CONTENTS
A Romance: Penn State Press and Libraries Come Together for Digital Publishing
AAUP Participates in the Book Industry Environmental Council
Is the Book Review Really Dead?
The AAUPWiki
Miscellany:
AAUP Task Force on Committees
New Books for Understanding Lists on Tibet and China
Calendar: See the Events Calendar at www.aaupnet.org
By Shaun Manning, Communications Coordinator, AAUP
While the opportunities and challenges of digital publishing remain hot button topics in the scholarly publishing community, the Romance Studies series from Penn State University Press represents a concrete example of how online and print-on-demand publishing can sustain projects that would otherwise not be possible. Originally titled Penn State Studies in Romance Literatures when it debuted in the early 1990s and discontinued early in the new century, the more broadly-based Romance Studies series allowed Penn State to continue publishing “first book” monographs in this field by taking advantage of new digital technologies.
“Penn State Romance Studies in large measure responded to the need to support an area of scholarship that was underserved, expanded its editorial focus to move beyond simply ‘literature’ to include film, theatre, translations, and other foreign language-related titles,” said Patrick H. Alexander, Co-Director of Penn State’s Office Digital Scholarly Publishing (ODSP), which oversees Romance Studies, and Associate Director/Editor-in-Chief of Penn State University Press. In addition to the four books currently available on the Romance Studies site, Penn State plans to release future titles at a rate of about three per year.
“This development coincided with the university’s press and libraries creating the Office of Digital Scholarly Publishing (ODSP), under the leadership of Editor-in-Chief Peter Potter (now editor-in-chief at Cornell University Press) and Bonnie MacEwan (now dean of libraries at Auburn University),” Alexander explained. “Now co-directed by Michael J. Furlough, assistant dean of the libraries at Penn State, and myself, ODSP brings to bear the strengths of both library and press to experiment with making the volumes available–––at least initially–––both digitally and in a traditional, but ‘on-demand,’ print format.” He added that the press handles traditional publishing concerns, including peer review, copy editing, and design, while the library creates and hosts the online version using DPubS software, a platform originally developed for Cornell’s Project Euclid.
Given that the Romance Studies titles are available for sale in a print format as well as having significant portions available for free online, there was, at Penn State as with other presses exploring digital models, some concern as to whether the availability of these free chapters would ultimately hurt sales of the print volume. “Indeed there were concerns, and the jury’s still out,” Alexander said. “We wrestled with the conflict of interest between an Open Access online version and a printed edition. If the volume were available online, who would buy the print?” He added that the press’s partnership with the library alleviated many costs associated with digital publishing and distribution, but that print sales were still very important to offset the editorial, production, and other overhead costs of publishing.
“We weighed various options: no access, partial access, degraded print access, and full access,” Alexander said. ODSP’s solution was to offer all of books’ content available as chapter-by-chapter downloadable PDFs, but only around 50% of each book will be printable from these files. “It’s possible that some potential readers of Romance Studies titles will be happier to get a single chapter or do a short check online, rather than buy a book. But the online reading experience will not replicate the in-print experience, nor will printing out a whole book on the laser printer really replace the book.” He noted that the open access model presents an opportunity for greater dissemination of scholarship, but that questions remain as to how a majority of users will interact with the material in digital and print formats. For example, are the PDFs read on screen or printed out? What would each case indicate as to how Penn State should offer the Romance Studies books? Are users likely to print out an entire book, if all chapters were available, rather than simply purchasing a bound copy? “The problem is that we won’t be able to definitely prove these assumptions unless we can discover what motivates our readers’ behavior,” Alexander said.
Regardless of the challenges, though, the Romance Studies list from Penn State Press and the university’s Office of Digital Scholarly Publishing represents an important step for the press as it navigates the changing landscape of scholarly communication. “We recognize that standing still is not an option when the flow of knowledge and information and the demand of users for digital content are so great,” Alexander said. “ODSP has become a sort of Petrie dish that permits us to experiment in ways that as simply a ‘press’ we would not be able to do. In a noncompetitive environment, it allows the press to learn more about its own strengths and weaknesses and how to bring those to bear in fulfilling the university’s overall mission to disseminate knowledge and information.
