Advertisement

Advertisement

News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education

New Collaboration for Scholarly Publishing

Five university presses have announced a collaboration that seeks to find a way to reduce costs of scholarly publishing and to allow more books to be released. The collaboration, created with funds from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, will set up a joint operation for copy editing, design, layout and typesetting for the work in American literatures. The presses will retain complete control over book selection and distribution.

The new system is expected to yield enough savings to allow each of the presses to increase output by five books a year, meaning that over the course of the five-year project, 125 books that might not have otherwise reached readers will be released.

The collaboration is being formally announced at the annual meeting of the Modern Language Association, which opened in Chicago Thursday. NYU Press will manage the grant, which will also involve Fordham University Press, Rutgers University Press, Temple University Press and the University of Virginia Press. The grant will provide for modest royalties for authors as well as for joint marketing for the books produced. Books to be selected will be first books by authors whose work explores English-language literatures of Central and North America and the Caribbean.

Mellon is expected to follow this grant with several others promoting collaboration, in such fields as Slavic studies, ethnomusicology, and East Asian studies. The Slavic studies collaboration will involve Northwestern University Press, the University of Pittsburgh Press, and the University of Wisconsin Press. The ethnomusicology effort will also focus on publishing work by young authors and the development of a joint digital platform so that authors can provide audio and video related to their books in an easily accessible way. Indiana University Press will lead that effort, which will also involve Kent State University Press and Temple University Press.

The initial grant from Mellon is $1.37 million over five years, small in the scale of mega-foundations these days, but enough money to potentially change the economics in publishing in the fields selected for the project. According to NYU Press officials, 60 percent of a monograph’s costs to publishers come from the parts of the process Mellon envisions the joint operation offering in a more affordable way. If those costs can be controlled, the hope is that the model could be applied to more subject areas and more presses.

The project comes at a time of increased interest in using collaborative models to make university publishing more economically viable. Because many monographs have relatively limited audiences and library budgets have been stagnant, the models used to support university publishing have increasingly been seen as fragile at best — while young scholars have reported greater difficulty in getting published.

Stephen D. Maikowski, director of NYU Press, said he viewed the new effort as a way to revive publishing in areas that are intellectually significant, but that are no longer working financially. At his press, publishing in American literatures has been down to one or two books a year, so the increase of five a year is huge. Books published through the series will see some economies of scale that not all authors will like — such as a common design that will generally be used for the interior of books. But the funds from Mellon envision original cover designs (handled by individual presses), art that links books in series to those series, and illustrations when appropriate for the subject matter.

Maikowski said that the reality is that presses are not only cutting back on monographs, but “disinvesting in them” in terms of art and design, so the support provided by Mellon will actually amount to a substantial boost to aesthetically presenting the books. And while the interior designs may be similar, he said that they would be “very handsome.” In addition, because the presses will receive the copy-edited and designed book interiors as a PDF, this may encourage new pricing models. He said he was thinking about trying more paperback originals, lower priced hard backs or digital editions.

Mellon specifically invited university presses to apply for a grant for ideas that involved collaboration and models that would get more promising works published. The model is also very similar to one proposed in a report, “University Publishing in a Digital Age,” released in July by Ithaka, a nonprofit group — also a Mellon grant recipient — that supports research on the way technological and other changes affect key aspects of higher education. The Ithaka report warned that existing models of scholarly publishing need substantial change and suggested that joint operations of some function may be a key solution to consider.

Kevin Guthrie, president of Ithaka, called the new collaboration “an important project to watch.” While many experts have argued for more collaboration among university presses, he said, the difficult question has been defining “which elements are part of the collaboration.” Guthrie said his view is that there is no single list of expenses that should be the focus of collaboration to produce economies of scale, but that presses need to start experimenting to find out what works.

“If this ends up producing some real quality scholarship at lower cost, other presses are going to see that and we’ll see more of that,” Guthrie said.

