On the road

As I've mentioned before, I'll soon be driving to Alaska to start my first post-MLIS job. That means very little blogging, here, for at least two weeks. (I'll try to blog every day or so at my blog about the move.) But if 1) I don't pull together the blog post summarizing my Pitt experience and 2) there's no great library-land drama that captures my imagination, I may not actually get around to posting again before I start work, the first full week of October. Then, I imagine, I'll have lots to say.

So, until I return, adieu.

Interviewing - Presentations

This is the fourth and final (unless I think of some genius thing while I'm on the road) installment of my Interviewing series. If you've missed the earlier parts, they discussed Cover Letters, Phone Interviews, and On-Site Interviews. Again--as is probably obvious by a whole post about the presentation--this is very academic-library-interview-focused. And, while I've interviewed people for hire in other fields, I've never been aught but the interviewee in academic library interviews, so I don't claim to know everything. My advice comes from my own experience, awesome mentor librarians' advice, and what I've read in other places (and tried to put into practice, myself). If you find any errors or have additional suggestions, please share what you know in the comments!

You'll be given a presentation topic shortly after you're invited to the on-site interview; in addition to, obviously, giving you a framework around which to design your presentation, this will also provide an excellent focus for your general interview research needs--for instance, has anyone at this institution written about this topic? How do they feel about it? More generally, what can you teach the library staff about this topic that not all of them will already know? Happily, it seems as though the "demonstrate a database use case" style of presentation has gone out of vogue. Presentation topics like "Suggest a technology we should consider using to enhance our Web presence," "Discuss emerging trends in [X area] in the 21st century," and "Prepare a learning module for students in [X class], that could plug in to Blackboard," seem to be more the norm. This is great news, because it leaves you room to show the audience something new--it doesn't have to be ground-breaking, but do try to make it worth their time to watch your talk. And do over-research your presentation topic; there will be 30 or more minutes for questions after your talk, and you'll want to be able to wow them with all the cool stuff you know.

In one case, I had to give a presentation near the end of the day; I admit, I wore myself out, a bit, with anticipation--also, a lot of my thunder was stolen in interviews earlier in the day, where I ended up talking about most of my main points, in part because they were relevant to the discussion and in part, no doubt, because they were on my mind. If this happens, roll with it; they understand. Still, when I have the power to decide candidates' interview schedules, I'm definitely scheduling all talks for first thing in the morning, both for the candidates' sakes and for the committees'.

Regardless of the timing, here are some things to consider:

• Roughly how many people, from what departments, will be attending? (Getting numbers is hard, but they should be able to tell you whether it's just librarians or whether other faculty are invited--audience is the biggest factor in deciding what to say, so this is important to know.)
• What kind of room is it? If you're teaching something, will everyone have a computer, to follow along? (Maps of the building are often helpful, but this is probably a fine question to ask, when your topic is sent to you, as well.)
• How long do they have set aside for the talk, versus the Q&A? (Your search committee should communicate this of their own accord, but it's worth some thought. For instance, if you want to touch on something but don't have time during the presentation, you can always give a teaser and invite the audience to ask later.)
• How long will you have to set up? (Your schedule will give some inkling of this.)

You can mitigate some unknowns by making sure to have your Powerpoint slides, should you choose to use them, in multiple places--your webmail, a USB key, maybe a backup version in Google docs. I've never done handouts; I give the audience a Web address they can go to, instead, but if you do, make sure you have enough. Some people don't even use Powerpoint for their presentation (*gasp*)! In one presentation, I worked from a Web page as my visual, with links for the audience to click on; I don't know if I can whole-heartedly suggest this for everyone, but it worked fine for me and felt more natural than the slide show format. Another cool thing you might want to consider, over Powerpoint, is something called Prezi, which is ... easier for you to go look at than for me to explain. It's very cool.

Some good advice a role model of mine once gave me: set up the presentation--slides, handouts, whatever--early (usually, this means skipping your scheduled pre-presentation break), and walk up and greet people as they enter. Shake their hands. Introduce yourself. Mingle. It leaves a good impression, which is nice, but it also humanizes your audience, which can really help with nerves.

