Online Proofing, A Service To Authors (Stakeholders) Or Shareholders?

Elsevier (RELX) too Springer-Nature, 2 of the maximum turn a profit scientific discipline publishers, receive got introduced online proofing equally a service to facilitate the piece of work of us unpaid authors too avoid errors. They say. Naturally, it’s non true.

I move on to co-author a lastly mass chapter, too today nosotros got the proofs. Traditionally, nosotros would receive got gotten a proof-read too print-set PDF alongside some writer queries past times the proof-setters too annotated corrections (in instance of Elsevier too Springer-Nature, these are India-based companies, who receive got the technology too really cost-effective employees). So alongside the technology advancing, similar a shot it’s an online (browser-based) correction organization that “… allows you lot to direct comprise your corrections, thereby eliminating whatsoever possible misunderstandings arising from misinterpreted handwritten corrections. This ensures that publication of the mass is non delayed past times additional rounds of correction.” (Quote from accompanying electronic mail past times Rajalakshmi Narayanan from Scientific Publishing Services (P) Ltd, Tamil Nadu). One thing, “handwritten”? There may live notwithstanding onetime guys just about that add together their corrections past times pen inwards a print-out too ship it back, but most of us used since years the PDF notation functions. Which, past times the way, was also introduced to avoid said problems alongside hand-written corrections...

The onetime system: a proof-PDF

Unless the magazine hires a technical editor (hardly the instance for whatsoever Elsevier too Springer-Nature journal), the PDFs are non proof-read: also cost-intensive, fifty-fifty when you lot hire Indians. All errors past times the authors such equally excess brackets, missing total stops etc. inwards their lastly version volition notwithstanding live there. Especially Elsevier’s proof-setters receive got astonished us inwards the past times by

• introducing inconsistent formatting too typing; 
• re-formatting errors inwards the references – a highly profitable companionship similar RELX tin of course of didactics non afford to move on their reference styles updated too their workers aware of dissimilar magazine styles;
• half-hearted changes from British to American spelling (or vice versa, non rarely both); 
• wrong links, pitiful layout, too other things.

For instance, inwards my lastly professional person newspaper for a magazine issued past times Elsevier, the Review of Palaeontology & Palynology, they introduced close 50 extra errors inwards the proof too managed to non notice a unmarried of the close 20, nosotros had submitted alongside our finally accepted version! Plus, they messed upward the reference format past times changing it to some Elsevier touchstone that unfortunately was dissimilar from the format the magazine used inwards its lastly printed number too notwithstanding uses (and nosotros used) too – a mutual thing to live annoyed close – resized most of our perfectly trimmed plates (1-page figures); trimmed past times my kickoff writer hence that they fit the page too receive got plenty house for the legend below on the same page. In the proof, all were reduced to crush a few lines of running text beneath them, which naturally looked disastrous. Well, proof-setting used to live a labor for professionals, similar a shot it’s just cost-effective workers able to grip a programme (PS the prices Elsevier too other accuse for their “service”, haven’t gone down…) Printing pages for the library versions is manifestly the most cost-intensive thing close publishing these days, hence the publishers receive got an involvement to move on the page numbers low.

We annotated all the errors inwards our PDF (using Adobe Acrobat’s commenting option, no hand-writing involved), too the EHIs – Elsevier’s hired Indians – did care to non overlook to a greater extent than than a quarter of them for the lastly version they set online (while managing to insert some solely novel ones). How a modify tin live overlooked, remains obscure to me, equally you lot tin sentiment them all inwards Adobe’s programmes. But maybe the EHIs don’t receive got those programmes to live inexpensive plenty for Elsevier too salve on the licences?

The novel system: online correction

As stated past times Raj inwards his mail, the online correction should avoid these errors; non the problems alongside hand-written corrections, but alongside the full general incompetence of the low-paid EHIs who read the authors’ annotated PDFs too should comprise the changes. And this is how the start page looks similar for Springer-Nature’s novel online correction organization (the ane of Elsevier, its master copy competitor, is disturbingly similar).

