- Email: [email protected]
Ben as APS Editor
ADVANCES IN ATOMIC, MOLECULAR AND OPTICAL PHYSICS, VOL. 51
BEN AS APS EDITOR BERND CRASEMANN Physics Department, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA
Ben Bederson served as Editor of Physical Review A (PRA) from 1978 until 1992, when he was appointed Editor-in-Chief of the American Physical Society (1992– 1996), to deal with problems of a generally different nature. I succeeded Ben as Editor of PRA and I still have that job. This sketch is intended to relate some of the highlights of Ben’s contributions as Editor and some personal impressions of his style and the impact he made on APS’ editorial procedures and guiding philosophy. Many colleagues kindly contributed vignettes from memory. Ben relates that his introduction to the Editorial Office started “with a bang”: The (then) Editor-in-Chief overruled the PRA Editor’s decision to reject a manuscript and had it reinstated. This incident led Ben immediately to start steps that would bring about greater accountability in the editorial process and lead to authors’ right to appeal editors’ decisions formally to an Editorial Board (which he created) for adjudication; a further appeal, regarding fairness of procedure only, could then be lodged with the Editor-in-Chief. Ben does not recall overruling editors as Editor-in-Chief at any time, “an affirmation that editors [are] generally fair and conscientious in exercising their authority”. The appeals recourse, probably unique among scientific journals, is praiseworthy for being very democratic. Yet, with the number of submissions to PRA having risen to some 3000 per year at present, appeals (often used by authors with little understanding of science) have become increasingly like the ring about the cormorant’s neck, taxing eminent Editorial Board members’ and overworked editors’ time to the limit. During a current reassessment of future plans for the Journal, modification of this provision may need to be addressed. The foregoing episode is an example of Ben’s attitude toward his editorial staff, authors and readers. The overriding aspect was his collegial approach, perhaps grounded in his long-time association with academia, as a member of the Physics faculty and, in 1986–1989, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of New York University. He trusted editors and staff and carefully listened to their advice on proposed changes of substance in Journal policy and operations. Twice 57
2005 Published by Elsevier Inc. ISSN 1049-250X DOI 10.1016/S1049-250X(05)51011-5
58
B. Crasemann
a year Editors Meetings were held, in which significant items were debated and often subjected to a vote by participants. This approach enhanced loyalty and dedication of the “A-Team”, whose members came to consider themselves participants in the noble aims of the Society. These aims were distilled in Article 2 of a Constitution drafted by a representative Council, soon after the founding of the APS in 1899: “The objective of the Society shall be the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics.” Implicit in this proclamation and an amendment added in 1971 is the volunteerism of the many persons engaged in carrying out and overseeing the Society’s tasks—a spirit that persists to this day, despite growth of the tasks. In the editorial milieu, this volunteerism has been a special boon as exercised beyond Editors and Staff by our referees, of whom now some 6000 lend advice every year to PRA editors. Ben’s years in the Editorial Office spanned a period of drastic changes, in spirit as well as in technology. Carol Kraner, who led the PRA in-house staff until her retirement in 1996, recalls: “When Ben was first appointed Editor of PRA, the editorial offices were located on the third floor of the Physics building at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The journals were able to use the mainframe computer of the Physics Department; in fact my first job was proofreading punch cards and then, if I was really lucky, I could take the trays of cards down to the computer room and try to run the job. This was done at the end of the work day and on several occasions the job wouldn’t run because of errors, which meant that the offending cards had to be routed out and corrected and then the job be taken down to be run again”. Continues Carol: “I mention this because one of Ben’s ideas when he first came was to give a more personal touch to communications with both authors and referees. Adding editorial notes to the computer-generated forms and letters wasn’t possible except for a few already programmed sentences. A battle ensued between secretarial services and Ben’s wishes. It was even suggested that he be “trained”. Of course that was impossible, so some letters and notes were hand-typed. The software to handle these requests was eventually developed, but not for a long time; the pressure was constant . . .” Ben’s personal touch extended not only to authors and referees, but also very much to Associate and Assistant Editors and Staff. Margaret Malloy, who succeeded Carol upon her retirement as in-house manager and has continued to be the guardian of the “A-Team” spirit, recalls: “Memorable, to me, was when I was teasing Ben (he had just taken over as Editor-in-Chief) about his ‘bonding’ with the Editorial Assistants and he asked what I thought he could do to ‘bond’ better. I teasingly told him that he could take us all out to eat at the Russian Tea Room. Well, he smiled and said: ‘I can do that’. True to his word, he invited the 20 of us to his apartment (Georgetown Plaza, overlooking the East River and the skyline) for drinks followed by a dinner at an elegant restaurant (the One Fifth Avenue, the
BEN AS APS EDITOR
59
