ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 7 0 6 / C&RL News C onference Circuit The sch o la rly m onograph in crisis B y B arb ara H alp o rn How can I get tenured if you won’t publish my book? T he Specialized Scholarly Monograph in Crisis or How Can I Get Tenure if You Won’t Publish My Book?” sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), the Asso­ ciation of American University Presses, and the Association of Research Libraries was held in Washington, DC, September 11-12, 1997. Rarely does a conference produce sessions that are as lively and engaged as the corridor conversations betw een acts, but the “Mono­ graph in Crisis” was the exception to prove the rule. Some 150 individuals representing schol­ arly publishing, the professoriate, and research libraries met ostensibly to discuss the relation­ ship betw een tenure and the dwindling market for scholarly monographs. To everyone’s profit, the presenters and the participants quickly ex­ panded the discussion to the current status and future o f scholarly publication in general, the uncertainties o f traditional print publication in an electronic environment, questions o f who readers will be and how they want to get infor­ mation, how it is to be packaged and sold, and how libraries will acquire it. The panel offerings fell into these catego­ ries: overview o f scholarly communication is­ sues; the econom ics o f scholarly publishing; changing expectations for faculty; experiments in monographic publishing; new frameworks for scholarly research and communication; fu­ ture directions. The scholarly publishers introduced us to the hard econom ic truths o f their (and our) world. Joanna Hitchcock, director o f the Uni­ versity o f Texas Press and president o f the AAUP, reminded us that the original mission of university presses was to publish the results of advanced research for specialists, work that had no place in the commercial market. Universi­ ties that once subsidized their presses to en­ able them to fulfill that mission now demand that their presses be self-supporting. Conse­ quently, university presses have looked for broader audiences (i.e., outside the academy) with more diversified (i.e., more popular) lists. Shifts in scholarship from focus on America and western Europe to greater geographical, cul­ tural, and chronological range have created greater diversity in lists but smaller audiences for specialized publications. Scholarly presses must weigh carefully the risks in publishing a specialized monograph with a limited market. Just what the risks are becam e clear when Marlie Wasserman, director o f the Rutgers Uni­ versity Press, answered the question, “How much does it cost to publish a monograph and why?” Corridor conversations with others in publishing confirmed the gloomy picture o f de­ clining print runs and sales o f scholarly books, where sales o f 500 copies are considered a suc­ cess even if they make no profit. Publishers have cut costs as deeply as they can. The mode o f production— print or electronic— accounts for only a third of the cost o f production. Sanford Thatcher, director o f the Pennsyl­ vania State University Press, pointed to the “di­ vergence o f scholarly value and market value.” Both Thatcher and Colin Day, director o f the University o f Michigan Press, emphasized the interdependencies in the system o f scholarly communication, the need to think about the system as a whole, and how change in one area affects many other areas. When, for ex­ ample, authors produce camera-ready copy, they must divert attention from their primary skills and tasks (scholarship and teaching) to do work that publishing professionals are best B a r b a r a H alporn is head, Collection D evelopment Department, W idener Library, H arvard University; e-m ail: bh a lp om @ fas.b arv ard .ed u mailto:bhalpom@fas.barvard.edu N ovem ber 1 9 9 7 / 7 0 7 equipped for. The costs are high to the system as a whole, even if they ease the econom ic pressures on the publisher. Speakers defined the monograph in a vari­ ety o f ways, both serious and facetious. Among other things it was called “com otose,” “chroni­ cally ill,” “the representative o f the scientific tradition in humanistic scholarship,” “the solid thud on the desk o f the dean that backs up a case for tenure,” and “200 library sales, no course use, intended for specialists.” The subtitle o f the conference— “How Can I Get Tenure If You W on’t Publish My Book?”