I have submitted camera-ready copy of five books written with LaTeX, using Xemacs (with spell checking of course). I completely agree with this comment, and I do NOT have that many equations. If you do it yourself, you do not need to worry about the publisher's errors. Another advantage is that you are not completely at the mercy of copy editors. If you don't like what they do, you can ignore it and they won't, in fact, check every little comma. (That said, I admit I've had two really excellent copy editors, as well as many others who did their work without any understand of what they were reading.)
Jon Baron (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron)
Other replies have noted that a citation requirement is difficult to enforce but that citation is also a canon of academic ethics. The journal I edit thus "asks nicely" for citation. See http://journal.sjdm.org/copyright.htm
The "Authors Guild" is a self-appointed protector
of the "rights" of authors. In particular, they
try to collect royalties from Kinko's and other
copying services, on scholarly articles included
in course packs assigned for classes. They have
had some success. Kinko's collects the fees, and
increases the price of the course packs.
As an author, I totally repudiate this attempt
to act on my behalf. I want my work read. I do
not want the 3 cents royalty. For several years
in a row, I asked Authors Guild at least to turn
over all my royalties to Unicef, instead of
sending me a tiny check each year.
In sum, this is a rougue outfit.
Scholarly work is a public good.
Although presumed consent is not a panacea,
it increases donation rates substantially.
See ch. 1 of "You can't enlarge the pie," by Max
Bazerman, Jonathan Baron, and Katie Shonk. Eric
Johnson at Columbia U. has recent statistics that
are quite a bit more impressive than those we
reviewed.
I am associate editor of two journals (Medical
Decision Making, Journal of Economic Psychology)
and a member of the editorial boards of severa
others. I do not get paid one cent. Yet, as
an associate editor, I do most of the real work
(both soliciting reviews and doing my own, plus
final editing). I do not see why
"rigorous peer-review, editorial oversight," are
included in the cost of production. So far as
I can tell, the main cost is copy editing, which
often makes things worse! Editors seem to get
paid too, for what I don't know, since I do pretty
much what they do, and I am happy to work for free. Things may be different in real science,
of course. But my field is a kind of scholarship,
at least.
We should agitate for a law that
would disallow contributors revealing their identity. All contributions will be anonymous. No contributor could get a pay-back. This would be
no harder to enforce than any current law. Perhaps
easier.
The University of Pennsylvania has requirements
similar to Princeton's. We do require only one
course in "Quantitative Data Analysis" (formerly
called "Quantitative Skills") but this is only
part of the distribution requirements which also
include "formal reasoning" and other sciences.
The Quantitative Data Analysis requirement is to
familiarize students with inferences from data, as
they are made in the social and natural sciences
and even sometimes the humanities. Penn now also
has a new "computing certificate," not a requirement but an option, for Arts and Sciences
undergraduates. This is a sequence of three
courses culminating in some sort of project. It
requires learning programming, but it is far less
than majoring in computer science (which is in
the engineering school). In sum, the Ivy League
seems to be moving toward greater recognition of
the importance of science, data, and computers as
part of a liberal education. We, at Penn, are
feeling our way. These are experiments, and they
will be revised with more experience (and data!).
See
Stevan Harnad's page and
SSRN
for examples of progress. The problem is
very simple: inertia. Scholars have no interest
whatsoever in propretary journals. The web could
totally replace scholarly publication. People
make up all sorts of reasons not change, but that
is the nature of people. It will happen. The
objectors have to die off first.
TeX/LaTeX and its friends have been around about 20 years, without significant change.
EPS, DVI, have not changed. Editors that used line breaks to end lines have been around much longer than any word processor.
If you use a Windows computer to connect to
a Unix server (old fashioned, nothing fancy) in
the next room, you still cannot easily read your
mail with a Unix mailer (which would use X Window
to display images, html, etc.). Now Unix is
not open source, I know, but the same thing is
true if the server were Linux. XFree86 and X Window work just fine together.
These are the kinds of things I'm talking
about. For these very basic things, open source
is not the culprit.
I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about true
hackers. I'm talking about ordinary users.
I know that you can do lots in Windows if you
work at it. (I used to do it myself.) I'm
talking about the average end user who just wants
to use menus. These people have great trouble
interacting with me.
My point was a general one. The question was,
how can Microsoft realistically change its
attitude? Answer: by considering it a good
thing if its products deal EASILY and
EFFORTLESSLY with users of non-Microsoft
programs.
I too have learned how to interact with Microsoft
users, but the burden is all on me.
I work with people who use Windows, although I use Linux. Microsoft could help me and my colleagues by trying to make their products work better with my products. They seem to do the opposite now. Just to take a minor example of hundreds. I write text files with 80 character lines. Word does not have a way of importing these without taking line breaks as paragraph breaks, and it cannot make them. (Apparently. At least none of my very smart colleagues can figure out how to get Word to do this.)
Some scientists use Microsoft Word, and others use TeX/LaTeX. Microsoft could HELP the former group by making Word, for example, easily import eps. (Another thing my colleagues can't manage to do.)