Russian Tea Room being closed). This was on December 6, 1995. It was a memorable affair; I still have a picture, hanging on my office door, of Ben surrounded by the Assistants. It was taken that night in his apartment. We used to joke about playing duets together (we both play violin) . . .” Adds Carol to the theme: “We did manage to have fun together outside the job too. Henry Stroke may remember when we borrowed his bicycle one noon at NYU. With Ben, on his decrepit rusty bike which had only one pedal (but he could make it work), we rode to Chinatown for a dim sum lunch. And we managed to play tennis a few times, once on the roof of the athletics building at NYU and once or twice at meetings of the APS Division of Atomic and Molecular Physics (DAMOP). He was a pretty cagey player with a bagful of spins, slices, and drop shots that made me run a lot. Even as our friendship grew, however, our professional relationship stayed formal. It was really the challenge of editing that we loved and that remained the most important part of our relationship”. A reminiscence from Tom Miller, who worked at NYU at the time, further illustrates the toil exerted by editorial staff under circumstances that now appear quite primitive. “For the selection of referees, a computer database was not constructed until the early 80’s. Before, Ben used a private set of dog-eared 3 × 5-in. cards he leafed through . . .” [In fact, when I took over Ben’s job in 1992, I inherited a copy of this set which I still consult on occasion, largely for historical interest.] “The computer terminal that communicated with the Brookhaven office was in a supply closet in the [NYU] Graduate Dean’s (Ben’s) office, having something to do with phone lines and power. Once a day, you’d open the closet door, pull up a chair, assign referees, and deal with staff questions”. Interacting with referees is by no means dull. Tom recalls a referee report from J.S. Bell at Queen’s University in Belfast, whom Ben had asked to evaluate a manuscript that dealt with Bell’s Inequality. The review started off: “J.S. Bell would turn over in his grave if he were to see this paper”. When Physical Review celebrated its Centennial in 1993, Ben with characteristically stern conviction of the importance of referees’ anonymity, turned down a suggestion that he tell about this incident, saying “No, no, we can’t use a referee’s report”. (The statute of limitations may have expired by now.) Carol’s successor Margaret Malloy at times cheers up the Editorial Board at one of its staid meetings with passages from recent referee reports. Here are a few examples: From a PRB referee: “I cannot review this paper as it is wrong and I did it first”. Brute honesty: “This paper should be rejected for the following reasons: (1) No one cares about this anymore; (2) anyone who could referee it is probably dead; (3) all who read it will wish they were”. Team spirit: “I have downloaded the manuscript to review. However, it looks terribly familiar. In fact, I saw it the other night in bed. My husband (the delin-
60
B. Crasemann
quent reviewer) was reading it. Can I suggest that you let me apply some pressure to him to return a review, rather than have me begin reading this lengthy manuscript?” Many changes that came about during Ben’s dozen years at the helm, innovative at the time, have grown symbiotically into the modus operandi of the Editorial Office. From the time of his appointment in 1978, Ben was a “remote” editor, retaining his base at NYU while working closely with the journal editorial staff in Ridge, Long Island. The staff was headed by Carol Kraner, assisted by Margaret Malloy who rose to the position when Carol retired. Explains Ben, being a “remote” editor did not imply a lack of involvement, but indicated that I remained a faculty member at New York University and conducted editing business by mail, telephone and email, with virtually daily interaction with the staff, interspersed with occasional visits to Ridge. On the whole this system worked very smoothly, attributable in no small part to the skill and dedication of the Ridge editorial staff, although of course we had our occasional foul-ups, discontented authors and dilatory referees. These are problems which will never go away.” The “remote” approach in fact worked so well that I was appointed on a similar basis to succeed Ben, the distance from Oregon to Long Island being even greater than from Manhattan, the ease of communication leaping ahead with more sophisticated technology, and especially with the World-Wide Web coming into use. These advances and their application through Journal Information Systems Director Bob Kelly and his ingenious staff have led to a new age of editing. Long-time APS colleague Amy Halsted has illustrated this, citing a 1993 piece by Gary Taubes in Science (259, 1246) entitled “Publication by electronic mail takes physics by storm”. Completion of the “PRISM” code now allows APS editors and staff (and, to a limited extent, referees) to view manuscripts and related correspondence electronically—thus propelling us toward the long-time aim of a “paperless office”. The electronic approach has made it possible to engage six of the present seven PRA Associate Editors on a “remote” basis, as consultants, at considerable savings—except for Margaret Malloy, who had to remain in Ridge to coordinate the whole effort. Other APS journals benefit similarly. It also seems likely that this dispersal of editors keeps them closer to researchers and places where scientific frontiers are actually being expanded—an antidote against Ridge becoming an ivory tower! The move toward electronic communication, and especially to help get the journals and archives to appear online, is considered by Ben to have been “one of [his] proudest achievements, though hardly performed alone”. The earliest effort in this direction was unsuccessful: A major library journal distributor, OCLC, was hired to produce Physical Review Letters online. They soon reneged on the deal, however, after discovering that they “were not quite ready for prime time”. Fortunately, the American Institute of Physics rescued the process.
