The Meaning of Everything by Simon Winchester

Posted in Biographical, History, Literature with tags , , , , , , , , , , on May 12, 2024 by telescoper

The most recent item on my (non-research-related) sabbatical reading list to be completed is The Meaning of Everything by Simon Winchester, subtitled “The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary”. I didn’t actually buy this book, but won it in a crossword competition back in February 2019. It didn’t arrive in Ireland until the end of May 2019, so it has taken me a bit less than 5 years to read it. I wish I’d read it earlier as it is fascinating and very well-written.

There’s quite a lot of information about the Oxford English Dictionary on the wikipedia page so I will keep it brief here. In short, the idea of a definitive dictionary of the English language emanated from the Philological Society and dates back to 1857, but real work didn’t start on it until a decade later. The whole project was many times on the brink of cancellation because the task of compiling the dictionary turned out to be much greater than was imagined at the outset. It was thought that the dictionary would be finished in a few years, but the First Edition was not completed until 1928. I think most people imagine that the OED has been around much longer than that!

Almost immediately work began on a supplement to include words that had entered usage during the decades needed to compile the original. A complete Second Edition was published in 1989.

The OED was actually first published in fascicles, softbound publications of about 300 pages that could be later sewn into a hard binding. These were quite expensive – 12/6 each. The first, A-Ant, was published in 1884. A complete list of these can be found here.

One might imagine that the laborious nature of the work involved in compiling a dictionary of this sort would make the story rather dull but it’s actually fascinating, both to see how the task was approached and to learn about some of the characters involved. As well as the Editors – who were paid a salary – the work relied heavily on hundreds of volunteer readers who would scour the literature looking for useful quotations that revealed the meaning of a word. By “the literature” I mean anything written – novels, non-fiction, newspapers, magazines, technical papers, anything. These volunteers would send in apposite quotations from which the compilers would construct definitions of the words. Some “headwords” have many meanings – set is an extreme example, with over 430 senses – and others – such as back – appear in a large number of compound words, all of which it had been decided needed to be illustrated with a quotation. The First Edition contained over 400,000 words and nearly two million quotations, all written and indexed laboriously by hand.

Among the volunteer readers were some extraordinary characters. One such was William Chester Minor, an American former surgeon who worked tirelessly for the Dictionary, sending his contributions in the post from an address in Crowthorne, Berkshire, which happened to be Broadmoor Psychiatric Hospital. The Chief Editor of the OED, James Murray, apparently assumed that W.C. Minor worked at Broadmoor but in fact he had been committed there in 1878 because, overcome by some form of psychosis, he had murdered a stranger and deemed insane. Minor carried on his work – using the prison guards as assistants – until he became seriously ill in 1902 after another psychotic episode during which he cut off his own penis.

The real star of the show however is English itself and this book offers some fascinating insights into the origin and evolution of the language. Almost nothing of the Celtic languages spoken throughout England before the Roman conquest survives into Old English (which used to be called Anglo-Saxon). This had a lexicon of around 50,000 words but only a few thousand of these survived in any form into Middle English and Modern English. Many common words in Old English were replaced and the language otherwise altered dramatically due to an influx of words, first from Scandinavia, via the Vikings, then from Norman French, and later on from diverse languages around the world. English has steadily absorbed and incorporated words from other languages for centuries, and is still doing so, though these words sometimes have a meaning in English that differs from their original.

In the light of this dramatic evolution in the language the Oxford English Dictionary was never intended to legislate on usage, but to register it; this is why its lexicographers relied so much on quotations in forming their definitions. This is also why the OED will never really be finished. The task of updating it nowadays is, on the one hand, made easier by the availability of computers and searchable databases but, on the other, made more difficult by the sheer amount of literature being produced.

I’ll send with one of the (apparently inadvertent) funny bits in the OED, from the second definition of the rarely used noun abbreviator:

An officer of the court of Rome, appointed… to draw up the Pope’s briefs…

I say it is inadvertent because the OED gives the earliest usage of the word briefs meaning underwear as 1930, after the publication of the First Edition (in which this appears).

Night of the Aurora

Posted in Biographical, Maynooth, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , on May 11, 2024 by telescoper

My social media feeds have been buzzing all day with images of last night’s display of the Aurora Borealis (and Australis) resulting from a large solar storm. I saw some great pictures from Ireland, including many from Maynooth and environs. I really liked this one taken from one of the ships of the Irish Naval Service:

I also saw pictures of the Aurora Borealis from the UK , USA and as far South in Europe as Marseilles, not to mention New Zealand (Aurora Australis) a

It’s not that unusual for the Northern Lights to be visible from Ireland, but it is extremely rare to see them from Catalonia. They were visible last night from Sabadell, just a few km North of Barcelona, though not as far as I know in Barcelona itself. I didn’t see anything, but I was otherwise engaged. The Observatory at Montsec Astronomical Park recorded the strongest level of Auroral activity for 150 years.

