Archive for the ‘ Scholarly Publishing’ Category

No More Nooks, Sorry Christmas Shoppers.

Friday, November 20th, 2009

Barnes and Noble booksellers launched their e-reader not long ago. The company had tagged it as the Nook, I guess for New Book, or something. Nook sounds suspiciously like “nuke” to me, but what do I know and they didn’t ask me. Anyway, B&N was surprised (”hey, these things are moving”), pleased (”Oh good, we won’t get stuck with unsold units!”) and dismayed (”Oh God, we don’t have enough”), all in short order, to find out that their inital order for the gadgets was way too small. People were snapping them up like Billy-Be-Damned. And now, the whole first shipment of Nooks is gone, all sold out. This is really not bad for a first-generation gadget launch, so B&N has a little room to be pleased. But, I guess they didn’t understand how quickly the scene had changed. Amazon’s Kindle really broke the ice on the reader front, introducing some very swift motion after a long period of stasis. So, B&N under-ordered and now they have a bunch of ticked off customers who will either wait for their Nook, or go to the Kindle. I think SONY is having some of the same problems with its Reader device.

Despite the general satisfaction, all the makers and sellers of e-readers are tugging their collars nervously in anticipation of the 800 lb gorilla’s advent. And that is, the much vaunted and feared Apple E tablet. Nobody knows for sure if Apple really is working on something like this. And nobody knows what kind of a thing it will turn out to be, if they are. But, the general expectation is that the company which brought you the Ipod, the Iphone and the changes that came with these products, will not pass up a chance to go for the hat trick and launch a large-format reader cum other stuff device that will be a significant jump in capacity and function. Some support was given to the speculation by the news that Apple had commissioned Conde-Nast publishers, owners of some big glossy print mags, to prepare a digital version of WIRED magazine. So, we shall see what we shall see. But,
“Christmas is coming and the goose is getting fat”, so if Apple doesn’t launch soon, they’ll miss the holiday season entirely. On the other hand, so? We’ll keep you posted.

Google Offers New Version Of The Deal.

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

The parties in the suit over Google’s digitization project have offered a new version of the settlement to the judge presiding over the case. It is intended to meet objections raised by the Dept. of Justice and by other groups, claiming that the previous draft of the agreement gave Google way, way too much clout. So, the judge ordered everyone to get back to work and come up with something better. The new draft will doubtless by parsed in excruciating detail by all those involved and by interested outsiders, so it looks as though we will have to keep an eye on this for a while. There is general agreement about the benefits to be expected from the availability of millions of books online, but that’s about where the agreement stops. Everybody is leery of Google, and the DOJ, after years of indifference, is watching very closely. Reports I’ve seen so far are a bit sketchy, but some things emerged: books from non-English speaking nations are excluded, more attention is paid to the problem of “orphan” works, etc. But, more substantial account will be coming out soon. In the meantime, read this summary from WIRED:

Deal2

Concurring Opinions
is a blog for law profs, and I look in on it from time to time to see what’s going on there in terms of copyright, patent, IP and similar considerations. A recent post has a discussion of the revised Google book deal, with an embedded link to another story on CNET.
Concur

Big Time Fakery.

Friday, November 13th, 2009

If you steal, steal big. That’s a good motto. After all, why waste all that dishonesty on some petty stakes. Aim high. The same held true for young Dr. Jan Hendrik Schoen. Only for him, the operative word was “fake”. Fake big. Back in the crazy Nineties, Dr. Schoen was the Wunderkind of venerable Bell Labs. In what seemed an absolute blizzard of creative work, Dr. S. zipped out major articles for prestigious journals such as Science and Nature, the two vying to get submissions from him, so hot a property was he. In one particular mens mirablilis, Schoen zipped out seven papers, a rough average of one every four days, and shot them off. His area was conductive properties of unusual materials, and there was a great desire for good news on that front, which he provided. Apparent breakthroughs rained, Bell Labs managers were dizzy with joy, and rushed for photo ops with him. Alas, alack-a-day. There were no breakthroughs, but a great deal of very creative phonus bolonus, smoke and mirrors stuff which got as far as it did for a number of reasons, all of which are clearly set forth in a new book reviewed in the American Scientist:

PLASTIC FANTASTIC: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World. Eugenie Samuel Reich. iv + 266 pp. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. $26.95.

Exactly how Schoen managed it is pretty well laid out by the author, who makes some interesting comparison to the history of frauds and fakes in early Humanism, following the lead of Anthony Grafton, who wrote the classic text on this matter. Some of the parallels are downright eerie. The major journals don’t come off too well, and Schoen was clever in using the reviewiers’ comments as a tool to increase the plausability of his own “finding’s. Of course, there were questions and doubts. Who writes seven major papers in one month? But it all looked so sweet and so hot, that the skeptics were told to hush, or worse, to be more like Schoen and get great results without a lot of pricey gear. Management chaos at Bell Labs didn’t help either. Too many turnovers, too many new people who know too little about bench work. In all, it was a Perfect Storm, to use yet again that much overworked comparison. Anxious, gulllible people wanted something new and hot. A clever guy gave them what they wanted. Then, it all went bang. End of Story.

