The Death of the Berkeley Electronic Press Journals

Maybe I'm the last one to figure it out, but the Berkeley Electronic Press journals have shut down and been sold for a year! I found it pretty hard to find information about this topic, so here is what I was able to find out. I discovered that Joshua Gans also made some great comments on his blog.

Background: Back in 1999 a bunch of professors got together and founded the "Berkeley Electronic Press". they had some really great ideas to try to combat some of the problems in the publishing industry.  The three most important ones that most economists bought into were:
1) a guaranteed fast decision on submitted articles, or your money back
2) much cheaper rates for University subscriptions
3) papers were published on a rolling basis, so as soon as a paper was accepted and formatted (by the author) the paper was put online-- no delay!

This is in a time when publishers were jacking up subscription fees to libraries to astronomical rates, and many journals were taking six months to a year before giving any feedback on submitted papers.  This kind of behavior can be deadly to an academic career, when tenure-track professors only have six years to not only get articles published, but also to demonstrate that they are being read by these papers getting cited.  However, if it takes three years before your article gets published, supposing that someone reads it right then, cites it and submits their paper to be published on the same day, it might take three years for that paper to get published.  This ridiculously slow process was supposed to be sped up because when you submitted a paper you had two choices:
A) pay a submission fee
B) agree to provide two reviews of papers that will be sent to you in the future very quickly; if you are slow, you get charged the fee

I am sure that most people who were involved with editing these journals, and most people who submitted papers to these journals did so because they bought into the idea that "we can do this better".  Also, this system made the research more widely available, since more libraries could afford to subscribe to the collection, and individuals could access the content for no monetary cost ( by filling out a nagging form).  I supported the enterprise, by submitting a paper there and having it rejected.  But the point is, they rejected it quickly!

I must be way behind the times, but I just discovered that the Berkeley Electronic Press sold their 60 journals (in September 2011) to a company called De Gruyter.  From all appearances, things don't seem to be going well since the transfer.  One year later, it it seems like many journals are not really publishing any more (For example, it appears that  BEJEAP has published ONE article since January, 2012... but it is hard to tell).  Also, there are some comments on their site, from people claiming that their submitted article has disappeared into the nether, or submission fees have been lost, or other complaints.  For example:

How can I get a response from the journal? I submitted my manuscript more than 5 months ago, sent two emails to the journal. Unfortunately, have not heard back. posted by: Zaz on 2012-08-18 07:00 PM (Europe/Berlin)

On RePEc the publisher for all of these journals is still listed as "Berkeley Electronic Press", e.g. see here. Also, the website seems to be very poorly organized, and very uninformative.  For example, I was looking at the "Journal Policies" for the B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, and it takes you to a generalized "Copyright Agreement".  When you go to submit an article, the submission system still refers to the "Berkeley Electronic Press" for some reason, and they still have the old language on the website: they are still pretending to give you the option between reviewing or paying a submission fee, but when it comes down to it, they demand $75 in cold, hard cash.  they also still have the language on the site guaranteeing:

" you quality peer reviews, an editorial decision, and publication of accepted manuscripts within 70 days."

Now, since I don't see articles being published for many, many months at a time, I'm not sure what this means.  Either they are not accepting any articles at all, or they are refunding a lot of submission fees, because one cannot accept and publish articles within 70 days, with gaps of 9 months.  After browsing around quite a long time on their website, it is very unclear what's going on. Note to  De Gruyter-- your websites are very hard to navigate and look like something that even I could throw together (see their home page to see what I mean, and compare it to something I DID throw together (but with loving care, I assure you!)).  If someone from the company wants to reply, I would love to hear what's really going on.

In any case, the "BEPress" guys say that now they are focusing on "Open Access Services", whatever that means, and they still have their "SelectedWorks" pages, where I have a page.  See here for some less than clear information.  After spending some time trying to understand what happened and why, I am still very lost. Until something major happens, both of the journals under their new ownership, and the old BEPress guys are dead to me. I am also seriously considering shutting down my SelectedWorks page, because I really don't understand what it is at this point if it is not associated with economics journals anymore.  RePEc seems to be a much more useful network of sites.

