S&P acquired by LSA

We are excited to share good news about the future of S&P. We have been working with the LSA on moving S&P out of its current incubating stage to the next level with fuller support. This morning, the LSA Executive Committee unanimously approved an agreement to that effect.

As of today, S&P is a full-fledged LSA journal, alongside Language but independent of it. The LSA will join MIT and the University of Texas in providing financial support to the journal. In return, S&P is to become a journal owned by the LSA and titled “Semantics and Pragmatics” with the subtitle “A Journal of the Linguistic Society of America”.

The day-to-day operations of the journal will not change. The current editorial team will stay in place. The policies and procedures, including the open access nature of the journal, will remain as they are. Big decisions will be made cooperatively by the LSA Executive Committee, the editors, and the S&P advisory committee.

Both the LSA and the S&P team are excited about this partnership. Open access is the future of scholarly communication and we intend to work together to make S&P the best journal in its field and a model for our discipline and others.

An S&P underground classic

Semantics & Pragmatics today published an underground classic, Craige Roberts’ famous paper “Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics”, which had previously been published in a volume of OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, and then circulated in a slighly edited manuscript form, but was never officially published. With the help of Anders Schoubye, Chris Brown, and Justin Cope, the old manuscript was transformed into LaTeX and formatted for the S&P stylesheet. Craige wrote a new afterword and prepared an annotated bibliography, which is linked from the afterword. We’re proud to be able to make this classic paper and the supplementary material available in an official publication.

Reissuing underground classics is a worthwhile undertaking, we believe. Some famous examples are David Kaplan’s “Demonstratives” published in Themes from Kaplan, Kripke on presupposition published in Linguistic Inquiry, and in a sense also Grice’s William James Lectures. There was also volume 7 of the series “Syntax and Semantics” entitled “Notes from the linguistic underground” (edited by Jim McCawley in 1976), featuring famous papers such as Karttunen’s “Discourse referents” and gems like “Why you can’t do so into the sink” by Lakoff & Ross. So, we are continuing a respectable tradition.

Question for our audience: which other underground classics in semantics and pragmatics should S&P consider publishing? You can email us at editors@semprag.org, comment on our Facebook page or our Google+ page, tweet (cc’ing @semprag), or leave a comment below.

Citation Impact 2008-2010

We were curious to see how S&P is doing as far as the impact of published articles on the field is concerned. Below we have compiled a list of all articles published in the four main semantics journals (Linguistics & Philosophy, Natural Language Semantics, Journal of Semantics, Semantics & Pragmatics) since 2008 (the year of S&P’s first published article) that have received 10 citations or more according to Google Scholar. There are not yet any articles published in 2011 on that list. So, let’s focus on the cohort of articles published between 2008 and 2010. The four journals combined published 141 main research articles in that time frame. 54 of those (= 38%) have received 10 or more citations. S&P published fewer articles than the other three journals (11 in fact: 1 in 2008, 3 in 2009, 7 in 2010), since we’re still ramping up the quantity of publications. But S&P already has an outsized share of the top impact articles: we have 5 articles in the Top 20, and an overall rate of 64% of our articles have already received 10 or more citations.

By all accounts then, S&P’s first three years were a resounding success quality-wise. Now, we’ll be working on increasing our quantitive share of the semantics market while not decreasing our quality share. You can help: submit your best work to S&P. You will receive top-notch and fast peer-reviewing and editorial feedback and fast time-to-print. Plus, your work will be openly accessible to anyone with access to an internet connection, rather than being locked behind prohibitive subscription barriers.

[There are other things to notice, such as the domination in the upper range of articles by NLS, distancing the two older journals JoS and, especially, L&P.]