BEN AS APS EDITOR
61
Another advance, way overdue, was introduced in Ben’s second year on the job: a more logical division of subjects, followed by concomitant new titles and splitting of the Journal. Writes Ben: “When I first became Editor, Physical Review A had the subtitle ‘General Physics’. I never cared for this designation. It gave the impression of being a catch-all for anything that could not fit properly into a truly specialized journal, implying, it seemed, second-class status. In fact, the topics covered under the rubric ‘General Physics’ have turned out to be as lively, cutting-edge and stimulating as any other subfields of physics”. More realistic labeling and some redistribution of subjects led, in July 1990, to a split between Physical Review A, dealing with Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, and a new Physical Review E, now subtitled Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics. In a subsequent “very revolutionary action”, instituted in 1993, Ben’s first year as Editor-in-Chief, the covers of APS journals, previously referred to as ‘the Jolly Green Giant’ or more derogatorily as ‘the Green Monster’, were all changed, with each of the Physical Review journals given its own color. PRA became, and remains, silver. “An expected outcry against the violation of our glorious green tradition never materialized” states Ben. There were some dark periods. While the APS has never sued anybody, the Society since 1987 has had to defend itself in the courts in four cases, all connected with publishing. (A detailed account of these fascinating episodes is given by Harry Lustig in his splendid article on the history of the American Physical Society (see [4]). Two plaintiffs sued the Society for not publishing their work, one sought to punish APS for publishing an author’s work, and in one case a third party attempted to compel the Society to reveal the identity of a referee of a manuscript that was not accepted for publication. Ben and I became personally involved when the APS was accused of improperly refusing to publish a manuscript. Physical Review A had accepted an article by a University of Maryland research associate. When the author’s colleagues found out about it, through prepublication of the abstract, they complained that the work had in fact been done jointly with them and that publishing the article (a Brief Report) without recognition of them would be improper. The Journal decided to suspend publication unless and until the matter could be resolved. The author thereupon sued his collaborators and the APS, as well as Ben and me personally, for $1,000,000 each, claiming that the refusal by the Physical Review to proceed with the publication of his manuscript after he had received notification of its acceptance constituted a breach of contract. The APS responded that there was no contract, that the Physical Review’s letter of acceptance contained conditions that were never satisfied, and that even if the parties had created a contract, there was no breach because the journal had not refused to publish the manuscript. The court agreed and dismissed the case. The lead lawyer for the APS had been Richard Meserve, a physicist and Fellow of the APS who has successfully represented the Society in all of the cases
62
B. Crasemann
until 1999, when he was confirmed as head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ben was amused by the large sum for which we were being sued, purportedly because we had prevented the author’s receiving a Nobel Prize, and commented: “If a Brief Report is worth a million dollars, what would be the price of a Rapid Communication?” Another trying time took place when Ben became a party to a huge struggle over the issue of page charges, particularly in Physical Review D, which ultimately led the APS to eliminate all required page charges for all its journals except for Physical Review Letters. The highlights upon which we have touched made Ben’s career as Editor singularly fruitful in solid accomplishments and also, perhaps more importantly, in the subtle ways in which he set the tone, built up the morale and fostered the team spirit among editorial workers. States Carol Kraner: “I believe that Ben’s greatest contribution to the PR journals was that he never settled for the status quo but was always thinking of new ways to improve and enrich the editorial process. What comes through in my recollections is my great admiration for Ben’s breadth of thought and creativity as an editor as well as for the man himself”. Adds Margaret Malloy: “Ben always had a down-to-earth charm about him that was very