Retractions Up Ten-Fold.

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

A item in the Times Higher Education Supplement reports on the work of a group in the UK, which states that the number of papers retracted by authors, or by journal editors, has increased a lot. Some of the papers are fakes, others are simple mistakes in which the authors realize an error and try to take back what they said, and others have largish portions borrowed from other workers. But the investigators say that even the increase is probably not truly reflective of the number of problem papers. A great deal of the problem comes down, they say, to the ‘publish or perish’ atmosphere that pervades much of the research environment. It’s vital to get into print, so corners get get.
Retractions

An “Integral” Holiday.

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

Those whose hearts beat a little faster at the sight of an equation have cause to celebrate today, because, on this day in 1675 Gottfried Leibnitz first wrote the squiggle that has become universally adopted as the integral sign in calculus. It seems he wrote it first in an unpublished manuscript, but, over time, that mark beat out competing notation for that important function, so what students learn in Calc. 101 is what Gottfried came up with. The matter of who invented the calculus, Newton or Leibnitz, has been the stuff of some considerable discussion. The two did exchange a lot of letters about it, so the question of who did what when may never be ironed out fully, but apportioning the credit by precise fractions in probably pointless. Lift a cup to Leibnitz in recognition of his priceless doodle.

Integral

Magic, Alchemy and UTMB.

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

October is the month of Halloween, and this Halloween is the latest one in the long reign of magic and mysticism in popular entertainment. You know, spells and potions and strange animals and wizards and witches and the rest of the cast. Zombies, too. Don’t forget the zombies. And Vampires. These last two are really big right now. It’s timely that our Library should host an exhibit on the inflluence of magical ideas on medicine and the care of the sick in the pre-scientific era. Certain animals and minerals were thought to have healing powers. Herbalism was important and is undergoing a revival today. The exhibit makes use of some books from our Rare Book collection to illustrate these points. Alchemy was a major element in traditional medicine. Pursuing the Elixir of Life and the Philosopher’s Stone consumed the lives and fortunes of countless persons, each one betting on success where others had failed. Still, alchemy’s legacy to modern science was considerable, in the form of equipment, techniques and new materials produced, as Dr. Edward Randall stressed in his welcoming address to UTMB’s new medical students of 1897, calling on them to show the same diligence and perseverance in study: “As time went on the alchemists in their efforts to create gold found in their crucibles many substances and compounds before unknown, which were destined to work much good for the healing of the nations”.
Visit the Library and enjoy the exhibit. Think how far we’ve come and how far we have yet to go.

PS: Newton and Boyle were both alchemists, adepts even. So were many other workers in the hazy and undefined period before and just around the advent of the Scientific Revolution. This shouldn’t surprise anybody, really. Looked at from their point of view, alchemy had a lot going for it, and “science” was something they had never heard of. They were “natural philosophers”. The clear divisions of our era didn’t exist then. When the economist John Maynard Keynes bought a big passel of Newton’s papers from Sotheby’s auction house and began to edit them, both he and other researchers were astonished to find so much of Newton’s work devoted to alchemy. And to Biblical numerology too. He had some idea about the proportions of Solomon’s temple, as given in the scriptural account, being the key to understanding many other things. There was a lot of shock and head-shaking about what a waste it all had been, and how Newton could have discovered a whole lot more, had he not wasted his time on this stuff. But, he wasn’t wasting his time, or at least he didn’t think so. He thought he was hot on the trail of something really big. That was then, and this is now.

Enter the “Vook”.

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

It sounds sort of Russian, doesn’t it? But it’s a nonce word, I think they call them, and it’s a blended form, describing a new combination of book and video. Today’s New York Times has an article on this mini-trend. The publishers Simon and Schuster are launching four vooks, and other publishers, and authors, are fiddling with the idea. In the case of a fitness vook, the reader can call up demonstrations of the various excercises. Prof. Robert Darnton of the Harvard Libraries and himself a scholar of French popular songs, has embedded, I guess is the right word, performances of some of them in his work on the subject. It’s all very intriguing in a speculative sort of way. Some authors and critics are skittish about the idea. Blending two different media formats has usually meant bad news for one of them, but that was then and this is now. I have to say that I would have appreciated a little real time demonstration at various times over the years when I was wrestling with something I wasn’t getting…junior algebra for one thing. And in the case of music or art, the case is easy to see. So, I’m all for it. It won’t work everyplace and people should fight the temptation to stick graphics into a text just because they can. There is probably a market for something like this, a big one, and that market will sort itself out fairly quickly. In the meantime read/watch your vook.

Vook

Google Book Deal Gets Bad Report Card from DOJ.

