The Restructuring of Scholarly Publishing in the United States, 1980-2001: A Resource-Based Analysis of University Presses. Barbara G. Haney Jones. Lewiston, ME: Edward Mellen Press, 2009. 452 pp.
Of interest to serious researchers who may be seeking to get their monographs accepted by a good academic press, this study may open some eyes, for all is not well in the world of scholarly publishing. But it must be said at the outset that to some extent this is a book of history.
Note the dates in the title—most of the discussion here predates the full impact of the Internet on publishing. Further, many of the trends described here have greatly expanded over the years since—the decline in library book-buying, for example. So the detailed discussion, based on data largely from the mid-1990s, has a rather quaint feel to it a decade and more later. Add in the recent economic slump, and the book seems even more outmoded. That is not to say, however, that it has little value.
Jones, financial manager of the Edward Mellon Press, a small private publisher of scholarly work, wrote this study as a dissertation at the University of Wales (located near the publisher’s U.K. offices), completing her work several years ago. The importance of the topic, to both authors and publishers, has led to its publication now. Many of the trends she identifies in text and tables continue and have often accelerated recently. She notes the growing role of electronic books and Internet book-selling, two aspects of publishing which are ever more important. The appearance of Kindles and more recently iPads seems likely to speed up the growth of electronic books, whether traditionalists (including this reviewer) like it or not.
Taking the broad approach, Jones sees the dramatic changes underway as both a threat to university presses and something of an opportunity as well. Technology is obviously both, depending on how it’s applied. She cites many early examples of press adoption of non-traditional examples of “publishing.”
Perhaps of most interest will be chapter 6, which reports the key findings of her research. Jones reviews and summarizes the many changes in publishing generally and scholarly publishing specifically that have been changing over the past quarter-century, and then suggests some of the university press strategies that have resulted from the changing market. As financial subsidies to such presses have dropped or disappeared, their ability to issue limited-interest monographs has likewise declined. Indeed, if one looks at books about film (to pick but one topic) that many university presses turn out these days, an appeal to other than traditional academic buyers seems evident.
Jones projects that many university presses will disappear within the next few years, as some already have. The transition from paper to electronic distribution will expand. One possible outcome of all this is substantial adjustment in the traditional publish-or-perish mantra of academic promotion and survival.
Much of the detail here will appeal only to those involved in (or fascinated with) book publishing. But the basic message is more far-reaching and deserving of attention in academic circles. The times clearly are changing in scholarly publishing, and academe will have to adjust as well.
CHRISTOPHER H. STERLING
George Washington University