endearing. He is a brilliant man who also has a great sense of humor”. Those of us who had the privilege of working with Ben cherish the memory of an inspiring and productive relationship, seasoned with mutual respect and devotion to the aims of the APS publishing enterprise. We are happy that Ben appears to have similar recollections when he writes, “My over 12 years involvement with the APS journals has become one of the most interesting and rewarding periods of my life”. The writer is much indebted to Ben Bederson for sharing his recollections from the period covered in this chapter [1]. Friends and colleagues have been generous in communicating relevant experiences and observations. Notably, recollections by Carol Kraner [2] and Margaret Malloy [3] have been refreshing. Harry Lustig’s carefully researched article on APS’ history has been an important resource on context and details of many events related here [4]. Tom Miller contributed valuable recollections from early days of Physical Review A editorial operations [5]. Amy Halsted kindly made her Master’s Thesis available in which she describes the decision-making process that ended up with the APS moving from New York to College Park, Maryland [6]; this contains much valuable background material. Numerous pleasant conversations with other friends at meetings, in the APS Editorial Office and, particularly, on the “A-Team” have helped to round out my own impressions of this fragment of APS publishing. Needless to say, the writer is responsible for any errors or omissions.
BEN AS APS EDITOR
63
References [1] [2] [3] [4]
B. Bederson, private communication. C. Kraner, private communication. M. Malloy, private communication. H. Lustig, To advance and diffuse the knowledge of physics: an account of the one-hundred-year history of the American Physical Society, Am. J. Phys. 68 (2000) 595. [5] T.M. Miller, private communication. [6] A. Halsted, “From Manhattan to Maryland—The American Physical Society and its Relocation”, Master Thesis, Baruch College of the City University of New York, 1993 (unpublished).
BEN AS APS EDITOR BERND CRASEMANN Physics Department, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA
Ben Bederson served as Editor of Physical Review A (PRA) from 1978 until 1992, when he was appointed Editor-in-Chief of the American Physical Society (1992– 1996), to deal with problems of a generally different nature. I succeeded Ben as Editor of PRA and I still have that job. This sketch is intended to relate some of the highlights of Ben’s contributions as Editor and some personal impressions of his style and the impact he made on APS’ editorial procedures and guiding philosophy. Many colleagues kindly contributed vignettes from memory. Ben relates that his introduction to the Editorial Office started “with a bang”: The (then) Editor-in-Chief overruled the PRA Editor’s decision to reject a manuscript and had it reinstated. This incident led Ben immediately to start steps that would bring about greater accountability in the editorial process and lead to authors’ right to appeal editors’ decisions formally to an Editorial Board (which he created) for adjudication; a further appeal, regarding fairness of procedure only, could then be lodged with the Editor-in-Chief. Ben does not recall overruling editors as Editor-in-Chief at any time, “an affirmation that editors [are] generally fair and conscientious in exercising their authority”. The appeals recourse, probably unique among scientific journals, is praiseworthy for being very democratic. Yet, with the number of submissions to PRA having risen to some 3000 per year at present, appeals (often used by authors with little understanding of science) have become increasingly like the ring about the cormorant’s neck, taxing eminent Editorial Board members’ and overworked editors’ time to the limit. During a current reassessment of future plans for the Journal, modification of this provision may need to be addressed. The foregoing episode is an example of Ben’s attitude toward his editorial staff, authors and readers. The overriding aspect was his collegial approach, perhaps grounded in his long-time association with academia, as a member of the Physics faculty and, in 1986–1989, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of New York University. He trusted editors and staff and carefully listened to their advice on proposed changes of substance in Journal policy and operations. Twice 57
2005 Published by Elsevier Inc. ISSN 1049-250X DOI 10.1016/S1049-250X(05)51011-5
58
B. Crasemann
