{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02792207792207792, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003896103896103896, 'mean_word_length': 5.164, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Editors' Introduction: Getting the Profession We Want, or A Few Thoughts on the Crisis in Scholarly Publishing

The debate about what counts (or should count) as scholarly work is a subject that has become ever more fraught in the past several years. And nothing has brought it more to the fore than the current crisis in scholarly publishing. The most obvious case in point: Stephen Greenblatt’s letter to the membership of the Modern Language Association of 28 May 2002. In this letter (as many of our readers are undoubtedly aware) then-President Greenblatt, on behalf of the MLA Executive Council, pointed to “a serious problem in the publishing of scholarly books” and asked for the membership’s assistance. When the president of the MLA claims that the profession is in a crisis, one that affects the future of scholarship in the humanities and, consequently, the careers of “a generation of young scholars,” we take notice. As he explains, the situation is that most departments of language and literature require “a full-length scholarly book published by a reputable press” as a condition for tenure and promotion. However, due to the budget constraints that are everywhere constricting college and university funding, university presses are cutting back on the publication of such works, particularly in language and literature. In his letter, Greenblatt explores the systemic economic causes: “Responding to the pressure of shrinking budgets and of skyrocketing costs for medical, scientific, and technical journals, [university]