“The Penn State Romance Studies series also represents a commitment to experimenting with ‘open access’ to book content that was emphasized as an imperative in AAUP’s Statement on Open Access drafted by our director, Sanford Thatcher, so as to help bridge the growing ‘digital divide’ between book and journal content in the OA world.”
By Julia Fauci, Design/Production Manager, Northern Illinois University Press
On June 11 I represented the AAUP at the first meeting of the the Book Industry Environmental Council (BIEC) held at the corporate headquarters of Random House in New York City. Brenna McLaughlin from AAUP also attended. This group was formed at the urging of Tyson Miller of Green Press Initiative, though it is not under his direction. In attendance were a complimentary mix of publishers, paper manufacturers, book printers, and booksellers. Half of the group met around a large conference table, while half attended via phone hook up.
Prior to arriving in New York I queried my fellow AAUP book designers and production managers about what kind of eco-book, forest-friendly logo would work for them when designing and producing university press books. I reproduced this on-line discussion in pdf form and handed it out to my fellow BIEC members. Almost all AAUP designers wanted a line-art logo that did not interfere in the design of the dust jacket but still graphically conveyed a message of environmental certification.
At the BIEC meeting a lively discussion about the book industry’s ecological footprint dominated a large part of the session, with some paper manufacturers maintaining that the books themselves qualified as “carbon sequestration” and should be calculated as offsets to the burning of fossil fuels during paper manufacture. Also discussed were the requirements of a universal BIEC logo and what such a logo’s function and appearance should be. Concerns were raised about “logo bloat” and “greenwashing” where logos cease to advance meaning or educate consumers. The largest number of attendees signed up to be on the Logo Subcommittee, myself included.
The first phone meeting of the logo subcommittee was on July 31st. I was regretfully out of the office and could not attend, but here are the highpoints gleaned from the minutes:
********
Publisher vs Product Certification:
Through consensus it was decided to certify publishers rather than books, making it much easier to verify compliance. A publisher could be audited once a year, rather than verifying thousands of titles. This would allow a publisher to make last minute changes without having to change certification on the title page and jacket.
Scorecard Approach to Certification:
The scorecard approach provides publishers with a ladder of environmental goals to achieve while getting credit for what they are already doing for the environment, giving them credit for the small steps they may have taken. A scorecard approach would involve people from all levels of a company and it could increase and formalize communication between publishers and suppliers.
Proposed changes to Scorecard:
Awarding points for calculating carbon footprint may alienate small publishers that do not have resources to conduct the necessary analysis. Instead, points should be awarded for accomplishments that would have the effect of reducing a company’s carbon footprint such as installing efficient lighting, reducing travel, etc. Relative weighting of transportation should be increased.
Inks would be difficult for publishers to track, as printers may change brand of inks frequently. This info would be especially difficult to track for those printing offshore.
********
If anyone from the AAUP has a query regarding the Book Industry Environmental Council, please contact Julia Fauci, Design/Production Manager, Northern Illinois University Press, 2280 Bethany Road, DeKalb, IL 60115
By Colleen Lanick, Publicity Manager, MIT Press
The news that the Los Angeles Times Book Review, after more than thirty years, would cease publication in its freestanding format and merge with the opinion section of the newspaper made headlines from Galley Cat to an interview with former book review editor, Steve Wasserman, on the NewsHour. This is not shocking news to anyone who has been following trends with book review sections lately. It just seems like the latest in a growing list of newspapers shrinking coverage for books. In recent years, the Boston Globe’s book section was cut in half and folded into the “Ideas” section; the San Francisco Chronicle’s book section was cut, but after public outcry from their readers, restored, though in a slight four-page edition; and the Chicago Tribune’s book section was moved from Sunday to Saturday, the day of the week with the lowest circulation.
