What is up with Elsevier?

Whether you like it or not, Elsevier matters in the dissemination of research in Economics. By far the largest player in the field, it enjoys considerable market power (and a profit margin around 30% that comes with it). And even though journals are not at the frontier of research in Economics, it still matters what happens at Elsevier because it controls so many of the top field journals.

According to its web page on the global dissemination of research, Elsevier states:

We recognise that access to quality research is vital to the scientific community and beyond. For us this means providing support and the latest tools to maintain the quality and integrity of published scientific literature, achieving the widest dissemination of content, and embracing the opportunities of open access. We will continue to identify access gaps, and work towards ensuring that everyone has access to quality scientific content anytime, anywhere.

These are all nice words, but this is not all what Elsevier practices. First of all, all of the Economics content of Elsevier is gated, and academic libraries have to pay through the nose to let faculty access the content, including their own works. Even errata and retraction notices are gated. There is no open access journal in Economics, and even in other fields where it is available, the cost is prohibitive (usually US$3000, even more with color charges!), which cannot be justified in any reasonable way by hosting costs. Indeed, Elsevier spends considerable resources trying to keep potential readers away, by gating the material for the general public and making it difficult for individuals to buy subscriptions, especially for hard copies. All this management of subscriptions and filtering of web traffic would disappear with open access, making it much cheaper, not more expensive.

But this is not an issue only with Elsevier (Springer is much worse in this respect). Elsevier, with its market power is trying to kill any competition and any initiative that tries to open up the dissemination of research. For example, it was a huge backer of the Research Works Act in the US, which would have prohibited mandates that publicly funded research should be available in open-access repositories. Of course this generated a huge outcry from the scientific community (you know, the one that Elsevier claims to serve) and lead to a call for a boycott. This seems to have been successful, as Elsevier reversed its stance, thereby killing the bill.

Unfortunately, few economists seem to have participated in the boycott, which is probably why Elsevier continues to flaunt the research community with no remorse. For example, it has not updated the listings of its journals for over a year in RePEc, and still vigorously refuses to let RePEc perform citation analysis on its contents. Repeated attempts to get a reaction from Elsevier have unsuccessful from my part. My suspicion is that RePEc is threatening some of the products that Elsevier is pushing (Sciverse, Scopus), and the interest of the research community becomes second fiddle. From what hear, people are deserting the Economics desk at Elsevier, starting with its head, which makes you wonder who is in charge of "the widest dissemination of content."

To understand further what a fine business Elsevier is, here are some of my previous posts:
The evil empire strikes again
The evil empire strikes again (II)
Copyright and the lack of competition in academic publishing
Why I am boycotting Elsevier

Bruno Frey: the story that keeps giving

A few weeks ago, I had a post entitled Bruno Frey, the epilogue, thinking that now that the University of Zurich made him a gigantic gift by manipulating the investigation into his behavior and keeping mum, Bruno Frey would have learned to finally shut up. But no, he has still not understood a thing a keeps going on, to the point that was getting daily updates in my email about the latest on him. Let me run a few highlights by you.

As was rumored for some time, the University of Zurich decided not to renew the two-year contract he was entitled to as an eminent retiree. There no official announcement, but it was reported by Olaf Storbeck, then by the Tages Anzeiger, a local newspaper. In the latter, Frey's wife, Margit Osterloh, defends his behavior and confirms that "he will continue working in Warwick", so he has indeed been told to leave the University of Zurich.

This firing then explains the bizarre behavior of Bruno Frey in the preceding days. Indeed, he appeared unusually incoherent in a television show, then wrote an outrageous piece in the same Tages Anzeiger newspaper calling for the defunding of his department (which actually got a major gift that was probably waiting for his departure). His reasoning is that the professors try too hard to publish their research, neglecting working with the media. He also mentions his research is essentially the only relevant one. Never mind that his employer tried very hard to protect him, gave a special status to his students who were exempt from exams, and now that was simply to possible to go on, the university did its best to let the situation quietly disappear to avoid embarrassing him. He answers with a slash-and-burn tactic.

That said, I also got a copy of the report commissioned by the University and looking into his self-plagiarism on the Titanic studies. As mentioned earlier, there is nothing about the many previous cases. View a pdf copy here.