a year Editors Meetings were held, in which significant items were debated and often subjected to a vote by participants. This approach enhanced loyalty and dedication of the “A-Team”, whose members came to consider themselves participants in the noble aims of the Society. These aims were distilled in Article 2 of a Constitution drafted by a representative Council, soon after the founding of the APS in 1899: “The objective of the Society shall be the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics.” Implicit in this proclamation and an amendment added in 1971 is the volunteerism of the many persons engaged in carrying out and overseeing the Society’s tasks—a spirit that persists to this day, despite growth of the tasks. In the editorial milieu, this volunteerism has been a special boon as exercised beyond Editors and Staff by our referees, of whom now some 6000 lend advice every year to PRA editors. Ben’s years in the Editorial Office spanned a period of drastic changes, in spirit as well as in technology. Carol Kraner, who led the PRA in-house staff until her retirement in 1996, recalls: “When Ben was first appointed Editor of PRA, the editorial offices were located on the third floor of the Physics building at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The journals were able to use the mainframe computer of the Physics Department; in fact my first job was proofreading punch cards and then, if I was really lucky, I could take the trays of cards down to the computer room and try to run the job. This was done at the end of the work day and on several occasions the job wouldn’t run because of errors, which meant that the offending cards had to be routed out and corrected and then the job be taken down to be run again”. Continues Carol: “I mention this because one of Ben’s ideas when he first came was to give a more personal touch to communications with both authors and referees. Adding editorial notes to the computer-generated forms and letters wasn’t possible except for a few already programmed sentences. A battle ensued between secretarial services and Ben’s wishes. It was even suggested that he be “trained”. Of course that was impossible, so some letters and notes were hand-typed. The software to handle these requests was eventually developed, but not for a long time; the pressure was constant . . .” Ben’s personal touch extended not only to authors and referees, but also very much to Associate and Assistant Editors and Staff. Margaret Malloy, who succeeded Carol upon her retirement as in-house manager and has continued to be the guardian of the “A-Team” spirit, recalls: “Memorable, to me, was when I was teasing Ben (he had just taken over as Editor-in-Chief) about his ‘bonding’ with the Editorial Assistants and he asked what I thought he could do to ‘bond’ better. I teasingly told him that he could take us all out to eat at the Russian Tea Room. Well, he smiled and said: ‘I can do that’. True to his word, he invited the 20 of us to his apartment (Georgetown Plaza, overlooking the East River and the skyline) for drinks followed by a dinner at an elegant restaurant (the One Fifth Avenue, the
BEN AS APS EDITOR
59
Russian Tea Room being closed). This was on December 6, 1995. It was a memorable affair; I still have a picture, hanging on my office door, of Ben surrounded by the Assistants. It was taken that night in his apartment. We used to joke about playing duets together (we both play violin) . . .” Adds Carol to the theme: “We did manage to have fun together outside the job too. Henry Stroke may remember when we borrowed his bicycle one noon at NYU. With Ben, on his decrepit rusty bike which had only one pedal (but he could make it work), we rode to Chinatown for a dim sum lunch. And we managed to play tennis a few times, once on the roof of the athletics building at NYU and once or twice at meetings of the APS Division of Atomic and Molecular Physics (DAMOP). He was a pretty cagey player with a bagful of spins, slices, and drop shots that made me run a lot. Even as our friendship grew, however, our professional relationship stayed formal. It was really the challenge of editing that we loved and that remained the most important part of our relationship”. A reminiscence from Tom Miller, who worked at NYU at the time, further illustrates the toil exerted by editorial staff under circumstances that now appear quite primitive. “For the selection of referees, a computer database was not constructed until the early 80’s. Before, Ben used a private set of dog-eared 3 × 5-in. cards he leafed through . . .” [In fact, when I took over Ben’s job in 1992, I inherited a copy of this set which I still consult on occasion, largely for