When it come to "Open Access Services", everyone should know about the Open Journal System (OJS), which is a free, open source journal management system that could be used for a pay journal, but seems to be used more for open access ones.  That is what I use for the regional science journal I co-edit. As a co-editor for an open access journal, one that charges NO fees to submitters, readers, libraries, or anyone else (see www.srsa.org/rrs), I am very disturbed by the demise of the BEP journals. Dozens of journals that seemed to be fairly well-run, well respected, and committed to inexpensive access and efficient operation have been thrown into chaos.  Below are the names of some of the well-known journals that have been affected:

Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy

Advances in Macroeconomics

Advances in Theoretical Economics

Asian Journal of Comparative Law

Asia-Pacific Journal of Risk and Insurance

B. E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy

B. E. Journal of Macroeconomics

B. E. Journal of Theoretical Economics

Basic Income Studies

Business and Politics

California Journal of Politics and Policy

Capitalism and Society

Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy

Contributions to Macroeconomics

Contributions to Theoretical Economics

Economists' Voice

Forum for Health Economics & Policy

Frontiers of Economic Analysis & Policy

Frontiers of Macroeconomics

Frontiers of Theoretical Economics

Global Economy Journal

Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization

Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis

Journal of Globalization and Development

Journal of Industrial Organization Education

Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports

Journal of Time Series Econometrics

Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy

Poverty & Public Policy

Review of Law & Economics

Review of Marketing Science

Review of Middle East Economics and Finance

Review of Network Economics

Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy

Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics

The B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy

The B.E. Journals in Macroeconomics

The B.E. Journals in Theoretical Economics

Topics in Economic Analysis & Policy

Topics in Macroeconomics

Topics in Theoretical Economics

Stop Calling me, CVS!

Contact your customers-- but don't annoy them to death!

There is a rule in most businesses that a small number of good customers provide a large share of the profits.  Businesses need to identify who these people are, and paper them.  CVS Pharmacy seems to be doing the opposite.  The more business you do with them, the more they hound you with repeated, annoying, deceptive calls!

I have finally had enough of CVS's telephone calls and other annoying marketing tactics.  It is time for me to switch.  A simple Google search reveals that I am not the only one who is sick and tired of what they are doing.  How can a corporation be so shortsighted that it annoys its customers to death?  I have had a lot of health problems in the last 10 years, so I am a VERY good customer of theirs.  However, they treat me like just another person to annoy.  Here are a few specifics in my case:

1) CVS added prescriptions to an "Automatic Refill" program without my consent. That means that every time they feel that I need more medicine, they refill it and call me 5 to 10 times to tell me to pick it up.  These include calls from a human being, calls to my cell phone, and robo-calls.  

2) Last week they called and left a message telling me that it was "very important that I call them right away".  The emergency was, that I had one of those auto-refilled prescriptions to pick up.  First, this is just blatant deception. Why not leave a message like the 1,000 before?  It WAS NOT very important to waste my time to call them back.  Second, I had just picked up a 3-month supply two weeks before!

3) They just called my home and my cell to tell me that I could pick up some more nose drops if I wanted.  Honestly. they left a message at home, again telling me that it was "very important for me to call right away".  They reached me on my cell, interrupting me at work… That is the only reason that I know about these extremely important nose drops.

4) The people who call you tell you that they are not allowed to stop calling you.  You have to call their corporate number in order to request that they stop calling you. Here is how to get CVS to stop calling you, at least in theory: Call 1-800-746-7287, and right after their answering system finishes telling you about language options, say "CALL".  Basically, keep saying "CALL" until it says that it is connecting you with the person.  Tell the person that you want them to stop all calls whether it is from a recorded message or a person and give them every phone number you have.  Even though the person on the other end of the line is "innocent", I don't think it would hurt to show them a little anger: CBS needs to understand how much this is angering some of us.

There are two big problems with this, aside from the obvious fact that annoying your customers with endless calls, and deceptive calls, will drive them away:

a) They are wasting their own money and time. I just picked up a 100 day supply of one medicine for example, and 25 days later they are calling me telling me that I have a refill ready.

b) This seems to be illegal. According to http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/08/tsr.shtm :

In 2008 an FTC Rule: "Expressly prohibit telemarketing sales calls that deliver prerecorded messages, whether answered in person by a consumer or by an answering machine or voicemail service, unless the seller has previously obtained the recipient's signed, written agreement to receive such calls".  

Now, there are a few exemptions and exceptions in the law that CVS might be hiding behind.  Businesses are allowed to call customers with which they have a relationship, and there is an exemption for purely informational messages ( e.g., your flight has been canceled). There is also an exemption for "healthcare-related prerecorded message calls that are subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act", but I cannot believe that the FCC had this nonsense in mind for pure telemarketing from Drug Stores.

Hopefully some lawyers will get involved and file a class-action suit against CVS. Normally, I am not in favor of all of the class-action suits out there, since they are usually settled in very little of the money ever reaches the consumers who are affected.  However, in this case, I just want it to stop!  over the next few weeks, I am going to begin transferring all of my prescriptions elsewhere, even though there really is no other pharmacy that is remotely convenient for me.  But, I have had enough!

Tell me about your experiences in the comment section below!  Anything more ridiculous than what I have experienced?

Obama and the World Bank-- SHAME! .

A public health guy in charge of a bank?  Silly.  The WORLD Bank? 

