June 30, 2004

A small rant

Our field is spectacularly backwards sometimes. The web site for the journal Language is a disgrace. It doesn't even have titles and abstracts up yet for the excellent June issue, which reached me by snailmail some time ago. As for full on-line access to articles, well, the LSA's web site has a page for "LANGUAGE Online" that offers a (dead) link to a Project Muse site that promises access to the volume for 2001.

As I clicked the link and got this helpful page, several spiders and mice scurried back into the woodwork and a puff of dust wafted across the room.

In fact, Project Muse does really offer "Vol. 77 (2001) through current issue", at this address -- and the June issue is already there -- if your institution has a subscription. The disfunctional LSA page says that individual subscribers also get access, but I couldn't find any information on the Muse web site about that.

There's a free sample issue -- 77.1, March 2001.

You know, I think we could do better.

[Update: let me make it clear that I mean "we as a field could do better than we are now doing", not "some group that I profess to speak for could do better than the people now responsible". But really, under any construal, the current web site for the LSA's journal is a disgrace.]

[Response to comments:
Ken says: "The username and password for individual subscribers to get on to project muse is in the welcome letter that comes to new members and (I would hope) also makes its way to renewing people."
I say: I'm a subscriber, and I read every issue as it arrives, and I go to the meetings more often than not, but I've never seen this information. I don't doubt that it was in some accompanying letter that I didn't read. That doesn't excuse not having updated the relevant page on the journal's web site since 2001, with a dead link for the Muse connection.

Joe Tomei asks "Isn't one explanation the fact that LinguistList has soaked up much of the volunteer effort that online efforts require?"
I respond: I don't know, but LinguistList is not a substitute for a usable web site for the journal Language.

He adds "I have found that almost all the individual subscriber online systems to be problematic, and even the for profit sites (Oxford, Cambridge, Blackwell come to mind immediately) have some serious interface problems."
I reply: That hasn't been my experience. I just checked the web sites for Language Variation and Change, Computational Linguistics, International Journal of American Linguistics, American Anthropologist, American Speech, Speech Communication, and Linguistic Inquiry; all the sites were current and I didn't find any dead links. The APA, the ACL, the AAA, the ADS, etc. all seem to have working web sites that are kept current. To find a site as musty as the site for Language, I have to prospect among third-rate journals; but Language is a first-rate journal.

There are plenty of complaints to make about the scholarly and scientific publishing; I think the arguments for Open Access/author-pays approaches are compelling, for example. But this is not an argument at that level -- it's much more basic. When the journal's home page has a three-year-old dead link to the online version, it's like misspelling the editor's name on page 1. ]

Posted by Mark Liberman at June 30, 2004 10:52 AM
Comments

Here are two of my rants on "Why can't academic research be more like blogging?"

http://keywords.oxus.net/archives/000395.html

http://keywords.oxus.net/archives/000532.html

Posted by: Kerim Friedman at June 30, 2004 04:09 PM

The username and password for individual subscribers to get on to project muse is in the welcome letter that comes to new members and (I would hope) also makes its way to renewing people.

Posted by: ken at June 30, 2004 06:21 PM

Isn't one explanation the fact that LinguistList has soaked up much of the volunteer effort that online efforts require? Also, I have found that almost all the individual subscriber online systems to be problematic, and even the for profit sites (Oxford, Cambridge, Blackwell come to mind immediately) have some serious interface problems, though it might be better if you are coming from an institutional subscriber IP address (and I'm in Japan which may account for some of these) Perhaps languagelog can work on an online version of Geoff Pullum's crusade for better journal standards in terms of access and web interfaces?

Posted by: joe tomei at June 30, 2004 07:21 PM

A comment meant for Geoff Pullum's post on the Lula da Silva article:

I read the sentence as containing two separate clauses (which is, after all, the implication of the semicolon): "His speech lacked syntax; [furthermore,] he cut off the S's on his plurals like a peasant." If the second half of the sentence were an explanation of the first, a colon would have been in order. That doesn't, of course, explain what might be meant by "His speech lacked syntax," but it disposes of Geoff's complaint.

Posted by: language hat at June 30, 2004 10:34 PM

JSTOR's back issues for Language are in pretty good shape. They only have through 1998, though, and Language is the only really serious linguistics journal in their archive. Personally, I wish they'd fix that.

Posted by: Erika at July 2, 2004 07:56 PM