AARL

Conference report

Death of the book? Challenges and opportunities for scholarly publishing

The Australian National University, SIS/Library

This event, the 16th National Scholarly Communications Forum, was held at the National Maritime Museum in Sydney over two autumn days in March. In attendance were scholars, librarians and publishers, brought together by their common interest in the book and its future. The Forum was sponsored by the Australian Academy of the Humanities and the Australian Research Council and convened by Colin Steele, director, Scholarly Information Strategies at the Australian National University and 'the Martin Luther of scholarly publishing in Australia' according to one present.

Professor Iain McCalman, president of the Australian Academy of the Humanities and director of the Humanities Research Centre of the Australian National University, introduced the proceedings by reminding those present that this seminar was not intended to mark the death of the book or to advocate it, but to question where it might be headed in the globalised environment. The problem as he sees it is that scholars are finding more difficult to get their work published, but are dependent on being published for their promotion and tenure. Publishers must respond to commercial imperatives, so are seeking to publish titles with wide readerships.

Definition of the problem was taken up by Professor John Hartley, Dean of the Creative Industries Faculty at the Queensland University of Technology who brought everyone to attention with his remark that 'universities are stifling creativity, but not stifling it nearly enough'. The crisis, he said, is one not of failure, but of success: there is simply too much academic publishing. Scholars are required to utter, not to receive. The incentives are in publishing, not in impact. There are 29 259 PhD students in Australia all of whom have been told that there is a market out there for their thesis. Books are not published in the interests of knowledge, but for the author. As authors specialise, the number of readers they have decreases. Publishers are part of the problem too as they have to make profits, but university presses are there to brand their university, not to disseminate knowledge. The answer, he sees as being in electronic publishing and in a revision of what publishing can be by including all platforms as possibilities, including, he said wishfully, a 'scholarly TV channel on Foxtel'.

So if electronic publishing is the answer, how should we proceed to implement it? Many speakers contributed their thoughts on this issue. Professor Janet McCalman from the University of Melbourne spoke firmly in favour of the need for high quality publishing; accurate, scholarly, well-edited and authoritative, seeing a danger in throwing books onto the web simply to make them accessible. Richard Vines, from the Enhanced Printing Industry Competitiveness Scheme, spoke equally firmly of the need for good metadata and content and copyright management, not to mention the need to integrate editorial and printing activities. Colin Steele emphasised the need for readers to be able to print, and suggested that universities may need to change their model of support for scholarly information by subsidising it up front through creation of electronic publishing support mechanisms for theses, e-prints, books and journals.

The highlights of the conference were the demonstrations of what publishers are doing to respond to the situation. Roy Tennant, who is Manager of California e-Scholarship Web and Services Design of the California Digital Library at the University of California described the e-Scholarship Editions initiative which has emerged as a joint project of the University of California Press and the Director of Scholarly Communications at the California Digital Library. Over 750 works are now available at http://escholarship.cdlib.org/ucpress/, nearly 400 of which are openly accessible while the rest are limited to staff and students of the University. This initiative allows creators to have their work put online quickly, and provides an indication of demand and whether the work should then be published in print. This initiative does as Colin Steele suggested, subsidise the dissemination of knowledge at the outset rather than subsidising the library to purchase books at a later time. Peer review remains critical to the process and metadata is harvested and available through the Open Archives Initiative. Books will be moved into the public arena as they go out of print but in the meantime can be purchased. It remains to be seen what impact this has on print runs. MARC records of all titles will shortly be available, raising the issue for other libraries of whether to include them systematically in their own catalogues. Other e-Scholarship initiatives cover working papers and journals.

One very different approach to electronic publishing was demonstrated by Bill Cope, managing director of Common Ground Publishing, details of which can be found at http://commongroundgroup.com/. Common Ground has developed a software framework which supports authors in creating their work while at the same time creating an online bookstore for the ordering of print copies. It provides a publishing services model for institutions or small groups to brand their work to make it available to a wider public.

Other models of electronic publishing discussed included the new electronic press being established by Monash University, the Australian Digital Theses Project based at the University of New South Wales, Oxford Scholarship Online due later this year and new publishing initiatives of the University of Queensland Press which is integrating the work of the Press, the university bookshop and the printery

One disappointing aspect of the forum was the attitude taken by the University of Melbourne Press and the University of New South Wales Press, whose representatives dissociated themselves from the idea that there is a problem or that they might have any role to play in improving the dissemination of scholarly writing. Each showed that they are operating effective and innovative publication units, seeking publications with wide audience appeal and which will be commercially viable, but taking no responsibility for a wider role in the scholarly communication process. Their point of view led to some emotional sparring with those who felt that a university press does have a role to play in supporting the creative endeavours of its parent institution.

Recent PhD graduates discussed their own publishing needs and experiences. Four more different presenters it would have been hard to imagine, but these four demonstrated the ongoing need for good academic publishing for those starting their careers and for the views of minority groups to be heard.

Two more lateral solutions to the problem were suggested. Firstly, that the model of post-graduate education based on the writing of a lengthy thesis should be reviewed as it may not be the best means of approaching education at that level. Secondly, there was some mention of a research funding model which incorporates the cost of dissemination.

Professor Malcolm Gillies, deputy vic-chancellor Education, at the Australian National University, closed the forum by reaffirming the importance of the scholarly book, saying that thinkers who can take the long-term view and develop ideas in their complexity are the most valuable of all, and the journal article is not adequate to report them.

Select papers and overheads from the forum can be seen at http://www.humanities.org.au/NSCF/bookfuture/futureofbook.htm

Attending the forum was well worthwhile from my perspective and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to attend.

Margaret Henty
26 March 2003