Professional Publishers: You Have Failed Big Time
April 14, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Over the years, I have done some small tasks for professional publishers. Don’t get me wrong. I love these firms, their editorial policies, their pricing models, and the quality of the content. (I won’t raise the issue of commercial funding of research-centric papers, the role of special interests related to certain medical articles, or the marketing-centric rah rah about smart software from grant seekers and frightened online advertising vendors. Will I mention non-reproducible results? Sure, many peer reviewed articles are glorified tweets. There you go.)
Midjourney’s rendering of a big roll of baloney similar to that contained in many peer reviewed articles.
I will, however, point you toward the essay “A Whole Lotta Money for Nothin’.” The article explains that the peer-review methods have not worked to advance knowledge. What has been advanced is movement on a tenure track, “proof” that a government entity granting funds has evidence about the location of the institution to which the grant is delivered, and revenue for professional publishing outfits.
I noted this statement in the essay:
Does peer review actually do the thing it’s supposed to do? Does it catch bad research and prevent it from being published? It doesn’t.
Plus, papers have errors or made up data (hello, president of Stanford University, have you resolved your data issue yet?)
I noted this passage as well:
When one editor started asking authors to add their raw data after they submitted a paper to his journal, half of them declined and retracted their submissions. This suggests, in the editor’s words, “a possibility that the raw data did not exist from the beginning.”
As I recall, I learned how to do footnotes following assorted style sheets. The discipline of mastering the correct style was more interesting to me than the baloney in some of the journal articles I cited.
Professional publishers, what’s up besides charging libraries so much for subscriptions to journals with questionable research? Never mind. Don’t answer. I know already.
Stephen E Arnold, April 14, 2023
A Trend? Silicon Valley Type Media Squabbles
April 13, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
In rural Kentucky the Silicon Valley type media don’t capture the attention of too many in Harrod’s Creek. I noted several stories from what I call the Sillycon Valley “real” news outfits which may suggest a trend. And what is the OMG slay?
Let’s let three examples shape what’s shakin’ in “real” news:
ONE: The write up “Mehdi Hasan Dismantles The Entire Foundation Of The Twitter Files As Matt Taibbi Stumbles To Defend It” makes clear that author Matt Taibbi is not up to the “real” news standards of an online publication called “TechDirt.” The charges are interesting; for instance, “Taibbi shrugs, sighs, and makes it clear he’s totally out of his depth when confronted with facts.” That’s clear: Facts are important.
TWO: A publication with a logo I find minty but at odds with the silly idea of legible typography published “Substack CEO Pushes Back at Elon Musk, Says Twitter Situation Is Very Frustrating.” The article explains that a financially challenged Silicon Valley reinterpretation of old-fashioned magazine publishing called Substack is struggling with the vibe checked outfit Twitter. The article provides examples of some back and forth or what my deceased grandmother called “tit for tat” talk.
THREE: The world-changing owner of Twitter (an old school TikTok) labeled the very sensitive National Public Radio as state sponsored radio. Apart from the fact that NPR runs ads, I suppose the label would annoy some people. However, the old school Fortune Magazine reported that the “real” news outfit Twitter had changed the facts. “Elon Musk Changes NPR’s Twitter Label to Government Funded Media after US State Affiliated Media Draws Heavy Criticism.” said, “Musk is known for being impulsive, and on Friday he tweeted, “I am dumb way more often than I’d like to be.”
Is the trend navel gazing at drip outfits. If one takes each of the publications as outfits which want to capture the spirit of Silicon Valley (oh, please, exclude Fortune Magazine from the Silicon Valley set. The Time Inc. legacy and New York attitude make its stories different, well, sort of.)
I find the uptick in criticism about the ripples in the “real” news pond originating from Sillycon Valley interesting. I am watching for the scrutiny to vibrate in social media. Who knows? Maybe “real” TV will pick up the story? One can hope. Ad hominem, spiteful remarks, and political characterizations — yes, “real” news Sillycon Valley style.
Stephen E Arnold, April 13, 2023
The Great Firewall of Florida Threatens the Chinese Culture!
April 13, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read an amusing write up presented as “real news.” The story was distributed by the Associated Press and made available to its licensees / owners. The title is “Chinese Student Groups at UF condemn Banning of TikTok at Florida Universities.” Note that you will have to pay to view this article, which seems reasonable to me because I live in rural Kentucky and survive intellectually on outputs from the AP and newspapers in Florida.
