-profit academic publishers still exi (Score:5, Insightful)
Summarizing your post: you say that researchers at teaching institutions should limit their research to what supports their teaching functions. I think that's a big mistake.
It makes a great deal of sense to do cutting-edge research at teaching institutions. Here are a few reasons:
First of all, there's a diverse pool of world-class talent situated in one place, across multiple departments.
Second, it's cheap: overhead at teaching institutions is far lower than at private institutions, and salaries are somewhat lower than those in industry. Also, graduate students are inexpensive but talented labor-in-training.
Third, academic researchers are free (somewhat) from the burden of a profit-motive. I'm not saying making a profit is evil, or that you don't have to balance the books. And researchers still need to propose a budget for their work and justify their actions to the granting agency. But the missions they can undertake are far more numerous, subject only to the objectives of the granting agencies.
And finally, academic researchers who are at the bleeding edge of new knowledge are in the best position to instruct students, some of whom may become the next generation's researchers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without publications and peer review of the work product, how should a tenure committee evaluate an individuals contributions to their field to make a decision on their future with the institution?
The way it was done before for-profit journals and the whole "metrics" nonsense started: directly evaluating what the candidate for tenure did via engaging with their work up to that point.
Focusing on bogus metrics that can be gamed is the easy way out. The evaluation board offloads having to, you know, actually understand what the candidate to tenure does, why they're doing it, how they're doing it, whether it has merit, etc., to an Excel spreadsheet.
Re: (Score:2)
Without publications and peer review of the work product, how should a tenure committee evaluate an individuals contributions to their field to make a decision on their future with the institution?
In other words, schmooze with the current faculty to make them feel valued and important, so they reward you (I saw that in those "before times", and it did not lead to better choices).
Re: (Score:2)
schmooze with the current faculty to make them feel valued and important
There's that risk, yes. The solution is to have the evaluation include 3rd parties. Schmoozing with the heads of your own college/university is one thing. Doing that with the heads of several universities, your own evaluation board assembled from a random selection among those, would be extremely harder.
Re: (Score:2)
why is it that i can go buy a yearly subscription to American scientist.. with all the editorial work, and everything else... plus get online access for the price to access a single research paper? ads?
For all i care... make it a dollar a research paper and throw in an ad for a Budweiser on page 3 if i want to print.... or free access... with full page ads every few pages... if reading online.
pretend it's a digital magazine...
They get ad revenue... we get the access
-one very simple and all important caveat
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, consider ads a "shit experience." YMMV, of course.
Elsevier - seems to be a respected company (Score:3, Interesting)
I was wondering just who was behind this company [elsevier.com] and what their main business is, but they are from the Netherlands and it looks as though their "main business" is scientific publishing. Something is wrong here, either they have overextended and are trying to stave off bankruptcy or some of the reporting here is inaccurate.
Re:Elsevier - seems to be a respected company (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Elsevier - seems to be a respected company (Score:4, Informative)
Without knowing more, I would have to side with the academics on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly takes work to operate a journal: something like arXiv had operating expenses of $4.8 million for FY24, and arXiv doesn't arrange peer reviews; but there's nothing about it that suggests either that it should either be nearly so expensive as Elsevier (3.26 billion euros in 2022, don't have FY24 figures immediately to hand) or that it should
Re: Sounds Like The Slashdot Moderators. (Score:2)
If you don't like something, work within your circle of influence. Hint: it's not here.
That's to the top poster here, not you.
Re:Same film, different generation (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it's not copy editors, but rather the technical/content editors who are protesting this. It's the people who -actually understand what the article is supposed to be about- who take stuff that is often illegible and rework it to both readable English and to content which the intended audience can follow. That's not easy, I know from some of the articles I peer-reviewed how much work it would take to make those intelligible.
Whether automated or human, copy editors can inadvertently change meaning in subtle ways, that the technical editors have to detect and repair.
Re: (Score:2)
"Elsevier responded that the editors shouldn't be paying attention to language, grammar, readability, consistency, or accuracy of proper nomenclature or formatting."
What do they see as the editor's job, then? Because to me, it sounds like what they're saying is that editors shouldn't be...you know...EDITING.
