Translated material
"Science" on horseback
I am a linguist, a researcher at the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In addition, my second profession is a layout and a conspress in general. I am a specialist with many years of experience in book and journal publishers in Moscow, who is familiar with the intricacies of the entire publishing cycle - from the author’s receipt from the author to control the first mascad in the printing house. I indicate, because it will be important for further presentation. The whole text below is my evaluation opinion.
I just had an article in the journal "Questions of Linguistics". First of all, I have to thank the employees of the editorial office of the magazine who, with their professionalism and a friendly attitude, helped me improve my text. The magazine is being a magazine in the Academician "Science" of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Publishing House "Science"). About technical workers "Science" will be discussed.
The VID editorial forces of each article are brought into a technically competent look: the Yunnic font Times New Roman, dash, quotation marks, inextricable gaps, inextricable hyphens - everything is perfectly prepared for layout, which in this case should become a mechanical process for a competent layoutor. However, in practice it is completely wrong.
In the first proofing proofing, I made up to 15 (!) Corrections in the strip - all through the fault of the layoutor, i.e. During the layout, some phonetic special systems (standard yunnic glyphs, albeit outside WGL), hyphen, spaces, lists, etc., disappeared. On the second correction, it turned out that a significant part of the editing was not made, and in addition, new errors (!) Appeared - special systems flew up additionally. Note that it is not in the rules of “science” to show the author the second correction - I had to call several members of the magazine editorial board so that they made an exception for me.
After the second correction, I was forced to set the condition: either I am going to the Publishing House "Science" and there, together with the layout designer, I am making editing, or I am shooting an article.
I was sure that they would definitely not let me into the “science” (at least my more experienced colleagues suggested that), but they were allowed. Having put off business, I went to the other end of Moscow. What did I see there? Large building. Mostly middle -aged ladies work in it. They are closed on Macintosh computers (they are terribly proud of that, of course, and about what, see below) in the Adobovsky package (“Indeed”, “Illustrator”, “Photoshop”). The level of technical literacy is extremely low (although one of the ladies, younger, working in the “illustrator”, demonstrated the knowledge of some technical techniques when I began to explain to her what and how she did incorrectly in the simplest schemes for my article). They have no fonts-they are closed in the old WGL version of Times New Roman (illegally acquired, as I understand it), as a result, I told the head of the layout department that Microsoft had long been extended versions of this font, where there is almost everything that is needed for a linguistic set.
The worst thing is not. The most unpleasant thing is that the Publishing House "Science" is what is called the word "scoop". They are sitting on a salary, they are not interested in work, they are absolutely indifferent. They were not ashamed when I, the author, came to them to correct their mistakes. Here is such a lady in front of the monitor, sighs heavily, I indicate what to fix, she lazily leads the mouse and imprints new mistakes.
For several years I worked as the head of the scientific publishing house "Languages of Slavic Culture." If the author came to me with similar complaints about the layoutor, I would burn out with shame, I would have received a stick from the director, and the layout widerer would not work for us anymore.
Let us dwell on the technical aspect, so that the reader understands the situation better. In Science, they work on computers of the Macintosh system. For those readers who do not know computer subtleties, I will say that Macintosh and PC differ primarily by the operating system and price - the former are tangibly more expensive. The main programs (office editors, layout programs, etc.) coincide with them. Everything that can be done on PC is done in the same way on Macintosh, and vice versa. There is a traditional myth that "high -quality layout is possible only on poppy." This is not true. I can assume the two reasons why the “science” once had once purchased the park for the “Macintosh” and has been updating it since then: an expensive order has been allowing a greater “rollback”; They believed in the myth, i.e. They considered that “Macintoshi” is an analogue of a magic pot that is enough to say: “Pot, Vari!”
Moreover, if twenty years ago, the transfer of text from the PC, played in any text editor under Windows, to Macintosh represented difficulties, however overcoming, then for a long time, due to the spread of the font standard of the UNICOD, these difficulties have almost disappeared, and now there are no such problems. All this remains unknown to the technical personnel of “Science”, where the text, typed in MS Word and submitted to the layout, is manually reconfigured (i.e. reprinted by the Type) in any Makintoshev editor. Needless to say, the workers of “science” are gaining very poorly. Fresh reconfigure, if they do, is nominal, in reality, the dulpination of reconciliation falls on the authors.