The main point of the article is that Chinese students have written an essay which expresses outrage at the banning of Chinese applications. What applications? TikTok for one and a couple of messaging applications. The method for banning the applications relies on WiFi filtering and prohibiting the applications on university-owned computing devices.
The action, as I understand the write up, makes it difficult for a Chinese student to talk with relatives. Furthermore, the grousing students might lose their cultural identity.
A couple of observations:
- Are the Chinese students unaware and unable to work around the Great Firewall of Florida? The methods seem simple, cheap, and quick to me, but I, of course, am not in a mental tizzy about TikTok.
- What happens to Chinese students within the span of the nation state of China when these individuals use Facebook, Google, and other applications? My perception is that one’s social credit score drops and interesting opportunities to learn new skills in a work camp often become available?
- Is the old adage “A Chinese person remains Chinese regardless of where the citizen lives” no longer true? If it is true, how is one’s cultural identity impinged upon? If it is not true, what’s the big deal? Make a phone call.
Net net: The letter strikes me as little more than a propaganda effort. What disappoints me is that the AP article does not ask anyone about the possibility of a weaponized information action. The reasons:
- Not our job at the AP
- The reporter (stringer) did not think of the angle
- The editors did not have sufficient time to do what editors once did
- The extra work is too difficult and would get in the way of the Starbucks’ break.
Stephen E Arnold, April 13, 2023
PS: Why didn’t I quote from the AP story? Years ago some big wheel at the AP whose name I don’t recall told me, “You must not quote from our stories”; therefore, no quote, and my perception that an important facet of this student essay has been ignored. I wonder if ChatGPT-type software wrote the article. I am not sure that’s my job. I cannot think of this angle. My editor did not have time. Plus, the “extra” work screws up our trip to Panera. The Starbucks’ near my office is — how shall I say this — a bit like the modern news business.
Useful Scholarly / Semi-Scholarly Research System with Deduplicated Results
March 24, 2023
I was delighted to receive a link to OpenAIRE Explore. The service is sponsored by a non-profit partnership established in 2018 as a legal outfit. The objective is to “ensure a permanent open scholarly communication infrastructure to support European research.” (I am not sure whoever wrote the description has read “Book Publishers Won’t Stop Until Libraries Are Dead.)
The specific service I found interesting is Explore located at https://explore.openaire.eu. The service is described by OpenAIRE this way:
A comprehensive and open dataset of research information covering 161m publications, 58m research data, 317k research software items, from 124k data sources, linked to 3m grants and 196k organizations.
Maybe looking at that TechDirt article will be useful.
I ran a number of queries. The probably unreadable screenshot below illustrates the nice interface and the results to my query for Hopf fibrations (if this query doesn’t make sense to you, there’s not much I can do. Perhaps OpenAIRE Explore is ill-suited to queries about Taylor Swift and Ticketmaster?):
The query returned 127 “hits” and identified four organizations as having people interested in the subject. (Hopf fibrations are quite important, in my opinion.) No ads, no crazy SEO baloney, but probably some non-error checked equations. Plus, the result set was deduplicated. Imagine that. A use Vivisimo-type function available again.
Observation: Some professional publishers are likely to find the service objectionable. Four of the giants are watching their legal eagles circle the hapless Internet Archive. But soon… maybe OpenAIRE will attract some scrutiny.
For now, OpenAIRE Explore is indeed useful.
Stephen E Arnold, March 24, 2023
Amazon Sells What Sells: Magazines and Newspapers Apparently Do Not Sell Well
March 17, 2023
I read “Amazon Will Discontinue Newspaper and Magazine Subscriptions in September.” The write up reports that Amazon is “abandoning the Kindle for Periodicals … [a] the Kindle Newsstand.” But that’s not all:
Amazon is trying to convince publishers to submit their newspapers and magazines to Prime Reading or Kindle Unlimited, but it remains to be seen if this will happen.
My understanding is that publishers have to give up more content and get less money. The idea is not particularly new. In the early days of the full text online commercial databases, money went into a pool and the money was distributed based on the full text online prints. If a publisher’s content attracted no online prints of the full text, zero money for that publisher.
Also, the early days of selling subscriptions online experienced some user pushback. The reason was that magazine readers wanted a fungible copy. Times change. Now no one wants fragments of dead trees in their in box. (Remember the good old days when publishers of some magazines would give away current copies of their publications to those boarding the Eastern Airlines shuttles from New York to Boston and New to DC and the reverse trips.)
Magazines were a good business once. Now magazines and newspapers are a tough sell. Even new angles like the Monocle outfit are into conferences, swag, and audio programs in an effort to woo subscribers and keep the 20,000 or so the company has amassed.
