Navigating the New Realities of Academic Publishing

A new book by Fordham marketing professor Albert N. Greco, titled Scholarly Publishing in the Humanities, 2000–2024: Marketing and Communications Challenges and Opportunities, raises important questions about the state of academic publishing.

• Is scholarly publishing in crisis? If so, what are the causes, consequences and possible solutions?
• Are we witnessing the death of the academic monograph? What might that bode for the future of the humanities?
• Is digital disruption making rigorous academic scholarship more or less accessible?

Over the past 25 years, scholarly publishing in the humanities has undergone significant changes, driven by shifts in the academic landscape, the digital revolution and evolving market dynamics. Key developments include:

1. The decline in the number of university presses and the financial challenges they face have led to a reduction in specialized monograph publications. Budget cuts, reduced funding and rising costs have contributed to this trend.
2. Commercial presses like Routledge, Palgrave Macmillan and Bloomsbury have filled the gap left by university presses, focusing on books with broader appeal or interdisciplinary themes. They often bundle access to books and journals into digital packages, targeting academic libraries as their primary customers.

3. University and scholarly presses are increasingly prioritizing books with trade potential—those that appeal to both academic and general readers—to remain financially viable. This shift has led to a decline in the publication of highly specialized monographs with limited commercial appeal.
4. While digital and open-access publishing have theoretically made scholarly books more accessible, the reality is mixed. Paywalls, subscription models and high costs still limit accessibility for some readers. The focus on trade potential may also lead to less attention being paid to niche topics.
5. The peer-review system is under severe strain, with fewer specialists willing to review manuscripts rigorously and promptly. Many scholarly publications go unvetted as a result.
6. To cut costs, publishers have reduced spending on art, design, editorial services, layout and page makeup, expecting authors to provide ready-to-publish copy and virtually eliminating line editing by knowledgeable editors.
7. The average sales of humanities books have plummeted since 2000, partly due to a sharp decline in the number of books assigned in college classrooms, despite a significant increase in undergraduate enrollment.
8. The number of new humanities titles doubled between 2000 and 2014, from 60,000 to 70,000 annually to 138,895 in 2014, driven by increased pressure on faculty to publish or perish. This figure has remained relatively steady since 2014.

As Greco reports, the economics of scholarly book publishing are challenging. A highly successful humanities book might have a print run of 2,000, yielding only 1,275 in sales. At a $40 suggested list price, a 256-page book without photos generates a net profit of just $7,064. Most academic press books in the humanities have much smaller print runs, leading to even lower returns.

Even online, open-access publication has not significantly reduced costs, as savings are largely confined to printing, paper, binding and handling returns. Article processing charges for open-access journals average $744 for university presses and $1,295 for commercial scholarly journals.

While the shift toward trade-oriented publishing presents a potential crisis of identity and accessibility in the humanities, it also offers opportunities to broaden the field’s impact and relevance.

Traditionally, scholarly publishing has relied on producing highly specialized monographs that dive deeply into niche topics. These works are crucial for advancing knowledge within specific disciplines, offering detailed analysis and contributing to the cumulative understanding of particular subjects. However, the shift toward trade-oriented books—those aimed at a broader, often nonacademic audience—threatens this model.

There is legitimate concern that focusing on marketability could lead to neglecting specialized topics that may not attract a large readership. This could narrow academic inquiry, pressuring scholars to choose topics based on commercial appeal rather than academic value. In addition, the push for more accessible writing might simplify complex arguments or omit the nuanced analysis that characterizes rigorous scholarship, potentially diluting the quality of academic work.

However, this trend is not without its advantages. The pressure to appeal to a broader, more interdisciplinary readership has encouraged scholars to rethink how they present their work, leading to several positive developments in the humanities.

Scholars are increasingly tackling big, interdisciplinary topics that resonate with a wider audience. These topics not only attract larger readerships but also underline the relevance of the humanities to contemporary issues, potentially increasing public interest in and support for the field.

The shift toward trade-oriented publishing has also incentivized scholars to write in a more accessible style. Academic writing has often been criticized for being overly dense and jargon-laden, making it difficult for nonspecialists to engage. By writing more clearly and avoiding unnecessary complexity, scholars can reach a broader audience, including policymakers, practitioners and the educated public. This democratization of knowledge bridges the gap between academia and society, making scholarly insights more widely available and impactful.