Say, employees of the Institute of the Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences issue a dictionary of the Old Russian language. They read the computer set (MS Word) “under the magnifying glass”, checking the material with the ancient Russian monuments proper. Then this enters the "science", where the text is re -reduced from a paper printout. After that, the employees of Irya must sit down again and the letter to the letter already behind the set -player of “science”, catching a significant number of errors. Of course, this is the absurd squab of man-hours, worthy of only a socialist economy. In fairness, I will indicate in fairness that, apparently, in the last year, “science” nevertheless had some separate layouts who could convert a simple Cyrillic alphabet and a simple Latin from PC to Macintosh-in my article in “Issues of Linguistics”, Russian actually did not suffer from the English texts.
I will give another example. In 2011, the anthology “Monuments of medieval Latin literature: X-XI century” was published in Science. One of Tom’s two editors was my relative, so I know the details about which I will talk about now. The manuscript was filed in “science” for layout in the form of text documents MS Word. In “science”, the text was reburied in the Makintoshev format, as a result of which he acquired a huge number of errors. Then he was register, and the layout was sent to the authors to proceed. The authors were no longer shown the second layout, and in the publishing house such a mandatory stage as reconciliation of editing is absent. The signal copy to the authors was also not shown. As a result, when the book came out, it turned out that a significant part of the author’s edit was not made; In addition, new error has appeared in comparison with the first layout. In order not to tire the reader, I will limit myself to two errors that fell into circulation.
Here is the title sheet (red discharge - mine). As you can see, the editor of Tom is named by M.L. Gasparov. In fact, other names should have stood on the title: compilers-translators M.S. Kasyan and m. NEVAROKOVA. So it was in the author’s manuscript, in the contract and in the first layout. However, before handing over Tom to the seal, it turned out that the file layout file was lost. Instead of looking into the documentation or the author’s original or, finally, to call the authors, the workers of Science made a paradoxical decision: to turn the title from the previous volume of this series (on which ML Gasparov was rightly indicated by the editor). As a result, the last name for seven years as the late Mikhail Leonovich migrated to a new volume (replacing the names of the real editors), and even without a frame.
But the illustration that depicts the rider (red discharge is mine). The signature reads: "Wolf on a horse (St. George)." Of course, in the author’s file MS Word there was a “horse on horseback”. In “science”, with a manual transplenitive, the warrior turned into a wolf. This was noticed by the authors in the first layout and adjusted in the printout, but the workers of Science did not make correction.
We summarize. For many years, all Russian authors who are responsible for their texts have been suffering from unprofessionalism for many years. The publishing house has become a lady in the tongue. In my experience, this is the worst publishing company of those that are now in the scientific book market. However, thanks to the corruption schemes, “science” has the “right of the first night” in state grant funds such as RGNF, i.e. He takes a significant part of the manuscripts submitted by the authors to finance into state funds (and, say, the Reminented journal “Linguistics of Linguistics” has been trying to demand the right to prepare a layout for the editorial forces for many years, but the leadership of “Science” categorically refuses him). If the relations were market relations in this area, then the “science” would have burned out in a year.
Is it possible to reproach only specific technical workers of “science”? Depends on the point of view. “Science” receives generous state financing actually on an unconditional basis and demonstrates some signs of monopoly. At the same time, the salaries of the actual employees who prepare books for printing are below the market. At the moment, on the official website of the Academettacent Center "Science" of the Russian Academy of Sciences, an announcement about the vacancy of a senior accountant is hanging: 10,600 rubles. per month [1], so the conclusions about the level of salaries can be drawn (on this site some hotel network and Forex structure [sic!] are also advertised, but we will not pay attention to this). So it is more correct to assume that corruption schemes that penetrated all state institutions are to blame, as a result of which a specific low -level worker receives a penny and does not have an incentive to improve his qualifications, nor simply responsibly to his duties.
I will complete the future authors with several tips.
1. If your book is financed by the State Fund, then avoid the science publishing house. Typically, in one way or another, when applying to a grant or already upon receipt of a grant, the author may show the initiative and choose a publishing company himself, at the expense of which this grant will be transferred.
2. If your text is prepared in Science, then be sure to demand that you show a second layout. Of course, they will refuse you, but stand your own. In the second layout, you will find a significant number of unexplored corrections (in violation of all the rules, “science” does not reconcile the editing) and, most likely, new errors. After that, demand a third layout, and so on until the stage until the text becomes clean. However, as follows from the quality of the work of “science”, the number of cycles here will strive for infinity, so in practice such a tactic is unrealized. It would be more correct after the second layout to follow my example and, despite the resistance of the workers of Science, try to come to the layoutor in order to control the restraint of the remaining edit. However, people who imagine the Soviet institution must understand that this is hardly realized in mass order (my case is an exception). Therefore, follow paragraph 1.
Alexey Kasyan