What’s the Amazon decision suggest to me? Here are my reactions this rainy morning in rural Kentucky:
- How are the other magazine and newspaper resellers doing? Apple, Scribd, Zinio, and a few others are in the game and provide some options, maybe not attractive, but options nevertheless.
- Will the Monocle model or variations of it become the model for revenue best practices? The New York Times dabbles in swag, podcasts, and moving beyond news into what I call MBA type reports. I used to subscribe to the dead tree edition, but the home delivery was so terrible I cancelled. The online version stories in which I am interested is endlessly recycled in blogs and Twitter statements, I am okay with the crazy Lady ruining my breakfast with non-delivery.
- With many people struggling to figure out what information online is accurate and what is quasi-accurate, or what is weaponized, I think some knowledge problems await. Newspapers, like the one for which I worked, were organizations which had editorial policies, some guidelines, quite a few people who tried to deliver timely, accurate, informative news and reports.
Net net: Amazon can sell cheap stuff like Temu.com. The company does not seem to have the magic touch when it comes to magazines and newspapers. Remarkable but not surprising. The cloud of unknowing is expanding.
Stephen E Arnold, March 17. 2023
Real News Professional Employs Ad Hominem Method with Flair
March 17, 2023
I love “real news” output by Silicon Valley-savvy professionals. I read a good article called “Elon Musk Is An Angry Man Who turns on Everybody, Says Longtime Tech Journalist Kara Swisher.”
I found the article interesting because it appeared in a Silicon Valley “real news” organ call BGR, which is acronym speak for Boy Genius Report. The article is a commentary on another Silicon Valley type of “real news” professional. I think this is meta-meta news. It is similar to podcasters, who are “real journalists” interviewing a colleague who is also a “real news” professional. The silly idea of interviewing an informed person who is NOT a colleague is just too darned dull. The trend is that “real journalists” are the best experts to discuss a particular topic. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Ignore someone who works at a research center, a government agency responsible for policy in a specific area, an individual who publishes in non-news publications like a peer-reviewed journal, or a person recognized for excellence by some semi-respected outfit like the ACM or American Chemical Society, among others. Nope. Nope. Nope. Dull.
The write up includes this statement from Ms. Swisher’s podcast On. I am not sure if this is a direct quote about Mr. Musk. The context is that noted biographer Walter Isaacson is writing a book about Mr. Musk. Here’s the passage from the BGR article:
Swisher, in her podcast, went on to warn that Musk will almost certainly “turn on” Isaacson. “There’s nobody he won’t turn on,” she said, “unless he gets some help. And I wish he would.” In response to a question about whether she’s sick of talking about Musk at this point, though, she acknowledged that she isn’t, given his involvement in everything from defense to innovation, space, and cars. “He’s the Thomas Edison of the day, so no.”
Okay, is Ms. Swisher attacking the man Elon Musk, praising his Tesla and SpaceX innovations, or trying to have a bento box of Silicon Valley expert outputs?
I am voting for the ad hominen angle. I am not sure about the Tesla thing because — the full self driving — is not something I plan to test on Kentucky’s gravel roads. The bento box? That has some value in my judgment. What’s next in real journalism from Silicon Valley?
The University of Texas at El Paso provides a handy list of an additional 145 rhetorical techniques which can be applied to Silicon Valley “real news” generation. More podcasts provide an opportunity to try some of these out on Elon Musk type topics; for example, 141 “We have to do something” or 105. prosopology which is the reciting the names of those killed by Mr. Musk’s smart driving system.
Will the Musk – Swisher tension evolve into Silicon Valley’s variation of the Jack Benny – Fred Allen feud. That went on for years. There is so much innovation in Silicon Valley; for example, the Sundar and Prabhakar Comedy Show. Advertisers will battle to fund these programs.
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2023
The Gray Lady: Calling the Winner of the AI Race
March 17, 2023
Editor’s Note: Written by a genuine dinobaby with some editorial inputs from Stephen E Arnold’s tech elves.
I love it when “real journalists” predict winners. Does anyone remember the Dewey thing? No, that’s okay. I read “How Siri, Alexa and Google Assistant Lost the AI Race.” The title reminds me of English 101 “How to” essays. (A publisher once told me that “how to” books were the most popular non fiction book type. Today the TikTok video may do the trick.)
The write up makes a case for OpenAI and ChatGPT winning the smart software race. Here’s a quote I circled:
The excitement around chatbots illustrates how Siri, Alexa and other voice assistants — which once elicited similar enthusiasm — have squandered their lead in the A.I. race.