Also, the need to appeal to a broader audience has pushed scholars to make their arguments more pointed and concise. In trade-oriented books, there is less room for lengthy exposition and more emphasis on delivering clear, compelling arguments. This can lead to more focused and persuasive scholarship, where key insights are distilled and presented in ways that resonate with readers, enhancing the clarity and impact of scholarly work both within and beyond academia.

The challenge raised by trade-ification lies in balancing marketability with academic integrity. Scholars and publishers must navigate the tension between producing commercially viable work while maintaining rigorous academic standards.

To ensure the humanities continue to produce specialized knowledge while engaging broader audiences, institutions, funding bodies and publishers should support a diversity of publishing models. This includes sustaining traditional monographs alongside trade-oriented books, encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration and promoting innovative forms of scholarly communication that leverage digital technologies.

---

The digital revolution is fundamentally reshaping scholarly publishing in the humanities, democratizing access to scholarly work, challenging traditional models of academic output and introducing new complexities into the publishing process.

Digital platforms and open-access initiatives have broadened the audience for scholarly works, which were previously restricted to those with access to well-funded libraries or who could afford expensive monographs and journal subscriptions. Open-access publishing, in particular, allows scholars to share their work freely online, eliminating paywalls that traditionally limited access and enhancing the visibility and influence of academic research.

However, while the digital revolution has democratized access, it has also challenged traditional models of academic publishing, which were built around print-based media and closed-access systems. The shift toward open-access and digital publishing has disrupted traditional revenue models for academic presses and journals.

Publishers must now find new ways to sustain their operations as reliance on subscription fees and book sales diminishes with the rise of free online access. This has led to a growing emphasis on publishing models that charge authors or their institutions to cover publication costs, raising concerns about the affordability and equity of the academic publishing process.

The rise of predatory journals and low-quality digital platforms further complicates the landscape, making it difficult for scholars to discern reputable venues for their work. Moreover, the digital environment encourages new forms of academic output, such as multimedia projects and blogs, which challenge traditional notions of valid, rigorous academic work.

The peer-review process, tenure criteria and academic recognition systems are still largely oriented around print publications, creating a disconnect between emerging digital practices and established academic standards.

As new forms of scholarship emerge, there is tension between encouraging innovation and ensuring that academic standards are upheld. Departments must find ways to balance recognizing innovative scholarly work with maintaining the integrity of academic evaluation.

Creating guidelines for evaluating nontraditional scholarship is a necessary step, considering the context in which the work is produced and its intended audience. This should include assessing the relevance, originality and impact of the work, even if it does not follow traditional peer-review processes.

Departments might establish internal or external peer-review processes for nontraditional work and develop alternative metrics to assess the impact of nontraditional scholarship, such as engagement metrics (e.g., downloads, social media shares), qualitative feedback or evidence of influence on public discourse and policy.

Departments might also consider formally recognizing and rewarding public scholarship—work that effectively engages broader audiences or contributes to societal debates—while maintaining rigorous academic standards. Encouraging scholars to maintain a balance between traditional peer-reviewed publications and innovative nontraditional outputs can ensure that they produce work that meets both academic and public needs.

---

The scholarly publishing landscape in the humanities faces several critical challenges, which collectively impact the quality, visibility and influence of academic work.

One significant hurdle is securing qualified peer reviewers who can rigorously and promptly evaluate manuscripts. The peer-review process is foundational to academic publishing, ensuring that works meet the discipline’s standards of rigor, originality and scholarly contribution. However, as the number of academic publications increases, driven in part by the digital revolution and the proliferation of online journals and open-access platforms, the pool of available reviewers becomes increasingly strained.

The digital age has expanded access to publishing, allowing more scholars to disseminate their work, but it has also led to a flood of publications that need peer review. Many online and open-access journals, especially those less established, struggle to find reviewers with the necessary expertise or willingness to commit time to the review process. As a result, some publications bypass traditional peer review entirely, raising concerns about the quality and reliability of the scholarship they publish.

The difficulty in finding reviewers can lead to delays in the publication process, rushed reviews or reliance on less qualified reviewers, undermining the quality control that peer review is meant to provide. This not only impacts the credibility of individual publications but can also erode trust in the broader academic publishing system.