And I feel like my advice from earlier is worth repeating in this context: these people want you to succeed, and they want to like you. The audience at your presentation will, most likely, be very well-disposed toward you; the search committee liked you enough to bring you in, right?, so you must be good. Besides, they've all had to go through this process themselves, some of them recently. They know you're nervous, and they're OK with it. Even if there are hostile-looking people in your audience (yes, it happens, but I suspect it's uncommon), there's going to be a friendly face or three; find them, and let them bolster your confidence. You know your topic. They are sympathetic. You'll be fine.

And be flexible about the Q&A time. Some of the questions I got were surprisingly wacky--it may just be that my talks have tended to focus on technology, either directly or tangentially, and I think some people find that off-putting. One person asked if I thought our eyes/brains will evolve to read computer screens better than paper--I'd been talking about ebook readers--and I was a little stunned. I just kind of had to think on my feet and give the best answer I could at the time. (In case you're curious, it was something along the lines of "No, I think screens will continue to evolve to look more like paper. Ebook readers already do. Eventually, so will laptop monitors." I stand by that, actually.) Some people can't attend other sessions and therefore use the Q&A session to find out about you, rather than your topic--one person pointed out something from my resume and asked for explanation of it. Some people will lob softball questions, and others will try to stretch you, to see what you do with something difficult. I don't think the latter is generally out of unfriendliness; it's just curiosity, and it's entirely appropriate, given all the kinds of questions patrons have. I felt, in the one Q&A session, like I was defending a proposal I had made to an attentive committee. And that made it kind of fun, honestly, because I got to play the part of salesperson and to really explain why my idea was a good one. It made for a nice dynamic.

If presentations aren't your thing, I suggest taking a course, joining ToastMasters, or otherwise finding a venue in which to practice. Maybe teach a course at your local library. I've definitely chilled out a lot, as far as giving presentations goes, over the last year, in part due to Pitt's course in Information Literacy and Library Instruction (I forget its proper name), and in part because I lucked into a few other talks. I still get nervous--if you don't, something's wrong--but as long as I know my topic and my audience, I no longer get physically shaky. If I got over my terrible presentation anxiety (or, well, most of it), I am confident that anyone can!

Thus ends this series. Let me know if there are other topics I should have addressed, or if you have any questions after reading this. ... I'm kind of excited to have it written, honestly, because I can go back, after my first couple of times working on a search committee, and see what interview behaviors have changed (because they will) and what I didn't address that I should have (hopefully nothing). In the meantime, I really hope it is helpful to library students and new librarians!

Interviewing - On-site

This is the third part of the series I'm writing about interviewing. The first was Interviewing - Cover Letter, and the second was Interviewing - Phone Interview. As I said in the other two topics, I'm not an expert, but I'd like to share what I know, gleaned from my own experience, stories and advice of mentor-librarians, blogs and articles I read before I went interviewing, and things I know from having interviewed people in the business/engineering world. As always, if you have quibbles, let's quibble them out in the comments. :)

The first thing that really distinguishes the on-site interview is that it's exhausting. Seriously. I've only done one-day on-site interviews, but I've heard tales of two-day marathons. I can only imagine how those must be. Regardless, do not schedule anything for the day after your on-site interview. At least, not anything really important (like another interview). I slept through almost a full day after mine. (I also caught a cold on the plane each time, so there you go.)

Sometimes, they'll give you a day to see the town/city, as well as the day(s) of interviewing. Sometimes, they won't. If you've got the time, definitely take advantage of it to look around, and prepare ahead of time for that, as well--one day to determine whether or not you'd like to live someplace? That's a tight schedule. So pick and choose what interests you ahead of time. Travel guides for most states, if you're in the US, should be available at your local library, or via ILL. Also, Wikitravel can be your friend.

Back to the business of it, though. The presentation is arguably the cornerstone of the day. (Maybe I just think so because that's the part I'm most nervous about and the part that takes the longest preparation time. But it's also the only time some of the library staff will have to meet you, which definitely adds to its importance.) I have quite a lot to say about presentations, though, so I'm going to save all of that for the final post of this series.

The same advice about doing lots of research--even more than you did in preparing for your phone interview--goes, here. Hopefully you found out things during the phone interview--and took notes, so you can look them back up--that will help you dig deeper and get better information. See what kinds of things your committee has written about, either by finding their CVs or by doing a search in Web of Science or other citation tool (even Google Scholar might do). Find their blogs, if they have them. Go through the same process as you did for the phone interview, but dig deeper. If you can avoid being surprised, do.

