From: "rebgolomb" To: "Daniel Berry" Subject: Re: VERY VERY URGENT Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 13:40:54 -0500 We are pulling the article. -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Berry Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:42 PM To: pjgolomb@verizon.net ; HPerson@ccarnet.org ; MikeIsralewitz@aol.com ; kfeuerherm@wlu.ca ; dberry@uwaterloo.ca Subject: Re: VERY VERY URGENT >Dear Dan, Dear Paul.. thank you for your prompt reply. > We can pull the article if you wish. If I cannot proof read the current version and be assured that changes will be made, then we want the paper pulled. > This message is first I learned >that the submission was copyrighted. That information is not marked on the >copy I received. (You might remember that the paper had no title page or >names of authors. I found you and Karljuergen through Lori Cohen.) Clearly the paper that we submitted two years ago had no copyright, because by the journal's rule it had to be anonymized. However the final version we sent to you with our names on it HAD the copyright. See the attached first page of that version. Also, I reminded you of this in the cover letter that I sent with the marked up first galleys ============================= ** Because of all the changes and the possibility that they may not be clear, ** I want to see the corrected proof before giving approval and signing the ** copyright form. ============================= the "**" are in the message I sent you. I wanted to make sure that you saw it. > The >issue, however, seems to be in the assertion of the number of hits of the >term "be fruitful and multiply" achieved in a Google Search in April 2014. >Would you be amenable to having the date of the search changed to >"December, >2015" when Mike Isralewitz did the copy-editing? The issue is that you are not allowing me to proof read the revised paper to ensure that it has been corrected. Certainly one of the corrections I would insist on is a consistent resolution of the number-of-hits problem, but there are potentially others, which I can describe only after checking the revised paper. As for changing the date to December 2015, that is not satisfactory. That is not a full date as is April 14, 2014. I am willing to do the searches NOW and get a full date and to recalculate the ratio. There are two choices: 1. Allow us to check the revised version and possibly have more corrections, and I will do the searches again and give a full date in February 2016 and the correct ratios. And my turn around time will be as fast as before. 2. Pull the paper. It's your call. >l'Shalom, >Paul gam l'cha Dan >-----Original Message----- >From: Daniel M. Berry >Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:13 PM >To: pjgolomb@verizon.net >Cc: HPerson@ccarnet.org ; MikeIsralewitz@aol.com ; kfeuerherm@wlu.ca >Subject: VERY VERY URGENT Re: Try again RE: When will I be getting the >revised version of our paper so that I can check it? >Dear Rabbi Golomb; >Please note that we have NOT signed any agreement to transfer our >copyright in the article "Does God Command Birth Control?" to the >CCAR so that it can be published in the _Reform Jewish Quarterly_. >BY THIS MESSAGE, which we have cc'd to Mike Isralewitz, who is, we >believe, the copy editor, and to Rabbi Hara Person, the publisher >of the _Reform Jewish Quarterly_, we inform you that we DO NOT >transfer our copyright to the CCAR and we DO NOT give you permission >to publish this article. Please remove our article from the Spring >issue NOW. >Based on what you say, the article is going to be published with >an error that we tried our best to correct. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. >Sincerely >Daniel M. Berry >for himself and Karljuergen Feuerherm >=========Original Message============== >From: "rebgolomb" >To: "Daniel M. Berry" >Subject: Re: Try again RE: When will I be getting the revised version of >our >paper so that I can check it? >Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:27:42 -0500 >Dear Dan, > For efficiency sake, I take care of reviewing changes in galleys >following the authors' principal proofing. All of your suggested changes - >including addition of the graph - have been incorporated into the final >proof. The issue is now at the printer and should be distributed in April >at the latest. I do need, however, both your and Karljurgen's addresses so >that you can received complimentary copies. Thank you for contributing to >the Journal. >l'Shalom, >Paul >I do apologize for the issue of the Google search numbers to the extent >that >the final copy includes your search date. Neither of us know, however, >just >when the algorithm changed. If could well have been on April 15. Two >things remain indisputably true: the numbers in the