Beautiful innit? Lovely-jubbly! Del Boy would’ve said.

We become to the instant page, select the proof to cheque (by the way, you lot don't receive got to hold back for the mass to appear to read our chapter, or pay for it, a pre-print alongside the same content has long been uploaded to bioRxiv) …

  … too this is what nosotros get.

Fools-proof mask, large buttons on the left for the changes. In the onetime proof PDF, using Adobe Acrobat or similar software, I would receive got just selected a text slice too retype the correction too done. Here, I receive got to grade the text, press on “change”. Then a petty window opens, too I tin brand the correction. Same for deleting things. Mark, too then press on the “delete” button. Not really efficient, but fools-proof, specially alongside honour to the proof-setters. Obviously, Springer-Nature genuinely thinks their authors – all highly educated (the actual ‘highly’, non Trumpian “me highly educated”) scientists – receive got never used computers before, because they genuinely explicate the higher upward on their aid page too render play-buttons for starting how-to-do videos (and, technologically up-to-date equally usual, notwithstanding requiring Adobe FlashPlayer plug-in). For example:
 
Change/Update Content
Select the text that needs to live changed too click on 'Change'. In the dialog, type the novel text too click on 'Change'. The inserted text appears inwards blueish alongside yellowish highlight too the onetime text appears alongside a strikethrough.   
Delete Content
Select the text that needs to live deleted too click on 'Delete'. The deleted text volition appear alongside a strikethrough.   

H5N1 overnice service. How could nosotros perchance care such complex deeds without such profound aid instructions?

What they don’t advert is that you lot demand to reverberate carefully earlier making a change, because removing (‘undoing’) it, tin live tricky. Because you lot receive got to grade just the slice comprising the modify (and zero else) to ‘undo’ it (using the undo button) or you lot larn an fault message that undoing is non possible because you lot selected multiple objects. Amazingly inefficient, alongside the PDF is was just a right-click too click alongside the mouse. You also cannot edit your changes: you lot kickoff receive got to ‘undo’ them (select, press button) too and then redo them (select again, press other button). With the PDF, good you lot know…

And too then you lot encounter the impossible thing to do. Like trying to take away an access infinite behind a (not interlinked) link ...

• ... using the 'Delete' push (the blueish land is the selected superfluous space)

• ... using the 'Comment' push (the instant infinite just became visible)

• ... (and lastly option) using the 'Change' push (the instant ghost infinite miracuously disappeared again)

Thank you lot really much for your fine endeavour to facilitate my piece of work (which – for the most portion – is something a professional person proof-setting would receive got already done, similar finding excess spaces too brackets...) I suppose the excess infinite has to live kept (so side past times side fourth dimension you lot notice errors inwards a printed paper, don't blame the authors, they may receive got only given upward cheers to the novel online system).

The most nail conception of Springer-Nature’s online organization is that you lot don’t larn the actual proof-set PDF, hence you lot receive got to just promise layout volition expression adept inwards the destination … or, may live you lot larn ane if it is non a mass chapter? 'Cause on the introductory page on business says: “Alternatively you lot tin apply your corrections inwards a proof PDF. Note that this volition increase publication time.” We don't desire that, practise we? Already wrote an e-mail to Raj bespeak for the proof PDF, curiosity kills the cat! Will consider if Springer-Nature's EHIs are quicker to respond than those of Elsevier; the latter unremarkably demand a calendar week or 2 (or four) inwards instance of insignificant journals such equally the Rev. Pal. Pal. to grip authors' inquiries (not welcomed past times the publishers equally I know kickoff hand).

Online proofing alongside large publishers: user-fiendish but adept for the shareholders

Naturally, the guys at Springer-Nature, Elsevier or the EHI companies working for them did non consider fourth dimension wasted past times the authors when designing the novel online proofing. Because the writer industrial plant for no pay for them; too and then pays for accessing, freely sharing, or reading the piece of work (of others) non thing of the character provided past times the publishers. If it takes us double or triple the time, hence what? No-one volition complain. And when you lot practise (like I did), zero happens: unmarried vocalism – no effect. Thus, minimum user-friendly functionality is missing, specially basic functionality nosotros had inwards PDF times to brand our piece of work slow too equally efficient equally possible (the most efficient would live hand-writing on our side, but well, the modern age, you lot can’t aid it).