Re: (Score:2)
They'd probably argue "We just want the humans to select the articles, our AI will do all the rest." But my friend who's editor-in-chief for at least one (chemistry) journal talks a lot about how much hard work is involved. That's getting articles out for review, collecting the reviews, getting reviews back to authors, then when a paper is selected, making sure the paper is technically accurate/understandable as well as valid English, and then finally making sure the proofs are correct before the journal
The evolution of capitalism (Score:2)
This is a good example of the evolution of capitalism which could be an article for the "Journal of Human Evolution"
Capitalism evolves to consume all morals, ethics, public benefits and human decency in the pursuit of profits.
Capitalism is bad (Score:2)
Capitalism evolves to consume all morals, ethics, public benefits and human decency in the pursuit of profits.
And builds wealth. Don't forget the wealth.
All of our cities, our roads, houses, cars, electricity, clean water, public schools... our discoveries of science, technology, medicine, philosophy... basically everything we've built since the beginning has been due to capitalism one way or another. We have cell phones, internet, computers, movies, and food for the entire planet due to capitalism.
Compare with the one and only competitor to capitalism, from several examples, and note how much they have built durin
Capitalism can be bad or good (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism does incentivize individuals to build things for society. It's when the capitalists exploit their position that the problems begin.
Capitalism evolves to consume all morals, ethics, public benefits and human decency in the pursuit of profits.
And builds wealth. Don't forget the wealth.
For the capitalists, yes. If you can't afford to pay your bills and have capital left over to invest, then too bad.
All of our cities, our roads, houses, cars, electricity, clean water, public schools... our discoveries of science, technology, medicine, philosophy... basically everything we've built since the beginning has been due to capitalism one way or another. We have cell phones, internet, computers, movies, and food for the entire planet due to capitalism.
You overlook the benefits that have come from publically-funded research. I daresay every one of the advances you mentioned has benefited from, or was initiated by such research.
Now, stop and think of what would happen if everything operated on a capitalistic model.
Roads? Pay the toll please.
Public schools? They're capitalistic?? Not when they're paid for entirely through taxes.
Your house is on fire? The fire department says no, we're not going to put the fire out because it's not profitable.
You're being robbed? Call 911 and make sure you have your credit card ready.
Compare with the one and only competitor to capitalism, from several examples, and note how much they have built during their brief reigns. And how much corruption, suffering, and outright death has been caused during the reign of that competing philosophy.
Much of humanity has adopted to a model that blends capitalism with elements of the "other" philosophy to which you refer. I think this is fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real target of your ire should be bureaucracy. Capitalist entities DO engage in the activities you enumerate, but they are not the only such groups.
OTOH, consider what you would replace Capitalism/bureaucracy with. Most of the available choices have been experimentally proven to be worse in one way or another.
There are probably a range of scales for each method of organization, within which that method is "nearly optimal". Bureaucracy doesn't work well with really small groups. Capitalism d
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the available replacements have been experimentally proven to be vastly better. Use those.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to check your assertion. Which methods do you consider better in what context, and what are your references to validate the assertion?
Re: (Score:2)
Democratic socialism. As evidence, I present lots of European countries.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but I don't see that as not being capitalism. (It's capitalism with oversight.) And it doesn't have a long enough track record to make a good guess about it's failure modes, or how it's likely to evolve. Were I to guess I'd guess, with low certainty, that it will evolve towards some form of regulatory capture.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry you don't see the difference. And the track record is just as long as the US track record, so, your opinion is noted.
Re: (Score:2)
There are differences, but both are capitalism. For that matter even mainland China is largely capitalist. The political system is a lot different, but the economic system is largely capitalist.
Which particular one do you say has been socialist since the late 1700's? The oldest one I'm aware of is Bismark's Germany, and that didn't last. A *quick* Google search didn't turn up anything earlier. (And the US is currently more socialist than was Bismark's Germany.)
Also, socialism is normally defined in term
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism only means that capital is used for political purposes. Even Stalinism is capitalism. It doesn't have any descriptive power in modern society.
Socialism is about economics. It requires a political system on top of it. Marx imagined anarchy, but that has never been tested. And socialism, in turn, is usually on top of capitalism. Also as envisioned by Marx.
But the topic was alternatives to the hot collapsing mess which is the US. Not about the finer points of definitions. And there my point stands,
Enshittification (Score:2)
Really, this word should have been the universal choice for Word of the Year 2024. It's everywhere.