final article comport >with current Google searches, and the force of the numbers remain >consistent >with the force of your argument. >-----Original Message----- >From: Daniel M. Berry >Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 7:17 PM >To: pjgolomb@verizon.net >Subject: Re: Try again RE: When will I be getting the revised version of >our >paper so that I can check it? >Paul.. >What's happening? Have you gotten the galleys back yet? >RE: the numbers.. >When I do the searches NOW, I get numbers that are similar to the numbers >that the copy editor got. However, that does not change the fact that on >the stated date of April 14, 2014, I got the numbers that we reported in >the paper. Google changes its search algorithm from time to time to make >it produce more precise answers (with fewer false positives). So it's quite >easy for there to be differences from 2014 to 2016. Changing the numbers as >the copy editor did means that the reported date has to be changed and >the percentage has to be changed.. >So no matter what, there WILL be more changes. >Do you have any idea when I will see the galleys? >Thank you >Dan >============================================== >I am still waiting for the galleys myself. Let me note, however, that I >did >the Google search and came up with the same numbers as the copy editor. I >do not doubt your experience, but the emended numbers are large enough to >make your point. >l'Shalom, >Paul >-----Original Message----- >From: Daniel M. Berry >Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 5:46 PM >To: pjgolomb@verizon.net >Subject: Try again RE: When will I be getting the revised version of our >paper so that I can check it? >Dear Paul.. >It's near the end of January, past the middle of January. When will I be >getting the revised version of our paper so that I can check whether the >corrections were done correctly? >Thank you >I hope that that where you live was not deluged by snow over the weekend.. >Dan >====================message accompanying the corrrected first galley====== >Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 14:11:07 -0500 (EST) >From: Daniel Berry >To: pjgolomb@verizon.net, dberry@uwaterloo.ca >Subject: RE: Final editing of your RJQ article >Paul >Shana Chadasha Smeicha >Please find attached the proof file you sent all marked up using Acrobat's >markup tools. Please pay attention to all the cross off and all the >inserts. I tried to explain each one with a yellow stickie. >This is what I did with the two previous articles I published with the >RJQ. I hope that it is still accepteable. If ANYTHING is not clear, please >holler. >I used acrobat's file comparison tool to find all differences between what >you sent me and what we sent you. >Please find attached a new version of the figure that is MISSING from the >article even though it is mentioned on Page 107 (12). Since your text does >not talk about "Figure 1", I removed the text "Figure 1". I also made all >the text in the figure bigger so that the figure can be scaled to be >smaller without losing legibility. This way the figure can be made to fit >in a page that also has some text below it >** Because of all the changes and the possibility that they may not be >clear, >** I want to see the corrected proof before giving approval and signing the >** copyright form. >Thank you, >Dan >============ >Dear Dan, >I am attaching the pdf of your and KarljurgenC"Bs article for the Spring >2016 issue of the RJQ. Since we are at the end of the process and a >thorough copy-editing has already been done, please check this galley >principally for typesetting errors. Hold off on any stylistic changes, >please, unless they are minor. Unless you are particularly good at >reading material on a screen, I suggest you print out a copy. You can >send to me the emendations in a return email. Just be specific about >both the change and location. (e.g. "Remove the comma after the word >'Israel' in the third sentence of the first full paragraph on page >36.") If you think a change will be too hard to list, don't hesitate >to contact me at 845-489-6294, so you can talk me through the problem. >I would like to hold to the publishing timetable, so please try to get >back to me with any changes (or ideally a note informing me that no >change is necessary) by the middle of January. I will need to hear >from every author before I can inform the printer (Publishing >Synthesis) of all the emendations. >Finally, be so kind as to confirm as soon as possible that you have >received the pdf of your article intact. Cyberspace can do weird >things. Be especially sensitive to the Hebrew, as words and letters >occasionally get switched around. >Thank you for your contribution and prompt response, and best wishes in >all your endeavors. >l'Shalom, Paul