Auroral activity seen from Sabadell, picture credit Albert Segura Lorrio

All this reminds me that many moons ago, I once stood directly under an auroral display, in Tromsø (Norway), and I can tell you ever the word “awesome” applied to anything, this was it. The curious thing is that I had the definite feeling that there was a booming and whooshing sound to go with the light show. I wasn’t the only one there who thought they could hear it as well as see it. And I wasn’t drunk either. Well, not very.

Whenever I asked anyone about the sound my questions were dismissed on the grounds that there is no physical mechanism that could produce sound waves at audible frequencies of sufficient power to reach ground level from the altitude at which the light is generated. It must have been psychological, as if the brain wants to add a backing track when it sees something as spectacular as this. However, read at least one researcher is not so sure…

Comments are welcome through the usual box.

Four New Publications at the Open Journal of Astrophysics

Posted in OJAp Papers, Open Access, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 11, 2024 by telescoper

It is time yet again for an update of recent activity at the Open Journal of Astrophysics.

This week we have published four papers, which I now present to you. These four take the count in Volume 7 (2024) up to 36 and the total published by OJAp up to 151. I speculated last week that we would probably pass the 150 mark this week, and so we did. We’re still on target to publish around 100 papers this year.

In chronological order, the four papers published this week, with their overlays, are as follows. You can click on the images of the overlays to make them larger should you wish to do so.

First one up is “Ephemeris Matching Reveals False Positive Validated and Candidate Planets from the K2 Mission” by Drake A. Lehmann (U. Wisconsin-Madison, USA) and Andrew Vanderburg (MIT, USA). It presents a description and application of a technique for identifying false positives among candidate exoplanets. The paper was published on 7th May 2024, is in the folder marked Earth and Planetary Astrophysics, and can be found here.

Here is a screen grab of the overlay, which includes the abstract:

 

You can find the officially accepted version of the paper on the arXiv here.

The second paper to announce is “Accuracy requirements on intrinsic alignments for Stage-IV cosmic shear” which is by by Anya Paopiamsap, Natalia Porqueres & David Alonso (Oxford, UK) and Joachim Harnois-Deraps & C. Danielle Leonard (Newcastle, UK). This paper sets about quantifying the Quantifying the permissible level of disagreement between the true intrinsic galaxy alignments and the theoretical models thereof that can be allowed for future Stage-IV cosmic shear surveys. This one is in the folder marked Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics. The paper was published on May 9th 2024 and you can see the overlay here:

 

The accepted version of this paper can be found on the arXiv here.

The next paper, is in the folder Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics and is entitled “Optimal Summary Statistics for X-ray Polarization”. The authors are Jeremy Heyl (Uni. British Columbia, Canada), Denis González-Caniulef (Uni. Toulouse, France) and Ilaria Caiazzo (Caltech, USA). This presents new statistical estimators for use in studies of X-ray polarization, with an analytic discussion of their efficiency. It can be found here and the accepted version can be read on arXiv here. Here is the overlay:

The last paper of this batch is called  “B-modes from galaxy cluster alignments in future surveys” and is by Christos Georgiou, Thomas Bakx, Juliard van Donkersgoed and Nora Elisa Chisari, all from Utrecht University in The Netherlands. It presents a discussion of the possible detection of cosmic shear B-modes produced by intrinsic alignments in future galaxy surveys.

Here is the overlay:

You can find the full text for this one on the arXiv here. The primary classification for this one is Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics.

And that ends this week’s update. More next week!

 

Maynooth University Library Cat Video Update

Posted in Biographical, Maynooth with tags , on May 10, 2024 by telescoper

For those of you who can’t get enough Maynooth University Library Cat action, I thought I’d share this instagram post that features a short documentary film made by some students about said feline:

The video is also available on Youtube:

Incidentally, Fiona Morley (who you see interviewed in the video) is Head of Digital Programmes and Information Systems at Maynooth University and, with her team, has given huge support to the Open Journal of Astrophysics.

This reminds me that today is the last day of teaching at Maynooth. There will be a short break until examinations begin a week today. This means that, although my sabbatical continues until the end of August, I won’t be missing any more lectures from today. I won’t be marking examinations either, but it is a reminder that it’s not that long until I have to resume such duties.