Now just a year after the highly publicized and protested news that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had eliminated its book review editor, Theresa Weaver, the Hartford Courant has laid off its book editor, Carole Goldberg, and major cuts were made at both the Raleigh News & Oberver and Newark Star-Ledger. Chris Watson was abruptly let go from the Santa Cruz Sentinel (but was then given the opportunity to continue writing two weekly columns on books, with less column space and only on a contract basis). And Marie Arana, long-time book editor at the Washington Post Book World, one of the last freestanding book sections in the country, will take a buy-out at the end of the year. The future of that section also seems unstable.
It’s clear that this recent list of cuts and restructuring is not going to end soon. Because space is so limited, it’s become more difficult for publicists to count on securing coverage for university press titles in many of the traditional venues we counted on for so many years. Reporters I talk to and the editors I meet with who still have book sections remain very interested in MIT’s titles and are always looking for interesting and timely books and authors to feature on their pages. But vying for space on these pages has become very competitive and editors simply cannot cover all of the titles they would like to cover given their space restrictions. We now have the challenge of looking for alternative places for getting attention for our titles. “While it is true the review sections in many print media have either evaporated or shrunk, the internet provides a vast wealth of opportunity to publicize our authors’ ideas,” Christian Purdy, Publicity Director at Oxford University Press, commented on the situation. “Also, many traditional print publications are becoming much savvier with their online presence and with a growing readership for many loyal readers. This too can be new fertile ground for review attention.” The Boston Globe has a wonderful blog (Brainiac), as do the New York Times Book Review (Paper Cuts) and the Los Angeles Times Book Review (Jacket Copy)—just to name a few. All of these blogs seem to be thriving and even growing with interesting content and large readerships.
To make up for the decreasing review coverage, more and more publicists and authors are looking to online sources and broadening the focus of pitches to newspapers and magazines beyond just contacting the book review editor. Ranjit Arab, Publicity Manager at the University Press of Kansas, says they’ve seen the writing on the wall for some time now. “We’ve really made a concerted effort over the last few years to find ways of offsetting dwindling review space,” he said. “That has meant getting more coverage off the book pages, encouraging authors to contribute op-ed pieces, and targeting any number of high-profile blogs and Web sites—all of which can impact a book’s success just as much as a review in a mid-major newspaper.” At Princeton, this dip in both major and second-tier newspaper coverage has also sent their publicists and authors to the internet as well and is allowing them to be even more creative on with their pitches, according to Andrew DeSio, Princeton’s Publicity Director. “Places such as TruthDig and Bookslut are great for general book coverage, but also more targeted blogs such as Marginal Revolution, Brad DeLong, Dani Rodrik, and Econlog are great for our economics books and Kaus Files, Bloggingheads.tv, Daily Kos, and Instapundit” for political authors, DeSio said. “Finding targeted, renowned, and influential blogs/websites is indeed the way of the future. Also, we’ve been pitching for more off-the-book page coverage at the newspapers, as book reviews aren’t the only places that feature books. Op-eds have also been very effective at creating awareness of an author or book.”
One could argue that it is the newspapers themselves that are in such peril and it’s not the death of the book business. It is also important to notice that some book sections are actually expanding their sections. The Wall Street Journal has expanded its daily book coverage and given it more prominent placement in the paper, and the Austin American Statesman has a new-ish regular feature dedicated to university press books. Online, NPR has also just launched a regular book review feature on its website. Cleary this is not the norm, but it’s important to note that there are still some thriving book sections—both online and off.
