Point: Counterpoint — today we revisit a pair of posts from Joe Esposito and Rick Anderson looking at partnerships and collaborations between university libraries and university presses.
A group of scholarly publishers has launched a fellowship to improve diversity and inclusion among editorial employees.
Some notes on academic publishing, university presses in particular.
This is a report on the monograph output of American university presses. The report had the cooperation of 65 presses, which contributed their historical data to the project. The report shows the output of the presses and provides a more granular analysis by subject area and press size.
As a follow-up to the chef’s best books read during 2016, I’m happy to present a selection of our favorite university press reads of 2016 (and thanks to one of our commenters for the suggestion!). We tend to think of […]
The just-launched beta version of Humanities Commons is the latest in a growing number of scholar-led innovations in scholarly communication. How do such innovations develop, and how should more traditional publishers think about these opportunities? I spoke with MLA’s Kathleen Fitzpatrick recently to learn more.
A presentation to the Charleston Conference in November 2016 on managing turnarounds in the scholarly communications area. The panelists come from very different areas of the industry: a library publication, a university press, and a distribution company.
Revisiting Joe Esposito’s 2010 post on the role publishers’ brands play in purchasing decisions.
University presses bring a diversity not only of costs, scale, and business models, but also of organizational capacity, incentives, and objectives. As efforts are mounted to transition monograph publishing to open access, it is vital that we recognize the richness and complexity of this community.
There have been several recent studies of what it costs to publish academic monographs, but they all mistake the cost of production with the cost of publication. This post summarizes the issues and suggests a very simple way to calculate the cost of publication.
This summer, Project MUSE announced that it is developing its ability to host and distribute open access (OA) ebooks. Project MUSE’s director Wendy Queen spoke with me recently about this program and some of the broader strategic issues we should be contemplating.
This post presents a case for why publishers would want to participate in a program to sell textbooks to academic libraries. The plan would include a means for publishers to retain their profitability, albeit on a lower sales volume, by taking advantage of digital technology and by “repairing” some broken elements in the current marketplace, e.g., the market for used and pirated books.
University presses are not well positioned to thrive in journal publishing because they have not adopted any of the (relatively few and common) business strategies that are necessary, given market dynamics, for success. I do not put forth this thesis lightly. I have great affection and admiration for university presses, their value — craftsmanship, attention to detail, “getting it right”— and their mission. This is not admiration from afar: I served, in the formative years of my career, at the University of Chicago Press (Chicago), where I learned the tools of the trade and many of the practices and protocols of scholarly publishing still in use today. But after nearly two decades of observing university presses, from within and without, this thesis seems to be inescapable.
Preliminary results on a research project on library acquisitions are now in. They suggest some interesting patterns in collection-building; the data from this project will be useful for other researchers. It is hoped that the full roll-out of this project will take place later this year.
There are many programs now to create open access monographs, but the business models surrounding these efforts do not appear to be sufficiently robust to make the OA monograph sustainable. The problem is that the monograph is something that many people want, but few are willing to pay for.