  1. [54 citations] Kehler, Kertz, Rohde et al. – JoS 2008. Coherence and coreference revisited
  2. [53 citations] Hackl – NLS 2009. On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: most versus more than half
  3. [48 citations] Chemla – NLS 2009. Presuppositions of quantified sentences: experimental data
  4. [42 citations] Schlenker – S&P 2009. Local contexts
  5. [37 citations] Rothstein – JoS 2010. Counting and the mass/count distinction
  6. [32 citations] Wilhelm – NLS 2008. Bare nouns and number in Dëne Sųłiné
  7. [31 citations] Barker, Shan – S&P 2008. Donkey anaphora is in-scope binding
  8. [28 citations] Geurts, Pouscoulous – S&P 2009. Embedded implicatures
  9. [28 citations] Breheny – JoS 2008. A new look at the semantics and pragmatics of numerically quantified noun phrases
  10. [27 citations] von Fintel, Gillies – NLS 2010. Must… stay… strong!
  11. [27 citations] Rullmann, Matthewson et al. – NLS 2008. Modals as distributive indefinites
  12. [27 citations] Magri – NLS 2009. A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures
  13. [24 citations] Elbourne – L&P 2008. Demonstratives as individual concepts
  14. [22 citations] Chemla – S&P 2009. Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data
  15. [21 citations] Matushansky – L&P 2008. On the linguistic complexity of proper names
  16. [21 citations] Farkas, Bruce – JoS 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions
  17. [21 citations] Alonso-Ovalle, Menendez-Benito – NLS 2010. Modal indefinites
  18. [21 citations] Bale – L&P 2008. A universal scale of comparison
  19. [20 citations] Nouwen – S&P 2010. Two kinds of modified numerals
  20. [20 citations] Singh – L&P 2008. On the interpretation of disjunction: Asymmetric, incremental, and eager for inconsistency
  21. [19 citations] Kissine – NLS 2008. Why will is not a modal
  22. [18 citations] Gualmini, Hulsey, Hacquard et al. – NLS 2008. The Question–Answer Requirement for scope assignment
  23. [18 citations] Harris et al. – L&P 2009. Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives
  24. [17 citations] Abusch – JoS 2010. Presupposition triggering from alternatives
  25. [17 citations] Ippolito – JoS 2008. On the meaning of only
  26. [17 citations] Hacquard – L&P 2009. On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries
  27. [17 citations] Morzycki – NLS 2009. Degree modification of gradable nouns: size adjectives and adnominal degree morphemes
  28. [17 citations] Lascarides et al. – JoS 2009. Agreement, disputes and commitments in dialogue
  29. [16 citations] Bale et al. – JoS 2009. The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction
  30. [16 citations] Gillies – S&P 2010. Iffiness
  31. [16 citations] Brasoveanu – L&P 2008. Donkey pluralities: plural information states versus non-atomic individuals
  32. [16 citations] Moltmann – L&P 2009. Degree structure as trope structure: a trope-based analysis of positive and comparative adjectives
  33. [15 citations] Villalta – L&P 2008. Mood and gradability: an investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish
  34. [15 citations] Syrett, Kennedy et al. – JoS 2010. Meaning and context in children’s understanding of gradable adjectives
  35. [15 citations] Lascarides et al. – JoS 2009. A formal semantic analysis of gesture
  36. [14 citations] Arregui – L&P 2009. On similarity in counterfactuals
  37. [14 citations] Chemla – JoS 2008. An epistemic step for anti-presuppositions
  38. [13 citations] Abbott – L&P 2008. Presuppositions and common ground
  39. [13 citations] Hacquard – NLS 2010. On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries
  40. [13 citations] Chaves – L&P 2008. Linearization-based word-part ellipsis
  41. [13 citations] Moltmann – NLS 2008. Intensional verbs and their intentional objects
  42. [12 citations] Koenig, Mauner, Bienvenue et al. – JoS 2008. What with? The anatomy of a (proto)-role
  43. [12 citations] Nicolas – L&P 2008. Mass nouns and plural logic
  44. [12 citations] Dekker – L&P 2008. A multi-dimensional treatment of quantification in extraordinary English
  45. [11 citations] Nouwen – NLS 2008. Upper-bounded no more: the exhaustive interpretation of non-strict comparison
  46. [11 citations] Sharvit – L&P 2008. The puzzle of free indirect discourse
  47. [11 citations] Gualmini et al. – JoS 2009. Solving learnability problems in the acquisition of semantics
  48. [11 citations] Brasoveanu – JoS 2010. Decomposing modal quantification
  49. [11 citations] Davis – JoS 2009. Decisions, dynamics and the Japanese particle yo
  50. [11 citations] Lin – NLS 2009. Chinese comparatives and their implicational parameters
  51. [10 citations] Martí – NLS 2008. The semantics of plural indefinite noun phrases in Spanish and Portuguese
  52. [10 citations] Beck – S&P 2010. Quantifiers in than-clauses
  53. [10 citations] Zweig – L&P 2009. Number-neutral bare plurals and the multiplicity implicature
  54. [10 citations] Francez – L&P 2009. Existentials, predication, and modification

[NB: data from February 5, 2012]

Total papers published by the four journals 2008–2010: 141
54 have received 10 citations or more (54/141 = 38%)

Share of the Top 54:

JoS: 15 papers (of 41 published 2008–2010) = 15/41 = 37%
L&P: 17 papers (of 55 published 2008–2010) = 17/55 = 31%
NLS: 15 papers (of 34 published 2008–2010) = 15/34 = 44%
S&P: 7 papers (of 11 published 2008–2010) = 7/11 = 64%

S&P backend offline for upgrade

We are upgrading our backend to a new version of the Open Journal Systems software that is running the journal’s operations. During this period, we have switched to a minimal static homepage, from which all published articles are still accessible. If you have any time-critical business with the journal, send us an email. We hope to be fully back by the end of the day.