historical interest.] “The computer terminal that communicated with the Brookhaven office was in a supply closet in the [NYU] Graduate Dean’s (Ben’s) office, having something to do with phone lines and power. Once a day, you’d open the closet door, pull up a chair, assign referees, and deal with staff questions”. Interacting with referees is by no means dull. Tom recalls a referee report from J.S. Bell at Queen’s University in Belfast, whom Ben had asked to evaluate a manuscript that dealt with Bell’s Inequality. The review started off: “J.S. Bell would turn over in his grave if he were to see this paper”. When Physical Review celebrated its Centennial in 1993, Ben with characteristically stern conviction of the importance of referees’ anonymity, turned down a suggestion that he tell about this incident, saying “No, no, we can’t use a referee’s report”. (The statute of limitations may have expired by now.) Carol’s successor Margaret Malloy at times cheers up the Editorial Board at one of its staid meetings with passages from recent referee reports. Here are a few examples: From a PRB referee: “I cannot review this paper as it is wrong and I did it first”. Brute honesty: “This paper should be rejected for the following reasons: (1) No one cares about this anymore; (2) anyone who could referee it is probably dead; (3) all who read it will wish they were”. Team spirit: “I have downloaded the manuscript to review. However, it looks terribly familiar. In fact, I saw it the other night in bed. My husband (the delin-
60
B. Crasemann
quent reviewer) was reading it. Can I suggest that you let me apply some pressure to him to return a review, rather than have me begin reading this lengthy manuscript?” Many changes that came about during Ben’s dozen years at the helm, innovative at the time, have grown symbiotically into the modus operandi of the Editorial Office. From the time of his appointment in 1978, Ben was a “remote” editor, retaining his base at NYU while working closely with the journal editorial staff in Ridge, Long Island. The staff was headed by Carol Kraner, assisted by Margaret Malloy who rose to the position when Carol retired. Explains Ben, being a “remote” editor did not imply a lack of involvement, but indicated that I remained a faculty member at New York University and conducted editing business by mail, telephone and email, with virtually daily interaction with the staff, interspersed with occasional visits to Ridge. On the whole this system worked very smoothly, attributable in no small part to the skill and dedication of the Ridge editorial staff, although of course we had our occasional foul-ups, discontented authors and dilatory referees. These are problems which will never go away.” The “remote” approach in fact worked so well that I was appointed on a similar basis to succeed Ben, the distance from Oregon to Long Island being even greater than from Manhattan, the ease of communication leaping ahead with more sophisticated technology, and especially with the World-Wide Web coming into use. These advances and their application through Journal Information Systems Director Bob Kelly and his ingenious staff have led to a new age of editing. Long-time APS colleague Amy Halsted has illustrated this, citing a 1993 piece by Gary Taubes in Science (259, 1246) entitled “Publication by electronic mail takes physics by storm”. Completion of the “PRISM” code now allows APS editors and staff (and, to a limited extent, referees) to view manuscripts and related correspondence electronically—thus propelling us toward the long-time aim of a “paperless office”. The electronic approach has made it possible to engage six of the present seven PRA Associate Editors on a “remote” basis, as consultants, at considerable savings—except for Margaret Malloy, who had to remain in Ridge to coordinate the whole effort. Other APS journals benefit similarly. It also seems likely that this dispersal of editors keeps them closer to researchers and places where scientific frontiers are actually being expanded—an antidote against Ridge becoming an ivory tower! The move toward electronic communication, and especially to help get the journals and archives to appear online, is considered by Ben to have been “one of [his] proudest achievements, though hardly performed alone”. The earliest effort in this direction was unsuccessful: A major library journal distributor, OCLC, was hired to produce Physical Review Letters online. They soon reneged on the deal, however, after discovering that they “were not quite ready for prime time”. Fortunately, the American Institute of Physics rescued the process.