The interviewing day, aside from the presentation, feels like an exercise in endurance. There will always be several interviews, with several different groups, though the exact structure is different between institutions. You will be asked certain questions multiple times, sometimes with a few of the same people in the room for both. (If I had a nickel for every time someone asked "Why did you switch from engineering to librarianship?"... :)) I had something like three meetings with different iterations of my search committee, plus one with my would-be work unit (this could be reference, instruction, systems, cataloging, collection development, or liaison librarians--any group with job functions similar to the one you're interviewing for) and one with some administrator-level folks, at one interview; at another, I had a meeting with "whoever wants to come," a meeting with my search committee, a meeting with my would-be work unit, and a meeting with the dean.

There's usually a meeting with an HR person--they just want to tell you about benefits. Don't be unprofessional, but this is a low-pressure thing; they aren't interviewing you, just informing you. Note from the recently-employed: you should probably pay attention; I was too jittery to really take in much of the HR talk when I was interviewing for the job I eventually got, and I regret that. There's also usually a lunch--sometimes a lunch and dinner--with some potential future coworkers, and this tends to be more casual and fun; again, don't go crazy unprofessional, but it's not really an interview, either. You can get some fantastic off-the-record information at these lunches, which is nice, and, yes, they'll get some off-the-record information about you, too. It's a good time to find out how much you'll really enjoy working with these people. And don't kid yourself: you're interviewing them (and, thus, they are trying to impress you), too.

I don't know how true this is, but someone told me that the in-person interview is just about "fit"--would you and these people make good coworkers?--because the competencies and such have all been covered in the CV, calls to references, and phone interview. They already believe that you're capable of doing the job; they want to see if they want to work with you. ... Like I said, I don't know how true it is, but I thought I'd throw it out there. I did get a fairly high number of "technical" (that is, knowledge-of-librarianship and knowledge-of-technology) questions at one interview and very few at another, so maybe it depends on the institution. Be ready for either. Your committee could be convinced, but other librarians might need the assurance of asking you things themselves, as well.

And have a whole slew of questions ready. It's going to happen, no matter how many you prepare, but it's tough to say "Actually, all of my questions have been answered." It's tougher before noon, I bet. Maybe have some questions like "What is your favorite thing about working here?" or "What do you see as the challenges facing this position?" so that you can reuse them on new people you meet. And--this is key--don't just ask about benefits, parking, and the like; ask about the position and its responsibilities, about your coworkers' positions, about relationships between departments, etc. It annoys interviewers when all of your questions seem too shallow, and benefits questions all go to HR, anyway.

And, if you can, have fun. It's OK to make your interviewers smile. It's definitely OK to smile, yourself--one librarian I know says that's all she looks for in an interview: do they smile? This is about finding a match between yourself and a workplace, something neither side can do if there isn't at least a little of your and your interviewers' real personalities on display.

Interviewing - Phone Interviews

As I said in the last post, this was written while I was still interviewing. It's fairly academic library-centric, though there's advice here that should be more widely applicable, as well. I'm not an expert, but I hope people find this helpful.

I was surprised to learn that the first place to give me a phone interview actually only called six people. Somehow, I had been led to believe phone interviews were easier to get. It heartened me, not just to get one, but to realize that maybe other places, who had opted not to call, had been similarly selective. Some places have called larger numbers of applicants, but the phone interview pool has always (when they've told me the number) been reasonably small. I suppose this makes sense: the committee is made up of busy librarians.

I was also surprised that the entire committee was on the other end of the line. I'm not sure why, but I had been under the impression that the committee broke up the phone interviews, with standardized questions (that second part is true; they do have standardized questions that they ask all candidates), and reconvened to argue the case for or against any given candidate. But they were all there. That's fairer, but maybe a bit more intimidating. And it's been that way for every phone interview I've had, though some were conference calls between multiple lines and others were me on my cell on one end and a room full of people on a speakerphone on the other. Multiple lines means less worry that the committee is staring at one another in horror at your replies, though the pauses are awkward, regardless of the setup.