S&P Year-End Stats

Time for a year-end statistical rundown on how S&P is faring.

In 2011, we published 5 main articles and 3 short articles for a total of 331 pages.

The submission rate has almost doubled since 2010. We are very lucky to now have 6 associated editors working hard alongside David and Kai. We received 43 new submissions in 2011, of which we published 5 (three of the articles published in 2011 were originally submitted in 2010) and accepted 6 more (those are in various stages of revision or typesetting). We declined 24 submissions (6 of those were declined without external review, usually within a day or so). For the 29 submissions that were sent out for review and have already been decided on, the average time to the decision was 48 days (our goal is 60 days, which we missed in only a few cases). 8 submissions are still under review.

Our acceptance rate for this year’s submissions was 11/35 = 31% (to be updated when the rest of the submissions have been decided on).

Our articles are each downloaded well over 1000 times per year. Our most downloaded article is Matthewson 2010, which has been downloaded more than 12,000 times so far. By now, some of our articles are building up a good citation rate on Google Scholar. As of 2011, S&P is also indexed in the influential MLA International Bibliography. We will continue to work on having S&P be indexed and ranked by all relevant providers.

All years

2007: 4 submissions, all declined, avg decision: 37 days, acceptance rate: 0%

2008: 16 submissions, 5 published, avg decision: 59 days, acceptance rate: 31%

2009: 21 submissions, 6 published, avg decision: 59 days, acceptance rate: 29%

2010: 25 submissions, 3 published, 1 accepted, avg decision: 58 days, acceptance rate: 16% [1]

2011: 43 submissions, 5 published, 6 accepted, 8 under review, avg decision: 48 days, acceptance rate: 31% [2]

[NB: these stats do not include commentaries or other articles that were not subject to standard external peer review but were solicited by the editors and received expedited editorial review. S&P has published 6 invited commentaries and is about to publish its first “underground classic”.]

Downloads (not including invited commentaries)

as of 12/28/2011:

Matthewson 2010: 12,233 downloads of the pdf of the article
Schlenker 2009: 5,342
Geurts & Pouscoulous 2009: 5,119
Chemla 2009: 4,723
Beck 2010: 4,688
Barker & Shan 2008: 4,318
Nouwen 2010: 3,960
De Swart & Farkas 2010: 3,923
Gillies 2010: 2,513
McCready 2010: 2,604
Barker 2010: 1,827
Franke 2011: 1,779
Rothschild 2011: 1,253
Rothschild & Klinedinst 2011: 698
Abrusán 2011: 681
Khoo 2011: 539
Magri 2011: 287
McClure 2011: 87
Bary & Haug 2011: 63

Google Scholar citation counts

as of 12/29/2011 (links go to Scholar citations):

Schlenker 2009: 42
Barker & Shan 2008: 30
Geurts & Pouscoulous 2009: 28
Chemla 2009: 22
Nouwen 2010: 16
Gillies 2010: 15
Beck 2010: 10
Farkas & DeSwart 2010: 7


  1. one submission from 2010 is still in revision cycle  ↩

  2. 2011 stats not final until all decisions made  ↩

Schlenker’s local context work wins award

Congratulations to S&P author Philippe Schlenker, whose paper “Presuppositions and Local Contexts” was just declared one of last year’s ten best philosophy papers. The paper that won the award appeared in Mind, but it is kind of a reader’s digest version of a more technical article that originally appeared in S&P in 2009: “Local Contexts”. So, S&P also basks in the glory.

Crossref updates DOI display guidelines

CrossRef, the organization that administers the DOI system for linking to academic articles, has updated their display guidelines.

Before today, one was supposed to display DOIs as follows: doi:10.3765/sp.4, which is not immediately recognizable as a linkable URL. Usually, one would then associate a link to http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.4 with that display text to make it clickable (on a webpage or in a pdf).

Now, the display text itself is supposed to be the immediately recognizable URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.4.

This will necessitate updating all kinds of stylesheets, such as the sp.bst BibTeX style that we developed for S&P (and which implements almost the entire Unified Stylesheet for Linguistics Journals). Expect an update to sp.bst soon. Going forward, all S&P articles will comply with the new guidelines. We will also update the S&P website to display all DOIs in the new format.