Squandering a lead is not exactly losing a race, at least here in Kentucky. Races can be subject to skepticism, but in the races I have watched, a horse wins, gets a ribbon, the owner receives hugs and handshakes, and publicity. Yep, publicity. Good stuff.
The write up reports or opines:
Many of the big tech companies are now racing to come up with responses to ChatGPT.
Is this me-too innovation? My thought is that the article is not a how-to; it’s an editorial opinion.
My reaction to the story is that the “winner” is the use of OpenAI type technology with a dialogue-type interface. The companies criticized for squandering a lead are not dead in their stable stall. Furthermore, smart software is not new. The methods have been known for years. What’s new is that computational resources are more readily available. Content is available without briar patches like negotiating permissions and licenses to recycle someone else’s data. Code libraries are available. Engineers and programmers are interested in doing something with the AI Lego blocks. People with money want to jump on the high speed train even if the reliability and the destination are not yet known.
I would suggest that the Gray Lady’s analysis is an somewhat skewed way to point out that some big tech outfits have bungled and stumbled.
The race, at least here in Harrod’s Creek, is not yet over. I am not sure the nags are out of their horse carriers yet. Why not criticize in the context of detailed, quite specific technical, financial, and tactical factors? I will answer my own question, “The Gray Lady has not gotten over how technology disrupted the era of big newspapers as gatekeepers.”
How quickly will the Gray Lady replace “real journalists” (often with agendas) with cheaper, faster software.
I will answer my own question, “Faster than some of the horses running in the Kentucky Derby this year.”
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2023
Publishers Face Another Existential Threat Beyond Their Own Management Decisions
March 7, 2023
Existential threat, existential threat. I hear that from many executives. The principal existential threat is a company’s own management decisions. Short-term, context-free, and uninformed deciders miss the boat, the train, and the bus to organic revenue growth. If I read a news story, I learn about another senior executive playing fast and loose with rules, regulations, and ethical guidelines.
Today I read the clickbait infused headline: “Big Media Is Gearing Up for Battle with Google and Microsoft over AI Chatbots Using Their Articles for Training: We Are Actively Considering Our Options.” (The headline seems to be pandering to the Google, does it not?)
What is an existential threat? Here a whack at a definition by Dictionary.com, a super duper source:
An existential threat is a threat to something’s very existence—when the continued being of something is at stake or in danger. It is used to describe threats to actual living things as well to nonliving thing things, such as a country or an ideology.
I think the phrase has been extended to cover an action or process which could erode the revenues of a publisher.
The write up cited is, of course, behind a paywall. No existential threat for Business Insider … yet. I learned:
It’s a moment some publishers consider the most disruptive change they’ve seen to their industry since the dawn of the internet — and the threat is no less than existential. The worry is that if people can get thorough answers to their questions through these bots, they won’t need to visit content sites anymore, undermining media’s entire revenue model, which has already been battered by digital upheaval.
But here’s the paragraph that caught my attention. Remember, that Rupert Murdoch and Fox News are in the midst of a conversation about dissemination of knowingly incorrect information. Remember the New York Times is discussing in a positive manner its coverage of some individuals’ efforts to shift from male to female and other possible combinations. Yep, Rupert and the Gray Lady.
“AI is a new frontier with great opportunity, but it can’t replace the trust, independence, and integrity of quality journalism,” said Danielle Coffey, EVP and general counsel of the News/Media Alliance, a publisher trade organization whose members include The New York Times and Wall Street Journal publisher News Corp. “Without compensation, we lose the humanity that journalists bring to telling a story.”
The issue was the loss of advertising revenue. Nope, that money is not coming back. Now the issue is loss of a reason to buy a subscription to “real news” publications. Nope, those readers are unlikely to come back.
Why? How about convenience?
I subscribe to dead tree newspapers. If the paper edition arrives, it could be torn, wet, or folded incorrectly because maintenance of the paper feed rollers is just an annoyance when someone wants to get a coffee.
What’s the fix? The desired fix is the termination with extreme prejudice of the evil Googzilla and its fellow travellers: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and probably a few others on publishers’ dart boards.
A few observations:
- AI is not something new. Publishers have, as far as I know, been mostly on the sidelines in the AI refinement efforts over the last 50 years. Yes, that’s a half a century.
- The publishers want money. The “content” produced is simply a worm on a fish hook. Existential threat to revenue, yes. Death of publishers? Meh.
