This article outlines the rise and development of New University Presses and Academic-Led Presses in the UK or publishing for the UK market. Based on the Jisc research project, Changing publishing ecologies: a landscape study of new university presses and academic-led publishing, commonalities between these two types of presses are identified to better assess their future needs and requirements. Based on this analysis, the article argues for the development of a publishing toolkit, for further research into the creation of a typology of presses and publishing initiatives, and for support with community building to help these initiatives grow and develop further, whilst promoting a more diverse publishing ecology.
“Enabled by technology, brought into being in response to a crisis in scholarly communication, and increasingly driven by governmental regulations, mandates of funding bodies, and universities’ policies, open access (OA) is one of the fundamental issues that need to be considered as part of a publishing strategy and business model at a new university press. By considering the attitudes toward OA among the stakeholders of Australian university presses, I propose that a university press should take a hybrid approach to the OA publishing model to ensure diversified funding and income streams, editorial independence, and sustainability. At the same time, the press needs to maintain rigorous peer review, high-quality editing and production, and effective marketing while developing a focused publishing program in areas that are distinctive to the press and strategically aligned with the goals of its parent university.”
“Cambridge University Press has made an agreement with Dutch institutions which combines access to Cambridge’s subscription content with Open Access (OA) publishing in our hybrid and wholly OA journals. This is a first for Cambridge and a welcome innovation in a fast-moving publishing landscape.
The agreement with the UKB (the consortium of the 13 Dutch university libraries and the National Library of the Netherlands) means Dutch affiliated authors from eligible institutions can access all titles within the 2017 Cambridge Journals Full Collection and publish without limitation in both Cambridge hybrid and wholly Open Access journals.”
“Welcome to Building Manifold, a blog that will document the process of creating Manifold Scholarship, a project at the University of Minnesota Press in partnership with the GC Digital Scholarship Lab at the Graduate Center, CUNY and Cast Iron Coding. Manifold Scholarship is funded through a generous grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation as part of a series of 2015 grants made to university presses.
Manifold Scholarship is composed of two parts:
1) The creation of Manifold, an intuitive, collaborative, open-source platform for scholarly works. With iterative texts, powerful annotation tools, rich media support, and robust community dialogue, Manifold will transform scholarly publications into living digital works.
2) Rethinking the print-focused mode of scholarly authorship and university press editorial procedures and production workflows to accommodate the differences in creating content for iterative, networked publication….”
“We have created a series of five blog posts covering open access at Duke University Press. Today’s post features Project Euclid, a not-for-profit hosting and publishing platform for the mathematics and statistics communities, managed jointly by Cornell University Library and Duke University Press. Here Leslie Eager, Director of Publishing Services for Project Euclid, shares more about the platform and the ways it supports open access in the mathematics and statistics world.
Our goal at Project Euclid is to make mathematics and statistics publications easy and affordable to find and read online. Supporting open-access publishing is a huge part of that mission. About 70% of Project Euclid is open access.
With Project Euclid the idea is to provide low-cost but feature-rich hosting services for journals, books, and conference proceedings so that publishers can keep the scholarship affordable and widely available to libraries and researchers while sustaining themselves financially. We partner with math and stats publishers around the world.”
“Emory College of Arts and Sciences has launched a $1.2 million effort that positions it to be a national leader in the future of scholarly publishing. The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation is funding the multiyear initiative to support long-form, open-access publications in the humanities in partnership with university presses.
The idea to explore new models for humanities publishing was born out of a working group of faculty and administrators headed by Michael A. Elliott, interim Emory College dean and Asa Griggs Candler Professor of English.
‘Emory is a good place for this because we have faculty that are adventurous in their disciplinary interests and already thinking of addressing multiple audiences,’ Elliott says. ‘It will be rigorous scholarship, available to everyone.’
Led by the Bill and Carol Fox Center for Humanistic Inquiry, the endeavor will bring together efforts in Emory College, Emory Libraries, the Center for Faculty Development and Excellence and the Emory Center for Digital Scholarship.
At the helm is Sarah McKee, most recently managing editor of the New Georgia Encyclopedia. She arrived this month as the Fox Center’s senior associate director of publishing, tasked with rolling out ventures that publish humanities monographs as digital publications.
The project will run through 2020 and calls for Emory to share the cost and benefit of publishing new long-form works.”
“OUP took some risks with this book, notably agreeing to go Open Access from day one. That is a huge leap from the traditional publishing model of publishing only the hardback for a year, then deciding when to go into paperback. Some people, particularly cash-strapped students used to reading on screen, are likely to take the OA route, but OUP hoped the buzz around open access would generate some sales, or people would start reading the pdf, and then see enough to buy a copy.
So what happened? Turns out that Open Access doesn’t harm book sales and if anything, promotes them. So far, OUP has sold 3,500 hardbacks and Oxfam has distributed a further 1,500 of a paperback edition at events, to staff etc..
Obviously, there’s no clear counterfactual as all books are different, but OUP are pretty convinced that OA has generated more of a buzz than a simple hardback ever could. It’s certainly better than I’ve had with any of my previous books.
The Open Access numbers are also really interesting (at least to me): 5,700 downloads of the full pdf, mainly from the Oxfam site; over 2,000 book views on Oxford Scholarship Online; and 115,000 page views on Google Books, with the average visitor reading 10 pages. Somewhere in between comes the £2 kindle version – just a couple of hundred so far.
So big tick on Open Access, and props to OUP for being willing to take the risk. Glad it’s paid off so far….”