One of the concerns about collaboration has been that it might limit the scholarly choices of presses and force them away from unique specializations. As if to counter that argument, the presses involved in the new project each announced their emphasis for publishing in the program. While they all relate broadly to American literatures, they are by no means identical. The presses and their planned emphases are:

  • Fordham: Scholarship that “extends disciplinary boundaries, especially among philosophy, religion, and literature, and that showcases in fresh ways the methods of close reading.”
  • NYU: “American literary studies emerging in the ‘long’ 19th century — from the Revolutionary period through early modernism.”
  • Rutgers: “Titles that cross lines between ethnic groups and minorities and open up discussion beyond a particular identity group.”
  • Temple: “The literary production of relatively new immigrant groups or groups whose numbers are growing as a result of new waves of immigration.”
  • Virginia: “Interdisciplinary, multilingual research that seeks to redefine the cultural map of the Americas, encompassing the Caribbean and continental North, Central, and South America,” as well as 20th century American literature, African-American literature and culture, and ethnic and postcolonial studies in language and literature.

Scott Jaschik

Got something to say?


Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Advertisement

Comments

Why?

Dead medium. Don’t we have too many scholarly books already? Let’s see a return to the un-padded article and a move to on-line publication.

What do academic presses do for us anyway?

Waste of Mellon’s money. Look forward, not back.

Jack, at 11:10 am EST on December 28, 2007

What is dead?

What is dead, Jack? Print on paper? Or the form of the book itself—the long form? Is the future of scholarship that nothing will be longer than a journal article? Is the extended argument dead? Is the attention span that can ingest the length and depth of a book no longer something that scholars have? How can you create a narrative that explains more than isolated bits of data within the length of a journal article? How could an explanation for a complex historical event be conveyed other than through a long form text?

Look forward. Who looks forward and expects print books to be manufactured indefinitely? Probably no one. The real question has to do with whether the long form of the book will survive, not whether it will be printed.

Dean, at 3:35 pm EST on December 28, 2007

Dean,

I’ll agree about the format surviving (more or less intact), and not the physical instantiation of it. So why should Mellon shore up what is essentially a dying industry?

As for the format itself, well, are there not way too many warmed over dissertations, chapters reprinted from already published journal articles, books that could have withstood a good cutting down to become long articles?

Fact is that there too much pressure on scholars to produce books, and not enough to produce solid — but shorter — publications.

Is there a need for the book-length work? Sure, but way too many books don’t qualify.

Jack, at 6:35 pm EST on December 28, 2007

Where’s the saving?

Leaving aside the question of whether it makes sense to subsidize, or even produce, print monographs—a question that occupies all of us who works in scholarly publishing—it’s not clear how this new collaboration will make their production any less costly. Copyediting, design, and typesetting are already outsourced by most UPs to independent contractors and vendors. This new collaboration will no doubt do the same. It’s unlikely it will discover any radically more efficient ways of accomplishing these tasks (for instance, many UPs already use format rather than custom designs for book interiors). The overhead of managing the process will be shifted to the funded collaborative but is also unlikely to cost less than paying in-house staff. So the only innovation I see is getting the Mellon foundation to underwrite the costs of publication for a limited time and limited number of titles. There’s no attempt to address the basic problem that it costs more to produce a monograph than the market thinks it’s worth—or the even more basic problem that university presses are expected to break even on such publications.

UP editor, at 4:10 pm EST on December 30, 2007

Where’s the innovation

For full disclosure, Purdue University Press and a few partners did apply for a grant from Mellon which did not make the final cut. The request process came as a result of the Ithaka report and the process gave presses only a few weeks to put together a request which favored larger presses with full staffs. The grants were supposed to be for underserved areas.

The Purdue request provided for a digital repository of content and a print-on-demand option. This arrangement would have reduced many of the costs, especially marketing and distribution. It would also have provided a powerful search mechanism in line with what scholars need.