BEN AS APS EDITOR
61
Another advance, way overdue, was introduced in Ben’s second year on the job: a more logical division of subjects, followed by concomitant new titles and splitting of the Journal. Writes Ben: “When I first became Editor, Physical Review A had the subtitle ‘General Physics’. I never cared for this designation. It gave the impression of being a catch-all for anything that could not fit properly into a truly specialized journal, implying, it seemed, second-class status. In fact, the topics covered under the rubric ‘General Physics’ have turned out to be as lively, cutting-edge and stimulating as any other subfields of physics”. More realistic labeling and some redistribution of subjects led, in July 1990, to a split between Physical Review A, dealing with Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, and a new Physical Review E, now subtitled Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics. In a subsequent “very revolutionary action”, instituted in 1993, Ben’s first year as Editor-in-Chief, the covers of APS journals, previously referred to as ‘the Jolly Green Giant’ or more derogatorily as ‘the Green Monster’, were all changed, with each of the Physical Review journals given its own color. PRA became, and remains, silver. “An expected outcry against the violation of our glorious green tradition never materialized” states Ben. There were some dark periods. While the APS has never sued anybody, the Society since 1987 has had to defend itself in the courts in four cases, all connected with publishing. (A detailed account of these fascinating episodes is given by Harry Lustig in his splendid article on the history of the American Physical Society (see [4]). Two plaintiffs sued the Society for not publishing their work, one sought to punish APS for publishing an author’s work, and in one case a third party attempted to compel the Society to reveal the identity of a referee of a manuscript that was not accepted for publication. Ben and I became personally involved when the APS was accused of improperly refusing to publish a manuscript. Physical Review A had accepted an article by a University of Maryland research associate. When the author’s colleagues found out about it, through prepublication of the abstract, they complained that the work had in fact been done jointly with them and that publishing the article (a Brief Report) without recognition of them would be improper. The Journal decided to suspend publication unless and until the matter could be resolved. The author thereupon sued his collaborators and the APS, as well as Ben and me personally, for $1,000,000 each, claiming that the refusal by the Physical Review to proceed with the publication of his manuscript after he had received notification of its acceptance constituted a breach of contract. The APS responded that there was no contract, that the Physical Review’s letter of acceptance contained conditions that were never satisfied, and that even if the parties had created a contract, there was no breach because the journal had not refused to publish the manuscript. The court agreed and dismissed the case. The lead lawyer for the APS had been Richard Meserve, a physicist and Fellow of the APS who has successfully represented the Society in all of the cases
62
B. Crasemann
until 1999, when he was confirmed as head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ben was amused by the large sum for which we were being sued, purportedly because we had prevented the author’s receiving a Nobel Prize, and commented: “If a Brief Report is worth a million dollars, what would be the price of a Rapid Communication?” Another trying time took place when Ben became a party to a huge struggle over the issue of page charges, particularly in Physical Review D, which ultimately led the APS to eliminate all required page charges for all its journals except for Physical Review Letters. The highlights upon which we have touched made Ben’s career as Editor singularly fruitful in solid accomplishments and also, perhaps more importantly, in the subtle ways in which he set the tone, built up the morale and fostered the team spirit among editorial workers. States Carol Kraner: “I believe that Ben’s greatest contribution to the PR journals was that he never settled for the status quo but was always thinking of new ways to improve and enrich the editorial process. What comes through in my recollections is my great admiration for Ben’s breadth of thought and creativity as an editor as well as for the man himself”. Adds Margaret Malloy: “Ben always had a down-to-earth charm about him that was very endearing. He is a brilliant man who also has a great sense of humor”. Those of us who had the privilege of working with Ben cherish the memory of an inspiring and productive relationship, seasoned with mutual respect and devotion to the aims of the APS publishing enterprise. We are happy that Ben appears to have similar recollections when he writes, “My over 12 years involvement with the APS journals has become one of the most interesting and rewarding periods of my life”. The writer is much indebted to Ben Bederson for sharing his recollections from the period covered in this chapter [1]. Friends and colleagues have been generous in communicating relevant experiences and observations. Notably, recollections by Carol Kraner [2] and Margaret Malloy [3] have been refreshing. Harry Lustig’s carefully researched article on APS’ history has been an important resource on context and details of many events related here [4]. Tom Miller contributed valuable recollections from early days of Physical Review A editorial operations [5]. Amy Halsted kindly made her Master’s Thesis available in which she describes the decision-making process that ended up with the APS moving from New York to College Park, Maryland [6]; this contains much valuable background material. Numerous pleasant conversations with other friends at meetings, in the APS Editorial Office and, particularly, on the “A-Team” have helped to round out my own impressions of this fragment of APS publishing. Needless to say, the writer is responsible for any errors or omissions.
BEN AS APS EDITOR
63
References [1] [2] [3] [4]
B. Bederson, private communication. C. Kraner, private communication. M. Malloy, private communication. H. Lustig, To advance and diffuse the knowledge of physics: an account of the one-hundred-year history of the American Physical Society, Am. J. Phys. 68 (2000) 595. [5] T.M. Miller, private communication. [6] A. Halsted, “From Manhattan to Maryland—The American Physical Society and its Relocation”, Master Thesis, Baruch College of the City University of New York, 1993 (unpublished).