Some still view a review in the print version of a newspaper as more authoritative than a blog post or online only review, but I think this perception is slowly changing as websites are becoming more relevant and exciting content is being posted online. I doubt that the thrill of a call confirming a pending review in the New York Times Book Review will cause publicists to simply shrug rather than do run down the hall screaming with delight, but it’s time to stop complaining and to look in a new direction, while continuing to engage with the reporters and editors we’ve been working with in the past. “Personally, I find this media proliferation exciting,” says Arab. “It is shaking up the old model, taking away influence from a few traditional sources and putting it in the hands of some new players, so it’s not a matter of publicity outlets disappearing—they’re simply reemerging in other forms. As long as we continue to publish timely and interesting books, we shouldn’t have any trouble attracting the outlets that reach our intended audiences.”
by Brenna McLaughlin
In 2006, the planners of the electronic publishing workshop decided to create an AAUPWiki to house the knowledge that would be shared and created at the event. The moderators edited the wiki on the fly, demonstrating the power of the tool to attendees as session notes became wiki articles.
After the workshop and the 2006 Annual Meeting were completed, additional meeting session notes and presentations became the backbone of what is intended to be a long-standing and dynamic resource for all AAUP members. As the AAUPWiki founders wrote on its main page, “The goal of this wiki is to be a living encyclopedia of best practices in scholarly publishing.”
Since its launch, the conference knowledge of two more annual meetings has been added to the AAUPWiki. In addition to the contributions of the wiki’s original developers and meeting attendees, the AAUP Business Handbook editors recently decided to post the Handbook articles on the wiki site, and the Marketing Committee is now considering posting the Marketing Handbook.
The AAUP community has a rich tradition of sharing advice, experience, and ideas. Not-for-profit publishing is for the most part a collaborative and supportive, rather than competitive, endeavor. The wiki platform allows for community editing and content creation, and it is the association’s hope that members and committees will continue to take advantage of this great tool.
I encourage you to go explore, learn from, and add to the resources now available at http://aaupwiki.princeton.edu. While the AAUPWiki is publicly accessible to search and read, AAUP members must register at the site in order to edit content. (This is a light layer of security to balance both access for the AAUP community with protection from spammers.) If you presented at a session at the Montreal meeting and would like to post PDFs or slide presentations for the wiki, please contact me at bmclaughlin@aaupnet.org to have that posted and linked. Thanks must go to Chuck Creesy and Princeton University Press for hosting and administering the AAUPWiki.
AAUPWiki: http://aaupwiki.princeton.edu
2008 Annual Meeting Knowledge: http://aaupwiki.princeton.edu/index.php/AAUP_2008_Annual_Meeting
Much of the most important work of AAUP is done by its committees. Made
up of volunteers from member presses, these committees run the annual
design show, plan the sessions and workshops for the Annual Meeting,
keep the board and membership abreast of new developments in copyright
law, manage the key statistics programs, and more. But, as current AAUP president Alex Holzman said in his inaugural
address in June, “however hard those committees work, it’s time
to look at fundamentals.” Holzman has formed a task force, chaired by
Richard Brown of Georgetown University Press, to examine the
responsibilities of the committees and recommend revisions to the
committee structure. Questions the task force will address include
whether there are new areas in which the association may need the work
and guidance of an official committee, whether committees currently
have the resources to fulfill their charges, and whether committee
charges are clear and appropriate. The task force has interviewed
recent committee chairs, and is planning a survey of the membership about
these questions for the fall. Please keep an eye out for an online
survey link this fall, and share your thoughts and ideas about the AAUP
committees with the task force.
As the torch is ignited to begin the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, China’s controversial policies have drawn interest in the country beyond its role as host of the games. And the riots in Lhasa earlier this year made Tibet’s complicated relationship with China another flashpoint in the news. In an effort to help readers educate themselves about China’s history, culture, and role on the international stage, as well as Tibet’s own history with the regional power, the Association of American University Presses has published a bibliography of essential scholarship through its Books for Understanding public web site. These comprehensive scholarly bibliographies give
journalists and researchers a broader and deeper understanding of what
lies behind the headlines.
View the China list at http://aaupnet.org/news/bfu/china/list.html
View the Tibet list at http://aaupnet.org/news/bfu/tibet/list.html
Books for Understanding: http://booksforunderstanding.org