Monday, September 21st, 2009

One thing this blog has been doing reasonably well is keeping our readers informed about the twistings and turnings of the fabulous Google Book Deal. Antagonists of different stripe have been complaining about aspects of the Deal for a while now, but criticisms, and the range of sources from which they stem, have been growing. Now, the biggest critic of them all has told the G that the deal, as written, should not happen. The Department of Justice has been watching the proceedings and has also been listening to the quality of the arguments made by opponents. The Department wants the Deal restructured. It has bought the argument that the current agreement does give Google a de facto monopoly over the digitization and sale of “orphan” works: books covered by copyright law, but whose rights holders cannot be determined. Justice has other concerns, relating to the so called Rule 23, which governs class action suits. This is not to say that DOJ is agin the whole thing and wants to scupper it. Reports say that parties have been encouraged to rewrite the settlement in ways that meet the Department’s concerns, and that Google and the authors’ and publishers’ societies are striving to come up with a draft that will work. DOJ realizes the potentially enormous advantage of having so many millions of books available. The presiding judge wants something on his desk by October 3, so time’s a wasting.

DOJ/Deal

In a note, I will confess that I was completely wrong about the prospects for easy approval of the Deal by the court. I’m not sure how much the new Administration has to do with it. After all, both parties seemed happy. But Justice is now apparently watching Google very closely, in whatever they do. And the public interest claims maybe are getting more attention than I expected. All this is good. I’m pleased to have been shown wrong, since it means the regulators are doing what they are supposed to do: encourage competition and safeguard the public interest. Cheers all around.

BLOOD Wants to Stain Ghosted Articles.

Monday, September 21st, 2009

It’s pretty lame, I have to admit, but it’s Monday and I’m just coming back from a bad shaking up I got from a bike accident. I don’t think this blog has been doing enough to cover the widening scandal of ghosted articles in the medical literature. We talk about it among ourselves, the librarians I mean, and there is an active discussion among some faculty here, but over all, I feel I’ve let the side down somehow. So, it’s time to redress the balance, and we’ll start by bringing to our readers’ attention a story that ran in the New York Times of Friday last, in the Business section. The paper is running a series of articles on the topic of ghostwritten articles in medical journals. Ghosted articles are those written at the behest of a drug company, by a firm of “medical educators”, and then circulated to some “key opinion leaders” in the field, with the suggestion that they review and submit these articles for publication under their names, and receive a suitable expression of corporate gratitude for their cooperation. Nobody knows for sure how many such articles are in the medical literature, serving as the basis for research efforts and patient care decisions. But, the orotund Latin phrase non pauci, not a few, comes to mind. Well, there are some “issues” here, as they say, and I don’t want to review the whole topic in this post. I do want to highlight one reaction to the whole mess by one editor of a major journal, Dr. Cynthia E. Dunbar, editor in chief of BLOOD. In brief, her response is “get rid of them”, and perhaps bar the submitting author from furter publication in the journal, at least for a period of years. Needless to say, such action would also lead to considerable bad odor in whatever professional community we happening to be discussing, so it’s a pretty big stick. Journal editors have been accused of being too wussy on the question of “undisclosed contributions”, let’s call them. So the BLOOD action ups the ante quite a bit. PLoS Medicine has also suggested a stance of zero tolerance on ghosting. And Sen. Grassley of Iowa has been after journals to see what kind of policies they have on the matter and is not really satisfied with the replies. My own idea is to ask the National Library of Medicine to introduce a new publication type, Advertisement, and then request that this be applied to any discovered ghosted article. The withdrawal problem would take care of itself, as authors begged to have their offending articles withdrawn. Who, after all, wants to be unveiled as a corporate shill?

The Times piece has several internal links which are worth following:
Bloody Ghosts

SONY Launches New Ebook Reader.

Monday, September 14th, 2009

SONY showed that it wasn’t being scared away from the ebook market, when it announced the newest member of the SONY reader family, one called the Daily Edition. This is a a newbie, in fact I don’t think it’s in production yet, but at an event held in the New York Public Library, SONY showed a prototype. Free wireless service is included in the deal. The Daily Edition is the biggest of the three Reader models, will sell for $199, and be available in December. I’ll bet the SONY execs are begging and pleading to get models out faster than that, in order to maximize whatever advantage the Christmas season might give them. If things are the way they were last year, that won’t be much. The name, Daily Edition, suggests but does not prove that SONY is gunning for the newspaper/magazine market in addition to books. Just a thought, that.
So, let’s see who’s in the running. Amazon, of course, with its Kindles, then SONY with its three machines, then Barnes and Noble with PlasticLogic, maybe, then AUSA, and then TIME, INC. That’s five groups developing or selling dedicated readers. In addition, there are apps for various hand-held units, like Iphones and Ipods and such. Add in the market formed by laptop owners only, not desktops, and you start to come up with some pretty impressive numbers of people who might be willing to pay to download books, enough to make the little hearts of publishing execs go pitter-patter at a rapidly accelerating rate. Of course, there are problems. None of the current dedicated readers will do color. Relatively small screen size is not good for technical materials, or for anything that requires demonstration or illustration: art history, how to manuals, engineering or science texts, etc. But, for the new Dan Brown, any one would do just fine. Ye pays yer money and ye takes yer cherse, as the pitchman says. Two years or so ago the ebook reader arena was empty. Now, gladiators are pushing in from all sides.

SONY