We're Definitely Not in Kansas Anymore—But Are We in Oz? Jennifer Crewe (bio) Scholarly publishing—indeed, all publishing—is being restructured because of revolutionary changes in the business, first and foremost the technological advances in producing and delivering books in both print and electronic form. These changes have coincided with the effects of the recession; budget cuts at universities, particularly library budgets; and diminished student funds for books. The advent of the system of patron-driven purchasing of scholarly books by college and university libraries and the concurrent elimination of the standing orders for university press books by libraries, present new challenges for the presses, which face significant reductions in book sales.1 At the same time, e-book sales are rising exponentially, somewhat offsetting the lower sales of print copies but not replacing that revenue. [End Page 116] Scholars—particularly young scholars looking for publishers for their first books—face a landscape that is quite different from the one that their mentors navigated. Our procedures for deciding which books to publish have largely remained the same, as have our standards of selection. But some of the processes of publication, and most of the processes of dissemination and making our books discoverable, have radically changed. In the next few pages I provide some thoughts about the role of the scholarly publisher and author in the current climate, and I explain why publishers today must maintain two business models simultaneously. One thing that hasn't changed much in the world of scholarly publishing is the way manuscripts are selected for publication. Many worthy manuscripts are submitted to university press editors each year, and many are turned down without a formal review process. I am often asked—or if not asked directly, I sense the unspoken question—"Why didn't the press consider my book?" Usually the answer has nothing to do with the perceived quality of the book and everything to do with "fit." It's difficult to overemphasize the importance of fit in an acquisitions editor's initial appraisal of a book. Although acquisitions editors at university presses are usually given quite a lot of freedom to decide which books to consider and how to shape their own lists, they nevertheless must work within certain strictures. Usually the editor, editorial director, sales and marketing director, publicist, director of the press, and chief financial officer all have to believe in the broader goals of a list. For example, a press might have decided to publish books in Film and Media Studies, but certain decisions had to be made and then adhered to: How big will the list be? Two books per year? Five? What kind of revenue can it be expected to generate annually? Will it be largely monographic, or will it include textbooks, or trade books? Will it be broad and include books in the entire field of visual culture? Or will it focus on film only, or on film and television? Will new media be included? Journalism? Radio? If the list is defined as covering film and television only, a book on radio would be rejected without formal consideration. If a series editor is working with the acquisitions editor, together they will come up with a series description and plan. If managed well, a series can be a tremendous help in developing a clear focus for the list, thus drawing authors to the press. Once the parameters of a list have been established and the editor's colleagues have agreed on them, the press must feel confident that any particular new book under consideration will complement the list's profile and reach its intended audience. These decisions have to be made, because if a list lacks focus—if the editor publishes, say, three books a year in the field but just dabbles in this or that sub-area—he or she runs the danger of having a diffuse list that is difficult to characterize. Good editors want their press to be known and distinguished for doing a certain kind of book within a certain subject area. This helps them attract authors who are writing books that are appropriate for the list, and it helps the list develop...
Read full abstract
Oct 1, 2014
Marcia J Isakson + 4
Open Access