- The costs of litigation with an outfit like Google are likely to make the CFOs of the publishing companies going after Googzilla and its fellow travellers unhappy. Why? The EU and the US government have not had a stellar track record of getting these digital outfits to return phone calls, let alone play by the rules.
- Which outfits can pay the legal fees longer: Google and Microsoft or a group of publishers who seem to want Google traffic and whatever ad revenue can be had.
Net net: How about less existential threat talk and more use of plain English like “We want cash for content use”? I would ask why the publishers and their trade associations have not been in the vanguard of AI development. The focus seems to be on replacing humanoids with software to reduce costs. Søren Kierkegaard would be amused in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, March 7, 2023
Summarize for a Living: Should You Consider a New Career?
February 13, 2023
In the pre-historic age of commercial databases, many people earned money by reading and summarizing articles, documents, monographs, and consultant reports. In order to prepare and fact check a 130 word summary of an article in the Harvard Business Review in 1980, the cost to the database publisher worked out to something like $17 to $25 per summary for what I would call general business information. (If you want more information about this number, write benkent2020@yahoo.com, and maybe you will get more color on the number.) Flash forward to the present, the cost for a human to summarize an article in the Harvard Business Review has increased. That’s why it is necessary to pay to access and print an abstract from a commercial online service. Even with yesterday’s technology, the costs are a killer. Now you know why software that eliminates the human, the editorial review, the fact checking, and the editorial policies which define what is indexed, why, and what terms are assigned is a joke to many of those in the search and retrieval game.
I mention this because if you are in the A&I business (abstracting and indexing), you may want to take a look at HunKimForks ChatGPT Arxiv Extension. The idea is that ChatGPT can generate an abstract which is certainly less fraught with cost and management hassles than running one of the commercial database content generation systems dependent on humans, some with degrees in chemistry, law, or medicine.
Are the summaries any good? For the last 40 years abstracts and summaries have been, in my opinion, degrading. Fact checking is out the window along with editorial policies, style guidelines, and considered discussion of index terms, classification codes, time handling and signifying, among other, useful knowledge attributes.
Three observations:
- Commercial database publishers may want to check out this early-days open source contribution
- Those engaged in abstracting, writing summaries of books, and generating distillations of turgid government documents (yep, blue chip consulting firms I an thinking of you) may want to think about their future
- Say “hello” to increasingly inaccurate outputs from smart software. Recursion and liquid algorithms are not into factual stuff.
Stephen E Arnold, February 13, 2023
Modern Research Integrity: Stunning Indeed
February 13, 2023
I read “The Rise and Fall of Peer Review.” The essay addresses what happens when a researcher submits a research paper to a research journal. Many “research” journals are owned by big professional publishing companies. If you are not familiar with that sector, think about a publishing club which markets to libraries and “research” institutions. No articles in “research” publications, no promotion. The method for determining accuracy is to ask experts to read submitted papers, make comments, and send a signal about value of the “research.” I served on the peer review panel for a year and quit. I am no academic, but I know doo doo when it is on my shoe.
Now I want to focus on one passage. Consider this statement:
Why don’t reviewers catch basic errors and blatant fraud? One reason is that they almost never look at the data behind the papers they review, which is exactly where the errors and fraud are most likely to be. In fact, most journals don’t require you to make your data public at all. You’re supposed to provide them “on request,” but most people don’t. That’s how we’ve ended up in sitcom-esque situations like ~20% of genetics papers having totally useless data because Excel autocorrected the names of genes into months and years. (When one editor started asking authors to add their raw data after they submitted a paper to his journal, half of them declined and retracted their submissions. This suggests, in the editor’s words, “a possibility that the raw data did not exist from the beginning.”)
Observations:
- There is exactly one commercial database which added corrections to its entries. Why? Accuracy is expensive and most publishers are not into corrections. I think the feature of that database has been in the trash heap for many, many years. The outfit which bought the database is not into excellence in anything but revenue and profit.
- I found it impossible to get access to [a] the author to whom I wanted to address a question directly; that is, on the telephone, or [b] to get the data on which the crazy statistical hoops were displayed. Hey, math is not the key differentiator for many researchers, getting tenure and grants are the prime movers. A peer reviewer with pointed questions? Sorry, no way.
- The professional publishers want to follow a process which shifts responsibility for publishing error-filled articles to the “procedure”, the peer reviewers, the editors, and probably the stray dog outside their headquarters. Everyone is responsible for mistakes except them.
Net net: Perhaps the notion of open source accuracy needs to be expanded beyond tweets and Facebook posts?
Stephen E Arnold, February 14, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