Another Day, Another Predator…

Posted in Open Access with tags , , , on May 9, 2024 by telescoper

It’s been a while since I reported on a couple of encounters with predatory publishers so I thought I’d do another post in the same vein. Just this morning I received an email:

The email is in Polish, followed by the above translation into English. Out of curiosity I had a look at the website for UK Zhende Publishing. Imagine my lack of surprise when I found out it was down! The company is however registered at Companies House. Mr Zihan Li – who is resident in China -owns 75% of the business.

The Open Journal of Astrophysics is not for sale under any circumstances, not that I own it anyway. I did toy with the idea of selling them some other journal I don’t own, but I’m too busy to play such games. I did, however, find the time to reply giving my “thoughts/comments” as requested, though it would be inappropriate to repeat them here.

The last time I received such an approach ( a few months ago) the suggested price was $70,000. I see it has now gone up to $100,000. I don’t know how Mr Zihan arrived at a valuation of $100K but it got me thinking. We have so far published 149 articles at OJAp. Taking the APC for MNRAS of £2500 (approximately $3000) as typical then we have saved the community about $447,000 in unnecessary publication charges.

Who Publishes A&A?

Posted in Euclid, Open Access with tags , , , , , , , on May 8, 2024 by telescoper

The journal Astronomy & Astrophysics, generally known as A&A, which featured in yesterday’s post, is and has been for some time the journal of choice for many astrophysics researchers, especially those based in Europe. It is the journal in which the bulk of publications from Euclid will be published, including a batch due to come out in a couple of weeks.

The journal, which has existed since 1969, is published on behalf of the European Southern Observatory by EDP Sciences (Édition Diffusion Presse Sciences) which began life as a joint venture of four French learned societies in science, mathematics, and medicine. The company was acquired in 2019 by  China Science Publishing & Media (which has headquarters in Beijing). Judging by its social media activity, EDP Sciences sees A&A as a flagship journal; for a list of other journals it runs see here.

A&A publishes papers through a curious hybrid model called “S2O” (Subscribe to Open; not to be confused with “420”). This is not fully Open Access because it requires libraries to pay a subscription to access the journal, but unlike some journals A&A does allow authors to place their papers on arXiv without restriction, so they can be read there for free. On the other hand, A&A also requires authors to pay “Page Charges” – essentially an Article Processing Charge (APC) – if they are not from a “member country”. Authors from a member country do not have to pay APCs to publish but their institutional libraries still have to pay a subscription if they are to access the paper.

You might ask why you should publish in A&A if you can put your papers on arXiv. The answer given on the website is:

Preprint servers such as arXiv play a vital role in bringing research into the astronomy and astrophysics communities as quickly as possible. However, content uploaded to this service has not undergone rigorous peer review and the editorial oversight offered by a professional publisher such as EDP Sciences. In addition, preprints don’t offer the content selection and curation processes that make a scholarly journal a reliable and trusted addition to library collections.

In summary, publishing your article in A&A increases the value and impact of your work by making your article more trustworthy, easier to find, read, and cite, whilst ensuring that the version of record is preserved in perpetuity.

In other words, A&A does nothing that the Open Journal of Astrophysics doesn’t do for free…

Incidentally, I am struck by the frequent assertion that publishers preserve or curate content. Actually they don’t. Libraries do that. If a publisher such as EDP Science decides a journal is no longer commercially viable it will simply ditch it. Fortunately nowadays institutions maintain their own repositories of published papers as insurance against this.

Here is some more information about how S20 works, taken from the A&A website:

A&A is a community journal sponsored by a board of member countries. While subscriptions fund the publishing costs of the journal, the editorial costs are funded both by the contributions from member countries, and the page charges for authors of non-member countries. This division of costs between authors and readers makes it possible to offer low subscription prices, while at the same time removing barriers to publishing for authors from A&A sponsoring countries, and allowing authors from non-sponsoring countries to publish for a modest charge.

If the S2O model is successful, editorial costs will continue to be funded by A&A member contributions and page charges, while subscriptions will be used to cover the open access publication of the journal. Authors from sponsoring countries can therefore publish in open access free of charge, while authors from other countries remain liable for page charges to fund the editorial process of their article (note: page charges are paid to A&A directly and not to the publisher).

This arrangement is being kept under annual review so whether it will persist is open to question.

Red Wall Destiny – Wassily Kandinsky

Posted in Art with tags , on May 7, 2024 by telescoper
Red Wall Destiny

by Wassily Kandinsky (1909; oil on canvas, 83 x 116 cm; Astrakhan, Dogadin State Art Gallery)

Publishing Stats for Astrophysics Journals

Posted in Open Access, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , on May 6, 2024 by telescoper

Somebody asked me about this recently so this afternoon while I was paying rapt attention to a Zoom call I was attending I did some quick sums and produced the table below. The request that was made was to give details of total numbers of papers published in the big astronomy and astrophysics journals last year. This is easy relatively easy to do using the excellent NASA/ADS search tool.

