Journal's Editors Resign Over Elsevier Meddling, Budget Cuts, and Errors Introduced by AI (retractionwatch.com)
(Saturday December 28, 2024 @11:34AM (EditorDavid)
from the peer-reviewed-pressure dept.)
- Reference: 0175777857
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/24/12/28/053216/journals-editors-resign-over-elsevier-meddling-budget-cuts-and-errors-introduced-by-ai
- Source link: https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Social-Media-Statement-re-JHE-Resignations.pdf
[1]ewhac (Slashdot reader #5,844) writes:
> [2]Retraction Watch is [3]reporting that the entire editorial staff (save one) for the [4]Journal of Human Evolution has resigned in protest over creeping harmful changes imposed by its publisher, Elsevier.
>
> In an [5]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.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~ewhac
[2] https://retractionwatch.com/
[3] https://retractionwatch.com/2024/12/27/evolution-journal-editors-resign-en-masse-to-protest-elsevier-changes/
[4] https://slashdot.org/unsupported_browser
[5] https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Social-Media-Statement-re-JHE-Resignations.pdf
> [2]Retraction Watch is [3]reporting that the entire editorial staff (save one) for the [4]Journal of Human Evolution has resigned in protest over creeping harmful changes imposed by its publisher, Elsevier.
>
> In an [5]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.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~ewhac
[2] https://retractionwatch.com/
[3] https://retractionwatch.com/2024/12/27/evolution-journal-editors-resign-en-masse-to-protest-elsevier-changes/
[4] https://slashdot.org/unsupported_browser
[5] https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Social-Media-Statement-re-JHE-Resignations.pdf
Elsevier - seems to be a respected company (Score:2)
by Vlad_the_Inhaler ( 32958 )
I was wondering just who was behind [1]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.
[1] https://www.elsevier.com/
Why do for-profit academic publishers still exist? (Score:2)
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 com