I hate to harp on advice everyone else gives, but do take the time to learn a little about the institution--by which I mean the college/university and the library itself. Having had some good, some bad, and one really wretched phone interview, at the time of this paragraph's writing, I can tell you, that makes a big difference. The ability to say "I see your institution is heavily into research," or "I see the institution is trying to meet X goal by Y year," impresses the committee. Having to ask, "What percentage of your students do X thing?" does not impress. Check their Carnegie classification for some good demographic information. Look for meeting minutes, to see what's on the library staff members' minds right now. Look for policy documents, so you can talk intelligently about tenure or lack thereof. Google the search committee, if you know their names--you can be sure they're Googling you. And use what you find to make good, in-depth questions for the committee, about the position, the institution, relationships between the library and stakeholders--whatever the data leads you to wonder.

One other thing that surprised me--like the two surprise points above, maybe it shouldn't have?--was the depth of the questions. They weren't so much "What are your strengths and weaknesses?" as "What is your philosophy on collection development?" "What tools would you need to do this job?" "Can you list a time when you managed a project/worked in a group/wrote a grant proposal/..., and how did it go? What did you learn from it?" (OK, I expected that third one.) But knowing about the institution isn't enough--you should have a really clear idea of exactly what the job would entail. Pump your network for information, if you know people who have similar jobs. If you don't have experience in one area of the job, find out enough to be able to discuss that area comfortably; it's OK to say "I haven't worked in that directly, but here's what I know...". Sometimes there are only six or seven questions, so you want to be sure you have something to give the committee for everything they might ask. The questions are direct and hard and surprisingly in-depth, in most phone interviews, so know your stuff.

Along those lines, knowing how long to go on with an answer is tricky. Try to answer thoroughly, but succinctly--you know, even to me, that advice sounds useless. Here's the thing, though: your goal is to demonstrate that you are knowledgeable, that you have thought about the topic, etc. But you need to give the committee room to say "That's a good answer. Next question." It's a tough balance. Honestly, I'm not sure I do it all that well--I try to make up for it by pausing and sometimes even asking for feedback. "Am I going down the right route, here, or did you mean the question in a different way?" "I can go into this further, if you're interested." Stuff like that. I imagine it's a skill one develops with practice.

Another bit of advice others will give you, but it bears repeating: set aside a quiet time and space, when you can really concentrate, to have the interview. In the case of my really desperately flubbed interview, I talked to them at 9am the day after flying back from an in-person interview--terrible idea. I was exhausted, I wasn't in the right frame of mind, I had skimped on research, and I wasn't focused enough on the mindset of their institution. (Admittedly, I learned on that call that the environment would not have been a great fit for me, anyway, but it was still embarrassing.) I have had both good and bad interviews on my mobile phone--one, which led to an engineering job, was done while I was stuck standing in a parking lot--but in general, I'm a big fan of having a landline connection, if you can get it, for interviewing. The sound quality of cell phones just isn't great. Also, don't pace around the house; sit at a desk. Do remove distractions: close instant messengers and Twitter, and keep friends, roommates, coworkers, and pets out of the room.

This is going to sound silly, but don't interview in your pajamas. Seriously, it wrecks your mental state. Dress nicely, so that you are confident, even though they can't see you.

Do not bring up other interviews, or the job search at large. This probably seems obvious, because it is. Nonetheless, during the Debacle Interview, I busted out with the genius line "I don't normally apply for X-type positions, but this one was interesting to me because of Y." I mean, yes, that was honest, but it was a stupid thing to say--less stupid, given that I was trying to express how awesome Y was, but it was still not the right thing to have said. It clearly put up a red flag; one committee member asked, somewhat tensely, "If you aren't interested in those positions, what positions do you usually apply for?" I immediately realized that the interview was, for all intents and purposes, over. So, you know, please, learn from my mistake.

If you can take notes without overly distracting yourself, do. If you can't, set aside some time after the call to write down at least the answers to the questions you asked, but really any pertinent information and impressions you get. If you get the in-person interview and haven't taken this step, trust me, you will regret it. Also, consider emailing a quick "Thank you for your time; I really enjoyed talking about X," sort of message to the chair of the committee. That sort of thing is definitely appreciated in library-land, as long as you keep down the self promotion. That is, it's OK to reiterate interest in the position (if it's true), but the thank-you note isn't the time to convince them of how awesome you are.

Other than this general advice--be prepared, avoid distractions, be sitting by the phone 5 minutes before the scheduled time, have questions for them, make sure the phone is charged--the only other advice I have is to realize that phone interviews are hard for everyone, interviewer and interviewee alike. And interviewers know this. They've been in your shoes, some of them more recently than you'd guess. Be professional, but also be yourself; the people on the other end of the phone want you to succeed; they want to like you; let them.