So Bruno Frey will now continue his activities at the University of Warwick, which has a long tradition of hiring prominent retirees to boost its academic ranking. He joined in early 2011, that is right before the Titanic case came up, and early enough to qualify for the next research assessment exercise of the UK universities. But for the University of Warwick to keep any credibility, it ought now to take position on the Bruno Frey case, now that it is his sole employer.

Finally, as the story keep going on, I created a tag just for Bruno Frey.

Bruno Frey: the epilogue?

A little less than a year ago, a controversy erupted about the publishing practices of Bruno Frey and his students. Indeed, they tend to repackage their research and submit it to multiple journals simultaneously (or sometimes successively), without cross-references and without alerting editors to this. This is in clear violation of the submission conditions of most academic journals and even goes against principles Bruno Frey has himself advocated in multiple (of course) publications: there is not enough space for everyone to publish on the one hand, and the pressure to publish leads people to (self-)plagiarize on the other hand. On his homepage, Bruno Frey crows about over 500 or 600 publications, depending on where you look, numbers that are completely surreal for any self-respecting academic economist.

The scheme blew in his face when some editors and some blogs started raising questions when very similar articles about the Titanic, with Benno Torgler and David Savage, appeared in four journals (some say there is even a fifth one in German, but I cannot verify). And the article was not even original, as a similar analysis was done and published 25 years prior and is now standard reading and exercise in statistics courses. Newspapers picked up the story, Frey went into denial but finally confessed to the editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives, who published correspondence about the case and publicly admonished him for multiple submissions (he do not yet know about the prior literature). But that is only for this case, there are all the other ones. The University of Zurich, from where Bruno Frey recently retired, promised an investigation. That was sometime in the Summer. Since then, nothing.

One could suspect the University would do nothing, as Bruno Frey is the best ranked economist in German-speaking universities. And the prolonged silence clearly seemed to corroborate this. But rumors started circulating in the hallways, rumors that were not encouraging at all. But no evidence from Zurich.

Finally, I got good evidence from a reliable source. And it is indeed not encouraging. The University of Zurich mandated three prominent academics to look into the case. But the mandate was formulated in such a way that only the articles about the Titanic could be analyzed. The experts came to the obvious conclusion that unethical behavior was at play for this case. They could not mention the others and thus the University concluded that this was a one off miss-step. The University gave Frey a verbal admonishment, which does not go on his record, and did not release the report.

But this was not an one-off miss-step. Frey has been banned from the editorial board of Public Choice for a similar case of re-publication. He is by now banned from publishing in at least a half-dozen journals. To make matters worse, he has himself advocated to go against plagiarizers and others that unnecessarily take up valuable publication space. The investigation should have looked at his whole career, like when a scientist is suspected of fabricating data and all his publications are subject to scrutiny. And it is not like the information would be difficult to obtain, it is readily available and people have even compiled it, as documented in the FreyPlag Wiki.

For more about the case, you can read my past blog posts: 30 April 2011, 3 September 2011, 27 September 2011. Also, Olaf Storbeck's Economics Intelligence blog was the one that convinced the University of Zurich to finally (pretend to) act: 4 July 2011, 4 July 2011, 5 July 2011, 6 July 2011, 7 July 2011, 9 July 2011, 20 August 2011, 29 August 2011, 12 September 2011

Why September 11 is remarkable

Amid the commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, I cannot help thinking how successful theses attacks have been. For an organization that wanted the United States to pay for sending troops to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf war, a relatively little investment paid huge dividends. Indeed the cost of the operation, including training, must have cost only something to be measured in millions of dollars and the lives of 19 volunteers. The return was getting the United States involved in two wars that have costs amounting to trillions, brought the federal government in major financial difficulties, have lead authorities to neglect essential infrastructure investment for a decade, has kept the population in a nevrotic state for a decade, has given us higher oil prices (with revenue going you-know-where) and has lead to major setbacks in civil liberties. And that is just for the United States, as Europe has also been affected. And the costs will continue to mount, as the US is none the wiser and will have to face in addition the costs of care for veterans.

The Bruno Frey Bubble

About four months ago, I reported about the apparent self-plagiarism by Bruno Frey, David Savage and Benno Torgler. I found the case particularly ironic, as Bruno Frey repeatedly wrote about the fact that the pressure to publish to get tenure can lead to scholar to unethical behavior, and about the lack of space in journals for young scholars to publish the articles needed for tenure.