And researchers volition become on wasting fourth dimension they could to set to improve use, because they don’t intend or dare of boycotting the ripping-off high-profit science-publishing industry. In contrast, at that spot are those who complain (angrily), too when submitting the side past times side newspaper they pick out the same receptacle feeling they receive got no choice. Guess what, you lot have: at that spot are alternatives similar PeerJ, notwithstanding using PDFs existence to a greater extent than user-friendly despite a most-modern too versatile online submission platform (something Elsevier too Springer-Nature notwithstanding fighting with, you lot know, writer service – non their priority), or traditional impress journals that notwithstanding receive got a technical editor checking the lastly manuscripts too EHI proofs.

And the large players? They oft beak close providing improve services for scientific “stakeholders”, which apparently includes authors, e.g. Elsevier’s “Coalition for Responsible Sharing” going later ResearchGate.

Nobody expects the Coalition For Responsible Sharing https://t.co/M0TFjYbnnh … #openaccess pic.twitter.com/dlv9XVKNgA

— Dan Holden (@danrholden) 12. Oktober 2017

But what they genuinely hateful is: Generating fifty-fifty to a greater extent than turn a profit than already for their shareholders!

By the way, to the largest portion that turn a profit is generated past times having the populace paying for it too public-funded employees doing most of the piece of work … it could easily change:  
Don’t submit to journals who set authors last!

---

Updates

25/10: Enlightning respond from Raj, who handles the mass for Springer-Nature

Dear Professor Guido Grimm,
Thank you lot for bringing to my notice.
Please notice chapter proofing physical care for below:
•  Click on the link provided inwards the electronic mail sent past times us – too become to start proofing option.
•  Then click on create to proof alternative to review too perform your correction.
In instance of whatsoever farther clarification delight notice the “Help” option.
Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Anyway I receive got sent the Proof PDF for chapter 2.
In instance farther queries delight larn dorsum to me.
With regards,
Rajalakshmi

So: I ship a post pointing out a listing of missing features too a detail job alongside the online proofing system, too equally respond I larn a post telling me how to get to the online proofing (the higher upward is a literal quote, whatsoever errors – equally park – are the responsibleness of Springer's proofing companionship employing pitiful Raj). Left aside that Raj assumes "Prof. Grimm" (fun-fact: whenever you lot complain close something inwards science, the response addresses you lot really formally equally "Prof."; although nosotros otherwise just job our fore-names inwards correspondance too I never was or volition live a professor) is also stupid to notice his agency to the online proofing ... it's adept to consider that Springer-Nature matches Elsevier inwards only hiring the most competent people too companies for the labor of publishing scientific research. Both rely on low-paid, utterly unqualified people sitting inwards some Indian subcompany to grip writer (and editor) queries, complaints, too other materials related to publishing scientific discipline using the adept onetime Yes-Thank-you-No-answer-to-question-Please-see-help strategy. And no agency to larn to larn concur of anyone alongside actual responsibleness or competence for dealing alongside a problem.

26/10: Raj answers again

New mail, essentially same content than the twenty-four hr catamenia before, but similar a shot alongside a to a greater extent than eloborate explanation how to get into too job the online proofing organization with screenshots. Are you lot kidding me? This fourth dimension inwards perfect English linguistic communication again, makes you lot wonder who writes the professional person emails sent nether Raj's name. Still solely ignorant of the content of initial mail/problem, though: the errors you lot larn too annoyance you lot human face upward when using Springer-Nature's online proofing client. I wrote dorsum he should realise that I'm non stupid, but that the online proofing sucks, too that he should delight frontwards my post to soul competent who tin grip the job (hope dies last). Meanwhile, my kickoff writer gave up, too, too the corrections volition live ship dorsum the traditional way: using an annotated PDF.