Interviewing - Cover Letters

This set of posts (there will be a whole series--at least three, though I'm thinking of splitting it out further) was written while I was applying and interviewing for positions. It seemed gauche and unwise to post information about my interviewing experiences and lessons learned, even as I was learning them, but I feel like it's probably reasonable to share now. Better to share than not, right? I wouldn't have bothered writing it up if I didn't think I had potentially beneficial advice to share, and, having been on the other side of the table, albeit in an entirely different field, I feel like I bring a different perspective to the discussion. Argue with me in the comments if you think I'm off base. :) But I hope this helps somebody.

Advice for any former engineers, consultants, or business people: librarians seem to take cover letters really seriously. I felt some culture shock at this revelation--I mean, I more or less believed the people who said so and really tried to do a good job on mine, but I've definitely had to learn the cover letter writing skill from scratch. I know when I was applying to engineering jobs, I always included one as a courtesy (so they could data-mine it and determine the best place to advertise positions, mostly), with proper grammar and everything, but I didn't expect it to be read by the hiring manager. When I was interviewing candidates for consulting jobs, there were rarely cover letters, and when they existed, I usually ignored them; they all said the same thing, anyway.

The library world isn't like that. I didn't get calls back on my first few applications, but, although I've changed very little in my vitae or references, I am getting some calls, now (not for every application--I'm no rockstar--but for an acceptable number of them, something I'll get back to momentarily); the only thing that's really changed/improved is my cover letter phrasing. Although I still try to address the bulk of the job requirements, I have definitely shortened it, on average, and gotten to the point much faster. In responding to the job advertisements with long lists of requirements, I still have a long letter, but I try to address multiple requirements in a single sentence, where I can. I do my best to find the one thing I can say, related to the job, that will most impress them or catch their eye, even if it means not addressing one of the less meaningful requirements (bad example: "If you like this letter, clearly I can communicate well in writing"). If I have a punchy one-line anecdote that sounds awesome, it goes in. "I wrote a paper on [a relevant topic], which I am considering submitting for publication," was one pretty successful statement--it told them, immediately, that I have ambition and that I know--or think I know--a fair bit about the topic at hand.

I say "my cover letter," but, although it follows the same general form, it is very different for each job I apply to. I reuse a little bit, job to job, especially in jobs that are similar--all the techy ones have similar requirements, all the referency ones have similar requirements, etc.--but I end up writing a fair bit from scratch, as well.

I have a really important piece of advice, here, which I think is the key to my not having received a truly demoralizing number* of pre-phone-interview rejections. I don't know whether this advice seems obvious or absurd to the general reader, but I stand by it: Don't apply to a job that you can't get excited about. I know we all have bills to pay, but if you aren't psyched about a job--if you know you'll hate the location, or it's not the kind of librarianship you want to go into--writing the cover letter is even harder. And even if you somehow manage to cobble together a good cover letter, the lack of enthusiasm will catch up with you on the phone interview. Interviewers know. And for every person who "just wants a job," there are so many who really want this job. Besides, having been through the interview process, I can tell you that the research you end up having to do and the time you end up having to put into each phone interview--let alone an in-person interview--is significant. If you aren't excited, the preparations will be torture.

The other important (and hopefully obvious) advice I have is to have someone look at your cover letter and CV. Mine went through several revisions, with the help of several kind and generous people. Each time, it came out better. If you don't know any librarians (ideally with hiring experience) whom you'd be comfortable asking, your school probably has an alumni group, and, definitely, the New Members' Round Table of ALA has a fantastic resume review service--I suspect they can be talked into looking at cover letters, as well.

*This is two-sided, right? I'm also sending out significantly fewer applications than most people I know, so there are also fewer rejections to receive.

(The next post is about Phone Interviews.)

Book Carts

I never really talked about Book Cart Drill Team, after ALA, did I? Truth be told, I was tired of all things Elvis and Book Cart. But we did win 3rd place, and that's something. Here's the video of our ALA performance:

Where is the outrage?

