"The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Stuffiness"
or
"Who is Gerard Wanrooy and why did he (and his boss at Elsevier, Joop Dirkmaat), overriding JEBO editor Barkley Rosser's decision, refuse to publish one of these photographs in the article or to post them as accompanying materials linked on JEBO's website; and why did they try (and fail) even to refuse us the right to publish a link to them on my personal website?"
I reproduce here the electronic correspondence that tells the story of this heavy-handed interference by Elsevier's publishers with decisions properly left to journal editors.
From: "Wanrooy, Gerard (ELS)"
<G.Wanrooy@elsevier.com>
To: "'vcrawfor@weber.ucsd.edu'" <vcrawfor@weber.ucsd.edu>
Cc: "'Rosser, Barkley'" <rosserjb@jmu.edu>,
"O'Neill, Joey (ELS)" <j.oneill@elsevier.ie>
Subject: JEBO 1513
Date: Thu,
Dear Vincent.
I am afraid the only changes allowed in proof stage are correction
of
typo's. Your paper can only be published in JEBO as it was
at the end of
the refereeing process. Therefore, we cannot include the photograph
and the
references to it. We will proceed with production accordingly.
Regards,
Gerard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerard L. Wanrooy, Publisher
Elsevier Science
P. O. Box 1991, 1000 BZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 485 2454
Fax: +31 20 485 2623
Email: g.wanrooy@elsevier.com
My replies of 2/27/2003:
Dear Gerard,
The inclusion of the photograph was agreed upon before the final version
was accepted and sent to the production office, and the agreement was
delayed this long only because in repeated tries, I could not get Elsevier's
production office to respond to my queries about the inclusion.
Even if this were not the case, it is normal for authors to be allowed
the courtesy of presenting the best possible final version of their work
for publication. This courtesy is minimal, given that the authors _freely_ assign copyright to the publisher.
I made only one minor change in the submitted manuscript that was
not caused by Elsevier's typsetting errors
(true in both the first and second round, which corrected only persistent
errors in Elsevier's typesetting process), and the cost of including the
photograph and the links, whatever it is, has already been incurred.
I therefore expect Elsevier to honor JEBO's
commitment. If Elsevier does not honor the commitment, I will resign from
the editorial board and publicize as widely as possible the events that
led up to my resignation.
Vincent Crawford
Dear Barkley and Gerard,
Many thanks, Barkley, for you message and suggestion, and my apologies
for causing you this difficulty.
However, at this point, the photograph is already included in the
electronic version that is now completely ready for publication (and it
was already included in the first set of electronic proofs I was sent in
October). The same is true of the links. It would be more work and expense,
not less, for Joey O'Neill to take them out.
Whatever the reason for the miscommunication, I ask that Elsevier
honor its agreement, made via JEBO, to include the photograph in the printed
version.
Regards,
Vincent Crawford
JEBO editor Barkley Rosser's
supporting reply of
Folks,
I fear that I incompletely sent a message.
It was my understanding that the photo was to be
included in the article. I am very sorry if for whatever
reason this is not happening. Allow me to suggest as
an alternative that it be posted on the JEBO website
with a clear reference to that being included in the
paper. I hope that there can be a satisfactory resolution
of this situation, which I regret has occurred.
Barkley Rosser
Editor, JEBO
When it became clear to Wanrooy
and his boss that the photo and links were actually in the version that
Elsevier's copy editors originally received, they reversed the rule in their
disingenous 2/27/03 message. Here is Wanrooy's reply of
Dear Vincent,
I discussed the matter extensively with my management. The conclusion
we
have reached is that inclusion of the photograph in the paper, links
to the
web site http://weber.ucsd.edu/~vcrawfor/Photos.html#EveMkt
(which
appears to be a series of holiday/family photos accompanied by oriental
music) as well as publication of the photographs on the JEBO web site,
do
not serve a scientific purpose. Therefore, photograph and links should
be
removed before the paper can be published. We regard the publication
of
these materials as potentially damaging to the reputation of JEBO
being a
serious scholarly journal.
As this decision does not in any way change the scientific content
of your
paper I hope you will still publish it, without photograph and links
to the
web sites, in JEBO. Please let me know.