The case has taken a much larger dimension now, as many more cases of self-plagiarism by Bruno Frey and his students have appeared (see many links in the comments on the post mentioned above). This raises two very important questions: 1) how could such a culture of self-plagiarism arise? 2) How could they get away with it for so long?



To answer the first question, I think we need to put Bruno Frey is the context of the German(-speaking) academic environment. At least in Economics and Business, the typical German professor publishes a lot of rather insignificant articles, in particular book chapters and "Festschrifts." These works are rarely original, and are not expected to be so. There is also a tradition of writing "educational" pieces that explain economic concepts, say the Edgeworth box or voluntary export restraints, for journals targeted towards professionals in industry and government (as well as students). Again, there is nothing original in there, except maybe the way something is explained.



Bruno Frey works within this paradigm. His work lacks creativity in the sense that he recycles a lot of his ideas for multiple publications, often copying extensively his own words. The differences is that he does that at a higher level than his German colleagues, in international journals that are actually read. And many of his original papers are in fact not that original it appears. If we take the Titanic paper as an example, the empirical exercise he performs is routinely done in undergraduate statistics classes with the same dataset. His contribution is pedagogical, he found a good and interesting way to explain something already present in the body of knowledge.



Like a bubble that keeps getting fed by self-fulfilling expectations, Bruno Frey built on his initial success and continued with this strategy and encouraged his students to do the same. And several of them have assembled remarkable portfolios that way. I mentioned that of Benno Torgler in my original post, but there are several others who got into positions that seem beyond the usual reach of a Swiss doctoral program.



There is another way in which this resembles a bubble. The Economics department at the University of Zurich has made considerable efforts over the past decade or so to become a program that can compete with the better departments in the world. It is certainly among the best in Europe. It did so by americanizing itself: dropping to a large extend the rigid chair structure so prevalent in German speaking universities, hiring internationally respect scholars and creating a proper PhD program with courses and exams. Bruno Frey has not followed this trend at all. In fact, he insisted on exempting his students from the course and exam requirements. The Frey group lives in a cocoon apart from the rest of the department, and lives entirely following the role model of Bruno Frey. Call this living in a bubble.



Or a cult. The interaction of Bruno Frey and his students is reminiscent of a prophet and his disciples who follow him everywhere and write down every word he utters. Well, I exaggerate somewhat, but this does definitely not look like a standard interaction between a mentor and his students. It looks like they follow him blindly, and with his everlasting confidence, he makes them follow his example in publishing.



But this bubble is now popping under the assault of widespread scrutiny from editors, the Economics community and an internal investigation at the University of Zurich. The second question of course is how it was possible for Bruno Frey to act so unethically for so long (he is 70). It appears that he has been caught in the past, but it never became public, or at least explicitly. For example, he has been booted out of an editorial board, but there was no mention of why, his name just disappeared from the list. Also, the journals he has been publishing in are often not prominent and thus not that well read. In fact, it looks like he targeted them so that the audience would not overlap, including editors and referees (the added bonus of this strategy that it satisfies the goal of increasing the pedagogical reach by reaching very different audiences).



Hiding this unethical may have been helped by the fact that Bruno Frey actually tried to present himself as an expert on publishing ethics in Economics. He has written about the perils of publication pressure and how this can lead to slicing papers into insignificant bits, to self-plagiarizing and other unethical behavior. He has complained loudly about the ranking craze which he has been so adept to exploit, both with his self-plagiarism and by requiring authors to cite other works in Kyklos to increase its impact factor. While he is certainly not the only editor to do so, it is ironic that he openly campaigned against such practices. Bruno Frey abused the moral high ground in which he pictured himself.



But as every lie that grows too big over time, this is unsustainable. And it will be less likely to happen in the future with initiatives like this one. Making this unethical behavior more visible will prevent it.



That said, self-plagiarism is not limited to the Bruno Frey group or German speaking economists. I will discuss soon another case that I find particularly enraging.

Do we need awards in Economics?

I do not like awards. They always create jealousies, and one cannot help that whenever a committee is involved, something may not have gone right. I am thus quite happy that economists give very few awards. It makes their CVs look bad compared to other scientists, but that is the price for a relative peace in the profession.