Since I am not a development economist myself, I am trusting the word of The Economist Magazine's article on this a few days ago.  Appointments to the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), just like most ambassadorial, cabinet, and other top jobs such as head of the NSF and FDA, are motivated far too much by politics, and far too little by considerations about who would do the best job (i.e. meritocracy).

Now, it is ok to repay friends with meaningless jobs, say the Ambassador to a small, peaceful island somewhere.  But when it comes to the IMF and WB, you are literally killing millions of people when you appoint someone without the proper training, understanding, intelligence, and focus to improve the lives of the poverty-stricken people in the world.

Mr. Obama is apparently trying to get Jim Yong Kim, someone with an MD and experience in Public Health, to lead the World Bank.  The WB's job is to teach developing nations how to grow out of poverty through the right kinds of choices and development, and through providing loans to fund that development.

The first grounds for shame are simply the most obvious: a public health professor has as much ability to run the WB as I do to run the World Health Organization(WHO).  The only difference being, that I have spent many, many years of my life dedicated to studying health economics, health law, pharmacology, and other health related issues.  I got a research grant from the NIH.  However, being an honorable man, if the president asked me to head the WHO I would slap him very hard on the back and ask him how stupid and/or crazy one of us are.  While I have a lot that I could ADVISE the leader the WHO about, I would be a murderer if I ran it.  Lives would be in my (incapable) hands.

I am certain that Mr. Kim is smart, but part of being smart is knowing your limitations and living within them.  I have often said that I am more comfortable working with limited people who know their limitations, than brighter people who have no clue when they are attempting to do something beyond their talents.

I think that this is certainly the case here-- Mr. Kim has no idea what economic development is.  Mr. Kim wrote a foreward in a book  "called “Dying for Growth”, he wrote that “the quest for growth in GDP and corporate profits has in fact worsened the lives of millions of men and women”, quoted Noam Chomsky and praised Cuba for “prioritising social equity”."  The leader of an economic development organization had BETTER not claim that economic development is bad, nor that Cuba has done it the right way. Noam Chomsky is another prime example of a brilliant person (who I do admire on many grounds) who goes a bit batty when talking economics.  Promoting "equity" always has the consequence of reducing prosperity overall, which is the opposite of the need in developing countries.  These are the unforgivable sins of Obama, and for Mr. Kim if he plays along.

The other interesting thing in the Economist article is the discussion of the three top candidates for the job:
"The World Bank is the world’s premier development institution. Its boss needs experience in government, in economics and in finance (it is a bank, after all). He or she should have a broad record in development, too. Ms Okonjo-Iweala has all these attributes, and Colombia’s José Antonio Ocampo has a couple. By contrast Jim Yong Kim, the American public-health professor whom Barack Obama wants to impose on the bank, has at most one."

I find it very interesting that a woman from Africa, who seems to have the right qualifications, is being pushed aside for a wholly unqualified Korean.  Hey, I love Koreans as well as Africans, but what kind of twisted process has us favoring an unqualified person over a well-qualified one, regardless of the race or gender?  There has to be some strange reason, perhaps Obama's close ties to South Korea (Obama has visited South Korea more than any other foreign country as president).  I would give bonus points to a competent, qualified African simply because much of the important development work needs to be focused on sub-Saharan Africa.  Perhaps an African has some new insights, or leadership styles, that could make a difference.  To be sure, southern Asia also has a lot of economic development needs.

In any case, a public health professor should never have been on the list, much less the short list of candidates.  By the way, Ms. Okonjo-Iweala has  Ph.D. from MIT in Regional Economic Development.  Her dissertation topic: "Credit Policy, Rural Financial Markets, and Nigeria's Agricultural Development".  Mr. Kim has an MD from Harvard as well as a Ph.D. in Social Anthropology.  Dissertation Title: "Pills, production, and the symbolic code: Pharmaceuticals and the political economy of meaning in South Korea".  Though my experience with social anthropology suggests that it is largely gibberish, I skimmed Kim's thesis (353 pages!!), and it is at least readable, if far too informal for me. While neither Kim nor Okonjo-Iweala's degree is shabby, who would you pick?

One of the biggest lessons we offer to developing nations is that the right people must get the right jobs, and that this should happen by looking for the best, not our cronies.  It is sad to see the rot in Washington DC that could produce this outcome.

Just one last note-- to be an equal opportunity offender, I am not a cheerleader for any party, only for honesty, reason, and science.  Of course, that means that I thought that GW Bush did just as horribly on many occasions, with his nominations/appointees for the Supreme Court and several other national agencies, for which we all felt the pain.  Why our leaders feel that anything less than the best, most honest effort possible is honorable, I will never understand.  Let's hope we can raise our children to be better.