Name of JournalNumber of PapersNumber of CitationsAverage citations per paper
MNRAS413125,5406.18
A&A235415,9016.75
ApJ285915,7715.52
ApJL72610,22814.09
ApJS3382,6117.72
OJAp503717.42
Citations to papers published in 2023 (Data from NASA/ADS)

In case you weren’t aware of the standard abbreviations, MNRAS is Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society and A&A is Astronomy and Astrophysics; ApJ is the Astrophysical Journal, ApJL is the Astrophysical Journal Letters and ApJS is the Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series. The Open Journal of Astrophysics is OJAp.

Anyway, you can see that the big journals published many more papers last year than OJAp but in terms of citations per paper OJAp is doing well. We have a lot of ground to make up if we’re going to be a significant player in the game in terms of sheer quantity of publications, but since we don’t make a profit from APCs we have no reason to lower standards to achieve that.

If you’re interested, the average citations per paper so far this year (i.e. as of 6th May 2024) are: MNRAS (1.84); A&A (1.66); ApJ (2.29); ApJL (2.05), ApJS (2.09) and OJAp (2.90).

Open Access in Ecology

Posted in Open Access with tags , , , , on May 6, 2024 by telescoper

My attention was drawn yesterday to the following blog post about Open Access in the field of ecology. I recommend you read it (and the comments, some of which are excellent).

I will add a few comments of my own here.

First, whenever I read an article like this from a discipline different from my own it makes me not only feel grateful that we have arXiv but also wonder why so many fields don’t have the equivalent. On the other hand, there is EarthArxiv, but it doesn’t seem to have very many papers on it.

Second, I agree with the author of the post that far too many papers are being published. That is driven by the absurdity of a system that no longer regards the journal article as a means of disseminating scientific results but instead as a kind of epaulette to give status to the author. I also agree that scientists have largely got themselves to blame for this ridiculous situation.

Third, I disagree most strongly with this statement:

First, pipe dreaming academics who believed in the mirage of “Diamond OA” (nobody pays and it is free to publish). Guess what – publishing a paper costs money – $500-$2000 depending on how much it is subsidized by volunteer scientists. 

This is nonsense. It does not cost anything like $500-$2000 dollars to publish a paper. Of course it does cost something, but the true amount is trivial – tens of dollars, rather than hundreds or thousands – and can easily be absorbed. The entire annual running costs of OJAp are less than the typical Article Processing Charge for a single paper in a “prestigious” journal. Most money being paid in the form of APC goes directly into profit for the publishers, and the rest is largely wasted on administrative overhead. The Open Journal of Astrophysics is a Diamond Open Access journal, not a mirage. It may be a no-frills service, but it’s a reality. Why doesn’t someone set up an overlay journal on EarthArXiv?

The author of this blog post also spectacularly misses the point with “depending on how much it is subsidized by volunteer scientists”. Volunteer scientists are already subsidizing the profits of profit-making publishers! One of the commenters on the blog post has it right:

On Diamond OA and who pays; we’re already paying the big publishers with both our time and our money to publish in / review for / edit for their journals. Perhaps if we redirected that time to Diamond OA titles things would be somewhat different.

A final comment, only tangentially related to this post, is that I have been (pleasantly) surprised by the extent to which early career researchers have embraced the concept of the Open Journal of Astrophysics when you might have thought that they had more to lose by not publishing in mainstream journals rather than us oldies who don’t care any more. The explanation seems to be that younger people seem to see the absurdity and obvious unsustainability of the current publishing environment more easily than those who have put up with it for decades already.

A Table Alphabeticall

Posted in History, Literature with tags , , , on May 5, 2024 by telescoper

I’m having a lazy Sunday so instead of writing anything too demanding on here I thought I’d share something I stumbled across in a book I’ve been reading (and will probably review next week sometime). Not a lot of people know that the first true English dictionary was called A Table Alphabeticall which was created by Robert Cawdrey and first published in London in 1604, over 150 years before Samuel Johnson’s much more famous A Dictionary of the English Language.

This, on the left, is the frontispiece of the First Edition to A Table Alphabeticall:

Notice that it says it was compiled for the benefit and help of “Ladies, Gentlewomen, or any other unskilfull persons”. Ouch! By the Third Edition, published in 1613, this was amended to “all unskilfull persons”.

P.S. Notice the old-fashioned typesetting, especially the use of the “long s” which I have blogged about before.