And then there is Xwindow. Why doesn't Windows include something like VNC?
The answer is that Microsoft does not want to make life easy for its customers who interact with people like me. This is an attitude they might change without serious harm to their business model. They are using their customers as pawns in their struggle to crush competition. That is a strategy thay may not even be in their long-term self-interest.
Slashdot Mirror
I have submitted camera-ready copy of five books written with LaTeX, using Xemacs (with spell checking of course). I completely agree with this comment, and I do NOT have that many equations. If you do it yourself, you do not need to worry about the publisher's errors. Another advantage is that you are not completely at the mercy of copy editors. If you don't like what they do, you can ignore it and they won't, in fact, check every little comma. (That said, I admit I've had two really excellent copy editors, as well as many others who did their work without any understand of what they were reading.) Jon Baron (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron)
Other replies have noted that a citation requirement is difficult to enforce but that citation is also a canon of academic ethics. The journal I edit thus "asks nicely" for citation. See http://journal.sjdm.org/copyright.htm
As an author, I totally repudiate this attempt to act on my behalf. I want my work read. I do not want the 3 cents royalty. For several years in a row, I asked Authors Guild at least to turn over all my royalties to Unicef, instead of sending me a tiny check each year.
In sum, this is a rougue outfit. Scholarly work is a public good.
Although presumed consent is not a panacea, it increases donation rates substantially. See ch. 1 of "You can't enlarge the pie," by Max Bazerman, Jonathan Baron, and Katie Shonk. Eric Johnson at Columbia U. has recent statistics that are quite a bit more impressive than those we reviewed.
I am associate editor of two journals (Medical Decision Making, Journal of Economic Psychology) and a member of the editorial boards of severa others. I do not get paid one cent. Yet, as an associate editor, I do most of the real work (both soliciting reviews and doing my own, plus final editing). I do not see why "rigorous peer-review, editorial oversight," are included in the cost of production. So far as I can tell, the main cost is copy editing, which often makes things worse! Editors seem to get paid too, for what I don't know, since I do pretty much what they do, and I am happy to work for free. Things may be different in real science, of course. But my field is a kind of scholarship, at least.
We should agitate for a law that would disallow contributors revealing their identity. All contributions will be anonymous. No contributor could get a pay-back. This would be no harder to enforce than any current law. Perhaps easier.
The University of Pennsylvania has requirements similar to Princeton's. We do require only one course in "Quantitative Data Analysis" (formerly called "Quantitative Skills") but this is only part of the distribution requirements which also include "formal reasoning" and other sciences. The Quantitative Data Analysis requirement is to familiarize students with inferences from data, as they are made in the social and natural sciences and even sometimes the humanities. Penn now also has a new "computing certificate," not a requirement but an option, for Arts and Sciences undergraduates. This is a sequence of three courses culminating in some sort of project. It requires learning programming, but it is far less than majoring in computer science (which is in the engineering school). In sum, the Ivy League seems to be moving toward greater recognition of the importance of science, data, and computers as part of a liberal education. We, at Penn, are feeling our way. These are experiments, and they will be revised with more experience (and data!).
See Stevan Harnad's page and SSRN for examples of progress. The problem is very simple: inertia. Scholars have no interest whatsoever in propretary journals. The web could totally replace scholarly publication. People make up all sorts of reasons not change, but that is the nature of people. It will happen. The objectors have to die off first.
If you use a Windows computer to connect to a Unix server (old fashioned, nothing fancy) in the next room, you still cannot easily read your mail with a Unix mailer (which would use X Window to display images, html, etc.). Now Unix is not open source, I know, but the same thing is true if the server were Linux. XFree86 and X Window work just fine together.
These are the kinds of things I'm talking about. For these very basic things, open source is not the culprit.
I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about true hackers. I'm talking about ordinary users. I know that you can do lots in Windows if you work at it. (I used to do it myself.) I'm talking about the average end user who just wants to use menus. These people have great trouble interacting with me. My point was a general one. The question was, how can Microsoft realistically change its attitude? Answer: by considering it a good thing if its products deal EASILY and EFFORTLESSLY with users of non-Microsoft programs. I too have learned how to interact with Microsoft users, but the burden is all on me.
I work with people who use Windows, although I
use Linux. Microsoft could help me and my
colleagues by trying to make their products work
better with my products. They seem to do the
opposite now. Just to take a minor example of
hundreds. I write text files with 80 character
lines. Word does not have a way of importing
these without taking line breaks as paragraph
breaks, and it cannot make them. (Apparently.
At least none of my very smart colleagues can
figure out how to get Word to do this.)
Some scientists use Microsoft Word, and others
use TeX/LaTeX. Microsoft could HELP the former
group by making Word, for example, easily import
eps. (Another thing my colleagues can't
manage to do.)
And then there is Xwindow. Why doesn't Windows
include something like VNC?
The answer is that Microsoft does not want to
make life easy for its customers who interact
with people like me. This is an attitude they
might change without serious harm to their
business model. They are using their customers
as pawns in their struggle to crush competition.
That is a strategy thay may not even be in their
long-term self-interest.