There was a tiny bit of hue and cry about the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, back when its shady underpinnings were exposed (early May of this year). Fingers were shaken in the general direction of Merck and Elsevier. We were later told that, OK, yes, Elsevier had actually published six of these "sponsored journals," all through one division, which was later closed down, but we shouldn't worry: the people responsible—whom, no, Elsevier wouldn't name—no longer worked with the company.

Only, actually, we came to find out even later (moving into June, at this point) that there were nine of these journals. Now, maybe I don't read enough library blogs—and I admit, STEM librarians are surprisingly underrepresented in my blogroll—but the outcry wasn't exactly deafening. I brought up this whole debacle in a talk to a room full of librarians in late May—after the "six journals" story had broken, but before we knew there were nine—and maybe half of them even knew what I was talking about. The Progressive Librarians Guild had issued a statement (also before my talk), but I didn't see it get much press, either.

We library types went to SLA Annual and ALA Annual and any number of other conferences this summer, and we blithely let Elsevier wine us and dine us, some out of ignorance (because those of us who knew didn't speak up loudly enough) and others out of ... apathy? fear? who can say?—I'm not proud to admit it, but, even knowing all this, I went to the Spy Museum on their dime and didn't once mention this whole controversy to any of their representatives. I do not mean to suggest that I think haranguing sales reps is the right route, but, clearly, neither is silence. I feel like I failed in my handling of this issue, and, if that is the case, I'm clearly not alone.

But it was over. Old news. What was I going to do, insist that academic and medical libraries all over the world boycott the largest STEM publisher—and Elsevier is almost three times larger than its nearest competitor in this market—based on one division full of bad eggs they claim to have let go four years ago? By myself, as a new librarian? It was over, I'd missed the boat, I'd screwed up, and, with any luck, Elsevier had learned from the Vioxx mess and truly cleaned up their act. Mostly. (They were trying to bribe their way into good textbook reviews on Barnes & Noble and Amazon. But they quickly stopped.)

Imagine my shock, though, when I saw this little gem (via Slashdot) crossing my RSS reader. "Shady dealings in medical journals?" I thought to myself. "Surely, this can't be yet another Elsevierian debacle?" But, indeed, it was. This time, instead of Merck shilling Vioxx by means of a fake medical journal, it was ghost writers playing up the benefits of hormone therapy on behalf of Wyeth in 26 articles, all published by Elsevier. Again, this was a few years ago, so maybe it goes under the pass they clearly got for the division creating the nine fake journals? On the other hand, it's not clear that this set of errors came out of that now-defunct division, is it? This could be an indicator of a systemic problem within Elsevier. And I do not believe it has been adequately addressed.

We could talk about the people hurt by Vioxx and hormone therapy and how the medical process was damaged, here, and what Elsevier's responsibility might be. I think somebody should. But I don't know that much about medicine, so I'm going to talk about the scientific record, a little bit. That's something I do know a thing or two about.

Let's go back to the Australasian journals. Just looking at the first six anyone found out about, and just looking at Google Scholar for a few minutes, I found that there was a citation trail. Let me show you:


I had no choice but to look at Google Scholar, in finding this out. These journals had all been expunged from Web of Science and other authoritative sources. Which seems to be, if not actively helping Elsevier push this under the rug, at least failing to make clear to researchers and librarians that these are tainted sources. It's deceptive. There should be a "retracted" flag in Web of Science and Ulrich's. Scholars, librarians, and scholar-librarians should be pushing—hard—for this.

What my Google Scholar findings really tell me is that there has been damage done to the scientific record—how many of those citations used "facts" from the original sponsored journal is hard to say, but the fact that the citation tree goes so deep is pretty disturbing, nonetheless. We trusted Elsevier, and our patrons continue to trust us. We owe it to them to force Elsevier to earn back that trust. We need to demand—and make sure they deliver—transparency in their operations. But how? Do we threaten a boycott? In these financial times, we have to cut somewhere—perhaps a policy to cut Elsevier titles/bundles before others would not be so very hard to implement. (I realize this has further implications for our patrons. I'm brainstorming, here, not making demands. But do give this some thought before dismissing it outright, eh?) Do we keep them out of our conferences, for the time being? What can we do? Because it's clear to me that we need to do something, or we will just see more of these stories popping up. We can't write them off as "old news," given how recently they came to light, or we'll see similar "old news" four years from now—and when that happens will we just keep making excuses for Elsevier, because it is convenient?