In Questioning Collapse (which, while we’re on the subject of ethical disclosure, happens to be a Cambridge University Press title), an impressive group of historians, archaeologists, and anthropologists marshal the latest scholarship to present an alternative theory of societal failure and the nature of collapse. From Easter Island to ancient Mesopotamia, the collection submits radically different analyses of iconic events. Learn more about the ethical and factual mistakes that contributor Carl Lipo thinks Jared Diamond made on Lipo’s blog, Evolution Beach.

——–

Via StinkyJournalism.org

Jared Diamond reviews book about himself in Nature (Journal) — Without disclosing the obvious conflict

by Molika Ashford, Stinkyjournalism.org

EXCLUSIVE: There are many things that writers, and the publications that publish their work, can do to lose the trust of readers. One is to write about subjects that present clear conflicts of interest. Another is to fail to be transparent about those conflicts with their readers.

The February 18 issue of the journal Nature provides a clear case in point. In the issue, Pulitzer-winning scientist Jared Diamond reviews a book of essays called Questioning Collapse: Human Resilience, Ecological Vulnerability, and the Aftermath of Empire. The review, “Two views of collapse,” is largely negative. What Diamond doesn’t disclose to the readers of the review, however, is that Questioning Collapse is not just a book about “collapse”… It’s a book about his bestselling book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Even more, it is a book of essays directly criticizing and critiquing Diamond’s own work and writings.

There’s nothing subtle about it. “Wrentit,” a reviewer on Amazon.com, summarizes the book this way: “Questioning Collapse is a collection of reviews of specific chapters of Diamond’s book Collapse. The whole point of Questioning Collapse is to attack Diamond’s arguments.”

This may not be the only time the subject of a critical work has reviewed the book that critiques them. But, by failing to disclose that Questioning Collapse is a critique of his own research, Diamond misleads readers into viewing his book review as something it is not–the dispassionate opinion of an outside observer.

Diamond–the subject of several StinkyJournalism investigations into errors and ethical lapses in his reporting on Papua New Guinea, and of a libel lawsuit by Daniel Wemp, the single source for his New Yorker essay “Vengeance is Ours”–is the author of Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

Questioning Collapse, published by Cambridge University Press, features a group of essays collected from and after a meeting of the American Anthropological Association that were directly intended to address “issues swirling around the popular writing of Jared Diamond.” The essays critique specific passages and arguments of Diamond’s book, as well as argue against the more general themes of human history Diamond describes.

Yet, Diamond’s review in Nature, a prestigious journal of science and medicine, makes no mention of this. It might, then, appear to a reader of Nature with no prior knowledge of his relationship to the book under review, to be the opinion of an independent expert. Given that Questioning Collapse is a refutation of his own work, Diamond cannot be considered as such, and he is ethically responsible not to–purposefully or accidentally–masquerade as such.

Keep reading and share your thoughts on StinkyJournalism.org > > >

But, as they say, easier said than done! A few weeks after bringing home my baby, I was suddenly confused and didn’t understand why my best-laid plans were about as solid as a newborn’s poop. Happiness and awe were common feelings, but other emotions came into play; unexpected feelings caused by expectations from family and friends, and the responsibility for a new human being. I felt blissful and content one minute, and tearfully overwhelmed the next. Becoming someone’s mother meant that my role in the world had changed – I wasn’t just the same old me trying to be a new, improved version. I was a mother, really and truly and forever.

Now that it’s been three months and my little one and I have settled into our new world, I am happy to be back at the Press. Being a new mom has changed a lot of things, but getting back in the groove of “all things publicity” and life at work has been a pleasant and welcome return. Apart from an endless routine of nappy changing and feeding when I go home, I love drifting off to sleep only to dream about Google alerts, cover jacket blow-ups, and author signings. This tells me one thing: I really did miss my life and wonderful co-workers at the Press for my four months away, and I am absolutely thrilled to be back!

–Sadhika

Not only are the Beatles still good, they’re still relevant. Find out the inspiration for the project and check out an excerpt of the book all on WPSU. Listen here > > >

——–

And if you haven’t seen it yet, check out the book review by Beatlefan Magazine Contributing Editor, Kit O’Toole on blogcritics.org.

If you are a Beatles fan looking to study their music and impact, The Cambridge Companion to The Beatles provides an excellent starting point. Chapters will make you rethink what you already know, and perhaps change your interpretations of their music. At the very least, the text spurs spirited discussion about various topics.

Read more at Blog Critics > > >

In the first historical examination of the arrest, prosecution, and punishment of the leaders of the SS-Einsatzgruppen, Hilary Earl takes on one of the most important and insufficiently studied trials of the Holocaust. Posing hard-hitting questions on the nature of mass murder, the book showcases the first Nazi war criminals to publicly lay claim to their crimes. Based on extensive archival research – some of which is only recently declassified – Earl’s unique interdisciplinary approach synthesizes a range of historical, social, scientific, and legal resources to grant new insight into the perpetrators’ individual motivations.