Another significant challenge is the lack of effective marketing strategies for scholarly books. For many scholars, discovering relevant academic books outside their immediate specialization often happens by chance rather than through effective marketing by publishers. Academic publishers traditionally focus on marketing their books to libraries and academic institutions, which limits their reach. Without robust marketing, important scholarly works may not achieve the visibility they deserve, leading to lower readership and reduced impact.

The decline in nonacademic review outlets further exacerbates the problem. The number of nonacademic publications that review scholarly books has sharply diminished, reducing opportunities for academic books to be discussed and debated in the public sphere. Publications like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal still review books, but their focus has shifted, and academic specialists are less frequently relied upon for these reviews. Meanwhile, magazines like The Atlantic, Harper’s and The New Yorker have reduced space for scholarly book reviews, and even when they do review academic books, the depth or expertise found in specialized scholarly reviews is often lacking.

Publications like the London Review of Books, the Los Angeles Review of Books and the New York Review of Books have become key venues for in-depth discussions of scholarly books. However, these reviews often serve as platforms for broader reflections rather than focused analysis of the books themselves. While these reflections can be valuable, they don’t always provide the detailed critique that scholars seek when evaluating a book’s contribution to the field.

In the absence of timely reviews in the popular press by academics, scholars often must wait years for a book’s quality and contributions to be evaluated in academic journals. These delays can slow the pace of scholarly discourse and the integration of new ideas into ongoing debates.

How might the humanities address these challenges? Here are some strategies to ensure the visibility and quality of new books and foster timely discourse in the evolving academic landscape.

Academic publishers should adopt more sophisticated digital marketing strategies, including targeted online advertising, social media campaigns and partnerships with influential bloggers and content creators in relevant fields. Utilizing data analytics to understand audience behavior and preferences can help publishers tailor their marketing efforts more effectively.

One innovation is to interview leading scholars about important new works in their field. This practice is eminently scalable and could be promoted more widely.

Offering formal recognition or incentives for peer reviewers might encourage more scholars to participate in the process. This could include acknowledgment in tenure and promotion decisions or reduced workloads in exchange for taking on review responsibilities. Universities and scholarly associations could play a key role in formalizing and supporting these incentives.

Involving graduate students more actively in the peer-review and book-review process could also help address the shortage of reviewers and provide valuable professional development for students. Graduate student journals can play a significant role in addressing the review bottleneck by publishing timely reviews of new books. Online platforms like the University of Texas at Austin’s Not Even Past could serve as models for showcasing graduate student book reviews.

Scholarly associations and university presses could collaborate to promote books across disciplines. Hosting virtual book launches, webinars or podcasts featuring authors discussing their work could draw attention to new publications, a practice pioneered by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. Virtual book fairs showcasing new works might also streamline the book-discovery process and increase authors’ exposure.

Developing platforms where scholars can engage in real-time peer review and commentary on new works, modeled on H-Net, could help address the issue of delayed evaluations. This could take the form of moderated discussion forums or collaborative annotation tools where scholars can discuss and critique new publications dynamically.

In the face of changing market dynamics in academic publishing, humanities departments and scholarly associations must embrace and adapt to innovation while preserving scholarly rigor.

Here’s my advice:

1. Embrace the shift but preserve the core. Scholars must adapt to the pressures of trade-ification while advocating for the continued relevance of the monograph and other specialized forms of scholarship. By doing so, we can chart a path forward that honors the past while embracing the possibilities of the future.
2. Recognize that the market’s influence is both good and bad. The push toward accessibility and broader appeal can invigorate scholarship with fresh perspectives and interdisciplinary insights, but we must remain vigilant against the erosion of niche, specialized knowledge.
3. Rethink how academic value is measured. The death of the monograph may be overstated, but it is a symptom of broader changes in how academic work is disseminated. As we reimagine what academic publishing can and should be, it is crucial to reaffirm the importance of diverse forms of scholarly expression—whether they appeal to a broad readership or dive deeply into specialized topics. In doing so, we ensure that the humanities continue to thrive as a vital part of our cultural and intellectual life.

This moment in academic publishing should prompt a call to action by scholars, publishers and institutions alike. The humanities must innovate without compromising, expand without diluting and make the case for the enduring value of the monograph and other specialized forms of scholarship. In the end, the future of the humanities will be shaped by our ability to navigate these new realities with both creativity and conviction.