Regards,
Gerard
Dear Gerard,
Does this mean that the originally stated rationale for removing the
photo and the links, in your message copied below my signature, was not
the true rationale? I think professionalism demands giving an author the
true rationale initially, even if this involves a risk that its premise
will be shown to be false as occurred in this case. I would really like to
understand how this decision was reached, and why the journal editor's decision
is being overridden at this late stage of the process.
I would also like to know precisely how the judgment to deny an author
even the right to link to supporting materials _on his own web_ site was
reached. This is extreme, and I am unaware of a precedent for such an action
by any journal, reputable or otherwise.
I suppose I consider the inclusion of the photograph--as opposed to
the links--in the paper a judgment call, though it is one that has already
been made by the journal editor. Your view that the photos are included
partly for entertainment rather than scientific value is correct, but do
I need to point out that a scholar's mission is partly to engage his readers,
and that entertainment has not been entirely absent from the reputable published
economic or scientific literature? the paper is in a sense a contribution
to economic anthropology, and the included photograph of the auctioneer is
no different from the kind of documentation one finds in leading anthropological
journals, even I suspect (without having searched) some of those published
by Elsevier.
If I were the chief editor of a journal whose editorial decision had
been overridden in this heavy-handed and (with regard to the exclusion
even of relevant links) capricious way, I would resign. (I say this not
to prejudge Barkley's position in this matter, which I have not discussed
with him; only to question it as a matter of Elsevier's editorial policy.)
I think you would find that many of "your" editors would reach the same conclusion.
I will wait for your response to the questions in my first two paragraphs,
which I think deserve to be answered, before discussing the question of
publication with my co-author.
Vincent Crawford
My second reply of
Dear Gerard,
With apologies for belaboring the point, let me try to explain more
clearly the rationale for including or at least linking to the photographs.
The scientific contribution of the paper consists in two things: (i)
reporting the discovery of a new kind of auction in use in the field, classifying
it (as a dual form of a standard Dutch auction), and (ii) showing that it
can be analyzed using standard tools from auction theory. The analysis shows
that (only) in the presence of certain kinds of uncertainty, it has a subtle
difference from the standard Dutch auction and other common auction forms,
which in the right circumstances can actually increase the profits of
the seller. Understanding this difference and how it works is straightforward
for auction specialists, but the consequence is surprising even to specialists.
Our purposes in writing the paper were to communicate the existence of
dual auctions to specialists, alert them to their unexpected consequences,
and to entice nonspecialist readers into learning
about auction theory in the context of an intriguing and entertaining
example.
The discovery of a new kind of auction in the field was exciting;
there are less than half a dozen kinds of auction actually in use, and
this one at first appears bizarre (though ultimately explicable). This
is what I earlier referred to as the "economic anthropology" component
of the paper, and it is not negligible even from a purely scientific point
of view. The photographs are simply my co-author's
and my attempt to convey some of the excitement of this discovery to our
readers. They certainly further our expository purpose, and to a lesser
extent our other purposes.
As a long-term reader and editorial board member of reputable economics
journals, it seems clear to me that exposition and excitement are not at
all out of place in a scientific journal. Nor, I think, is my judgment on
this unique. When we circulated the paper as a discussion paper, we received
many favorable comments, some from editors, co-editors, and/or board members
of the Journal of Economic Literature, Econometrica, the Journal of Political
Economy, the American Economic Review, the Journal of Economic Theory,
and the Journal of Development Economics. Most specifically praised the photographs, and none suggested that they were inappropriate.
To avoid further delay and waste of time and effort, my co-author
and I agree to publish the paper with or without the emendations you have
proposed. But we ask you and your management again to reconsider, in the
light of the arguments above, the inclusion of the photograph and the link
to the remaining photographs on JEBO's web
site. At the very least, we ask you to allow the link to my own personal
web page, which is not associated in any way with Elsevier or JEBO. I would
suggest that suppressing such a link to supporting materials on an author's
own web site is extreme, and probably unprecedented.
Regards,
Vince Crawford
Wanrooy's response of
Dear Vincent,
Thank you for your emails of March 12 and 13.
As my management is now involved in the matter I cannot take a decision
without rediscussing it with my Publishing
Director. Unfortunately he is
not in the office today and thereafter I will be traveling until the
25th.
We will send you our reaction as soon as possible.
Regards,
Gerard
A strategic retreat. Wanrooy's
final response of
Dear Vincent,
Further to my email of March 14 I let you know that the footnote referring
to your web site will be included. The photograph and further references
to
the photographs will not be included.
Regards,
Gerard