But we still have some prizes. The Nobel one, which is not really part of the Nobel family but is still attributed much prestige is always under much scrutiny. And in the end, the right people tend to win it. There have been a few controversial cases, Myrdal, Hayek, Buchanan and Ostrom come to mind as example where quite a few eyebrows were raised, but overall this award works well.



The American Economic Association gives an award that is considered to be even more difficult to get than the Nobel Prize: the Clark Medal, given to an American aged under 40. It is difficult to get because only one is awarded every year (no joint winners) and until recently it was given every second year. When comparing to the Nobel Prize, it is relevant to understand that American get a vast majority of them.



Now let us have a look at the past few year for the Clark award:

2011: Jonathan Levin, PhD MIT, Faculty at Stanford

2010: Esther Duflo, PhD MIT, Faculty at MIT

2009: Emmanuel Saez, PhD MIT, Faculty Harvard then Berkeley

2007: Susan Athey, PhD Stanford, Faculty at MIT then Stanford and Harvard

2005: Daron Acemoglu, PhD LSE, Faculty at MIT

2003: Steven Levitt, PhD MIT, Fellow at Harvard then faculty at Chicago

2001: Matthew Rabin, PhD MIT, Faculty at Berkeley

1999: Andrei Shleifer, PhD MIT, Faculty at Princeton, Chicago and Harvard



Do you see a pattern? Well I do, and others have, too. I am not saying these awardees are not bright and promising economists, but is there really no other qualifying economists that could have received it? Of course, John List comes to mind, who has no connection with MIT (or Harvard). But it actually worse than that. The award is given by a small committee, designated by the AEA. The AEA leadership is stacked with people with MIT and Harvard connections, so they also nominate their friends to the various committees, and you see the result.



It is even worse. In 2010, Ester Duflo was considered to be in the pool of strong candidates for the award. Guess who was on the awarding committee? Abhijit Banerjee, her PhD advisor, frequent co-author and colleague at MIT. In such a situation, an ethical person would decline the invitation to serve on the committee. That does not seem to have crossed the mind of Banerjee, who may be used to this cronyism.



There is another award, this time given by the European Economic Association: the Yrjö Jahnsson Award, to an European economist under age 45. It is given every two years, but can have several recipients. This awards has looked much cleaner because the committees and awardees have been distributed all over Europe. Europeans are indeed very sensitive to this. The last one was a shocker, though. Armin Falk won it to the surprise of many. And guess who chaired the awarding committee? His advisor, Ernst Fehr. Again, ethics would have indicated that if Falk had a chance of winning it, Fehr should have recused himself not just from chairing the committee, but from participating in it. In retrospect, this is not Fehr's first wrongdoing: two years earlier he was also on the committee when Fabrizio Zilibotti co-won the award. Zilibotti is a colleague of Fehr in Zurich.



I think we should do away with these two awards. It simply does not work.

The debt ceiling circus is another media debacle

If you compare the media coverage about the current debt ceiling "discussions" in the US to abroad, it is a stark contrast of style. While the US media is focused on the power haggling of politicians, ignoring completely policy matters, foreign media puzzle why such a silly policy the Republicans are proposing is even being discussed. And once more, it makes me wonder why the US media is sleeping.

Roughly, the Republicans want to erase the public deficit from one day to the next, in the middle of difficult times, and without raising taxes, cutting anything to defense expenses and farm subsidies or closing corporate tax loopholes. This is mathematically simply impossible and must results in partial default on public debt, a major increase in interest rates and in then more public expenses to service the debt. In other words, this is an own goal. To top it, the policy uncertainty is severely hurting the US economy which does not seem to be able to get back on track.

The saddest aspect of this is that the media is completely oblivious to this. It is so obsessed to present both views that it shows without critical discussions complete absurdities from the Republicans. I have a hard time understanding the motivations of the right, except hurting the economy ahead of elections or participating in some grand scale insider trading, and nobody in the media is pointing this out. In fact it is relaying the arguments that decreasing taxes will increase revenue, especially if the rich get those breaks. To repeat myself, this is so wrong, especially now. If you want to improve the economy and insist on reducing the deficit, give tax breaks or transfers to the poor and tax the rich significantly more.

The worst is that there are some serious negative externalities on many who have absolutely no say here, and not just the US tax payers, but also foreign economies. Rarely have I seen such a policy kamikaze, say since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. But at least the US media was then on top things.