——–

Via New Books in History

Hitler caused the Holocaust, that much we know (No Hitler, no Holocaust). But did he directly order it and, if so, how and when? This is one of the many interesting questions posed by Hilary Earl in her outstanding new book The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958: Atrocity, Law, and History (Cambridge UP, 2009). The book is about the trial of the leaders of the Einsatzgruppen, the mobile killing units that, in 1941 and 1942, spearheaded the Nazi effort to eradicate the Jewish people. The Einsatzgruppen murdered something on the order of a million people using almost nothing but firearms. In 1947, their commanders were brought to justice in what might be called the “other” (forgotten) Nuremberg Trials. The trial left an enormous body of reasonably fresh-after-the-fact testimony for historians to work with in trying to understand this episode in the Holocaust. Hilary does a masterful job of mining this material.

Keep reading and listen to the in-depth interview at New Books in History >>>

Engraving of printer using the early Gutenberg letter press, 15th century.

With the rising popularity of POD publishing, The Economist considers the impact of new technology on our industry. As the power of print becomes the power to press print, will POD prove a boon or a burden for publishing’s supply chain?

You might argue that Cambridge benefits from the new form. Our books are topical, subject-specific, and stand the test of time; with the changing tides of the news cycle, readers might find a book published five years ago of interest next month. And, though it breaks my heart to say it, publishing is ultimately a business, and sales and warehouse space can often dictate the lifeline of a book. This is no longer the case with POD – there is no such thing as “out of print.”

At the same time, POD has spurred on a surge of self-publishing. So are traditional publishers becoming the odd-men out?

While Kindles and iPads continue to (literally) change the face of publishing, POD offers yet another avenue of access to books. Does it prolong a book’s life and democratize knowledge? Are we opening the floodgates and loosening cultural controls?

——–

Via The Economist: The boom in printing on demand: Just press print. New technology promises to prolong the life of the book.

ESPRESSO might seem an odd name for a bookmaking machine. But the wardrobe-sized apparatus at Blackwell, a bookstore in central London, and 30 other locations worldwide can print a paperback in about the time it takes to make and drink a shot of caffeine. A black-and-white printer produces the pages; a colour one the cover; they are then glued together by a third device which sits behind Plexiglas for passers-by to admire.

To some this is just “retail theatre”, a clever way to lure people into bookstores. But others view it as the logical step in a development that has picked up speed recently, yet has not received nearly as much attention as electronic readers or touch-screen tablets: the printing of books on demand, rather than on a publisher’s hunch.

About 6% of books in America are now printed on toner-based or inkjet machines—a rough proxy for print-on-demand (POD)—as opposed to on offset presses, estimates InterQuest, a market-research firm. Over the next five years, it predicts, this figure will increase to 15%. In 2008, the latest year for which data are available, about 285,000 titles were printed on demand or in short runs—132% more than in 2007 and for the first time more than in the conventional way. Amazon, the world’s biggest online bookseller, uses POD machines, although it does not reveal how often.

Keep reading at The Economist >>>

Higher education is an industry like any other. There is no sheltered ivory tower rising above real world financial pressure: it requires funding and responds to cycles of supply and demand. That’s where endowments come in. Often considered vital to the financial health of private colleges and universities, endowments provide necessary income for the yearly budget as well as a safety net of savings for a rainy day – for if, say, the economy falls into a recession. Why, then, are leading academic institutions hoarding their money while slashing faculty, financial aid, and programs?

On Inside Higher Ed, Burton A. Weisbrod and Evelyn D. Asch, co-authors of Mission and Money, ask just that. When rethinking college endowments, how much is enough?

——–

The cost of a college education is soaring. Meanwhile, colleges and universities with stratospheric endowments are husbanding their wealth. Why?

Endowments provide income for important spending each year. But they also are a college’s savings — their insurance for a rainy-day loss in revenue. With insurance, a college can sustain its programs even when bad times cause donations, tuition revenue, or government grants to shrink. Clearly, we have been having a very rainy day. Yet colleges and universities with the largest rainy day funds have been cutting expenditures rather than drawing down their endowments to continue their activities and fulfill their mission until the economy improves. To be sure, even the wealthiest universities can benefit from scrutinizing their budgets for waste, duplication or programs that didn’t work out, but the cuts we are seeing extend to limiting admission to doctoral programs, eliminating valuable education programs and laying off long-time, valued employees.

Many colleges, private and public, have little or no savings. A third of community colleges and 11 percent of four-year nonprofit and public colleges and universities, attended by 2.4 million students, have no endowment. When revenue falls, these schools have little alternative but to cut faculty, eliminate programs, furlough staff, shrink financial aid to needy students, and in other ways try to live within their means. But since those colleges never counted on their endowments for much revenue, they are not suffering as much from the lower endowment values.

Keep reading at Inside Higher Ed  >>>