The presses that received the Mellon funding have taken advantage of a fiscal opportunity. The results might provide some cost savings to scholars. If Mellon would like to innovate, the end product of the cooperative efforts should be placed in a digital repository to which other presses could add content to mirror what Project Muse does for serial content. That’s innovative.

Thomas BAcher, Director, at 9:25 am EST on January 1, 2008

where’s the comprehension

...from departments and administrators of the functions that UPs carry out. Those outside of presses scream about prices and printruns etc., but they are fast to send their youngest, most inefficient scholars over with scarcely revised dissertations, and then they grouse that the business model is not generating sufficient revenue. UPs are nearly alone on campuses in their characters as both revenue producer and quasi-academic unit, and (rightly or wrongly) they bear a huge part of the tenure process. Instead of chastising UPs for not producing revenue like Citibank or HP, administrators should comprehensively value UPs for their unique role, and seek ways to further that instead of looking simply at balance sheets. Perhaps initiatives such as Mellon’s are a way of drawing attention to such issues, including the deep and pressing need for electronic content simultaneous with the deep instability and hackability of the current formats offered.

former senior editor, at 2:05 pm EST on January 1, 2008

Burying costs still deeper

This seems to me to be a classic case of good intentions misapplied. As at least one commenter has pointed out, the Mellon program doesn’t so much promote a new vision of scholarly publishing as shore up the old one against the forces of transformation: some of those forces being the healthy byproducts of the industry’s evolution; others the corrosive effects of shortsighted press management, an overemphasis on revenues and lack of imagination in the tenure and promotion process.

The earlier suggestion that “most” UPs outsource their copyediting and design may be a bit of an overstatement, but the basic argument holds. This Mellon program doesn’t do anything to move publishing toward a new and sustainable model; instead, it simply shoves those costs offshore, further out of sight of the surprising number of administrators and faculty who persist in their belief (pace some of the comments posted on past scholarly publishing articles in IHE) that academic publishing is nothing more than glorified printing.

Mellon’s program may create a small marginal savings in the short term, by allowing multiple presses to share a single set of production resources. But overall it looks like a misguided effort to temporarily sustain a status quo that has already been shown to be unsustainable.

What about the presses that weren’t included in the Mellon grant? Does the program do anything to help them? It neither offers a meaningful new model for academic publishing as a whole, nor an industry-wide bailout. It simply enables a few select presses to limp on for a little while longer, in the hope that help will eventually arrive. But given the desperate state of affairs everywhere in academic publishing, shouldn’t we aim for something more?

Jim Reische, at 5:10 pm EST on January 1, 2008

Advertisement

 Jobs Related to New Collaboration for Scholarly Publishing

or search for jobs directly.

Adjunct Faculty, English as a Second Language
Elgin Community College

We’re committed to our vision of becoming the best comprehensive community college in the United States. see job

Adjunct Faculty Credit — English
Harper College

Job Description: Teach first-year, transferable-credit composition.

Duties of ... see job

Temporary English Instructors, Fall 2008
West Chester University of Pennsylvania

Join a vibrant campus community whose excellence is reflected in its diversity and student success. West Chester University ... see job

Developmental Education — Part-Time (Adjunct) Faculty (Reading, Math or English)
Sinclair Community College

Sinclair is a comprehensive community college with an enrollment of over 24,000 students that offers career and transfer ... see job

Assistant Professor in Rhetoric and Composition & Associate Director
NC State University

Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job

Text Marketing Manager
Yale University

General Purpose
Expand, enhance, and support the sales of Yale University Press’s text and course books — ... see job

Director, Writing Center
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The Director of the Writing Center is the principal administrator with responsibility of the overall day-to-day operation of ... see job

English Instructor
Corinthian Colleges

Everest College, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job

Adjunct Faculty Writing Program
James Madison University

General Info: The Writing Program at James Madison University is conducting an on-going recruitment for qualified ... see job

Lecturer/Adjunct Lecturer, Composition
NC State University

Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job