— gradually took a subordinate role to discussions o f the crisis in scholarly publishing in general, p ro b a b ly b e c a u s e th e p ro fe s s o ria te w as underrepresented in the audience. Although several panelists discussed the role o f publish­ ing in tenure decisions, these discussions were not as intense as those that spoke to publishers and librarians, who accounted for more than three-quarters o f the participants. Nevertheless, John D’Arms, president o f the ACLS, Charles Beitz, dean for academic affairs at Bowdoin College, and Peter Nathan, acting president of the University o f Iowa, spoke candidly about the need to support junior faculty, to develop a better system to evaluate for tenure, and to prepare graduate students and postdoctoral stu­ dents to enter the academic system. Several innovative publishing partnerships were described (one print, three electronic), exploring new models for publishing in the future. The Mellon Foundation has underwrit­ ten the research and development o f several electronic publishing projects, which must at some point make it independently. The conference concluded with a look at the future. At Clifford Lynch’s prediction that print would not disappear but that ways of getting information would be “more and dif­ ferent,” a visible sense o f relief spread through the room. In his view, we will learn how much users value publishers’ “added value.” He sug­ gested that the notion o f single authorship in the humanities may give way because it be­ com es increasingly difficult to allocate credit on work that develops through constant e-mail collaboration. This could transform the modes o f rhetorical strategies in scholarly argument and in the long run perhaps create a new style o f scholarly monograph. Sandria B. Freitag, executive director o f the American Historical Association, described the roles that the institutional actors may play in the arena o f scholarly publishing. Gatekeeping, quality control, and peer review remain critical features o f the scholarly process. She sees an increasing role for scholarly societies in shap­ ing the direction o f publication in the human­ istic disciplines if they will take up the chal­ lenge o f figuring out how best to use the medium to enhance scholarly value. As a back­ drop to the conference, the September 12, 1997, C h ron icle o f H ig h er E d u ca tio n published two articles on issues central to the conference: V. Kieman’s “University Libraries Debate the Value o f Package Deals on Electronic Journals” (A31- A33) and K. Wissoker’s “Scholarly Monographs Are Flourishing, Not Dying” (B4-B5). Kiernan reported the unease that librarians experience with package deals on electronic journals. Wissoker, the editor-in-chief o f Duke Univer­ sity Press, challenged the premise o f the con­ ference by asserting that scholarly publishing is in the throes o f change, not death. The conference was a lively, intelligent, and long-overdue conversation among scholars, publishers, and librarians. If the papers o f this are published, they will be worth revisiting. ■ S ta te m e n t o f o w n e r s h ip a n d m a n a g e m e n t College & R esearch L ibraries News is published 11 times a year (monthly, combining July/August) by the American Library Association, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611. American Library Association, owner; Mary Ellen K. Davis, editor and publisher. Second-class postage paid at Chicago, Illinois. Printed in the U.S.A. As a nonprofit organization authorized to mail at special rates (DMM Section 423.12), the purposes, function, and nonprofit status of this organiza­ tion and the exempt status for federal income tax purposes, have not changed during the preceding 12 months. E x te n t a n d n a tu re o f c ircu la tio n . (“Average” figures denote the number of copies printed each issue during the preceding twelve months; “Actual” figures denote the number of copies o f single issues published nearest to filing date.) Total n u m b er o f cop ies p r in te d (n et p ress run): Average, 12,380; Actual, 12,322. Sales through d ealers a n d carriers, street vendors, a n d co u n ter sales: not applicable. P a id o r requ ested m a il subscriptions: Average, 11,655; Actual, II,7 1 2 . Total p a i d a n d /o r requ ested circu lation : Average, 11,655; Actual, 11,712. F ree distribution by m ail: Average, 107; Actual, 111. F ree d istribution o u tsid e the m ail: Average, 0; Actual, 0. Total fr e e distribution: Average, 107; Actual, I I I . Total distribution: Average, 11,762; Actual, 11,823. C opies not distributed: Office use, leftover, spoiled: Average, 618; Actual, 499. Returns fr o m new s agen ts: not applicable. Total (sum o f previous entries): Average, 12,380; Actual, 12,322. P ercent p a i d a n d /o r requ ested c ircu la tio n : Average: 99-09%; Actual: 99.06%. S ta te m e n t o f O w n e rsh ip , M a n a g e m e n t, a n d C ircu la tio n (PS Form 3526, October 1997) for 1997 filed with the United States Postal Service, Postmaster in Chicago, Illinois, October 6, 1997.