About the bastardization of news

Earlier this week, I have has the "opportunity" to spend significant time in a US hotel room. The town being of little interest, I used my time to get some work done and to watch some TV. There was the opportunity to see two interesting events, on the same day: the press conference of Ben Bernanke and the statement of Barack Obama about the war in Afghanistan. What a huge disappointment both were.

This is not Bernanke's or Obama's fault, though. The big news channel were treating this like an American Idol contest, with personalities (or journalists, what is the difference now anyways) doing instant ratings on how well they perceived the speakers. Which was then followed by an analysis of some random tweets.

The sad truth is that people will form their opinion from this circus. Never mind that Bernanke and Obama are experts in their field, have thought very hard about their issues with a lot of expert advice, these journalists know on the spot what is best and will dismiss without justification any argument by the push of a button.

This brings me back to the idea that Economics needs some way to certify people to separate those who pretend to know something about Economics and those who do. The latter are mostly unwilling to talk in sound bites and instant opinion, thus the media rushes to the pretend economists. And I wonder how many of the journalists I saw judging Bernanke have any degree in Economics, let alone a graduate degree.

The pitfalls of $1 CEO salaries

CEO how agree to be paid no salary, or a minimal one, are viewed as heroes in media and the public. But in all the cases I know off, they are of course also compensated with stock options and other deferred pay schemes. So does it really make a difference to being paid a substantial salary?

Gilberto Loureiro, Anil Makhija and Dan Zhang find that not everything is rosy abut these $1 CEOs: They tend to be overconfident and thus expect to have very high compensation in the future. As a consequence, they try to deflect future criticism about their earnings by putting on an angel face now. Also, their overconfidence implies that shareholders do not fare well with them, probably the reason institutional investors avoid them. In other words, be wart of $1 CEOs!

In the pretense of protecting me, Emerald stiffles my research

I received a rather unsettling message from Emerald Publishers the other day:

As an Emerald author, you will know that Emerald is dedicated to protecting the copyright of your work. For this reason, we use the Attributor service. Attributor automatically searches cyberlockers for unauthorized copies of works or illegal hosting and then issues legally-binding takedown notices. We are increasing Attributor's searches to the full breadth of the internet, to ensure maximum copyright protection.

For this to run as smoothly and efficiently, we are asking that you provide us with (if applicable):

1. your personal website address
2. your institutional website address
3. the website address of your company

This is so we can exclude these sites from the Attributor searches, whilst protecting your copyright. Upon provision of this information, we will of course ensure full data protection.

We look forwards to hearing from you.

I find this very disturbing. This message is telling me that this publisher is trying to enforce my copyright while in truth it is the publisher's copyright. And it tells me that I better preemptively alert the publisher where I apply the fair-use provisions of copyright before I get automatically accused of violating copyrights on my own work.

Now looking at Emerald's Author Charter, I find another few gems:

Assigning copyright of your work to Emerald allows us to act on your behalf to:

* promote your rights
* facilitate dissemination of your work by granting permissions for educational use or republication
* target other Emerald journals whose readership would benefit from access to your work
* endeavour to protect your work from any infringement of your rights which are brought to our attention.

It does NOT, in any way, restrict your right or academic freedom to contribute to the wider distribution and readership of your work. This includes the right to:

1. Distribute photocopies of your own version of your article to students and colleagues for teaching/educational purposes within your university or externally. Please note, this does not refer to the Emerald branded, published version.
2. Reproduce your own version of your article, including peer review/editorial changes, in another journal, as content in a book of which you are the author, in a thesis, dissertation or in any other record of study, in print or electronic format as required by your university or for your own career development.
3. Deposit an electronic copy of your own final version of your article, pre- or post-print, on your own or institutional website. The electronic copy cannot be deposited at the stage of acceptance by the Editor.

Note that Emerald may publish your article in another journal, if it thinks it increases its dissemination (or increases the impact factor). Nothing is said about the author agreeing to it. But Emerald is also fine if you try to publish your article elsewhere, although the condition of "for your own career development" is open to interpretation.

That said, all this business with copyright on academic research is really sad. These commercial publishers try to tell us that they do their possible to disseminate research while all they is the exact opposite: they gate the research and chase down ungated versions. Let's all move to open access. Much simpler, much less costly, and much better dissemination!