I've recently published an article in Learned Publishing with the slightly silly title of "Why marriage matters: A North American perspective on press/library partnerships." If you want to read the whole thing, it is available open access on the Learned Publishing site. The heart of the article is a discussion of the benefits that can accrue to both the press and the library if an integrated relationship is entered into. I say "can" because each circumstance is different and integration of the two entities does not make sense in every case. But I think the arguments for it are compelling.
While many
press/library collaborations are initiated by anticipated “economic” benefits,
the partners increasingly find “sociopolitical” advantage which is often
closely linked to “technological” opportunity in an environment where the need
to sustain digital scholarship is an increasing theme. These three themes are
discussed below. The benefits realized are not only relevant to the two
partners, of course, but also allow them together to better serve the scholarly
communication needs of institutional faculty, staff, and students and to
develop powerful solutions for particular disciplinary communities whose
subject interests align with the strategic strengths of the parent
university—an idea strongly focused on in the recommendations of the 2007
Ithaka S&R report on University Publishing in a Digital Age.
Economic: In the economic sphere, the reasons why a
university press could benefit from closer relationships with the library may initially
be clearer than the advantages for libraries. As described in a number of
reports, university presses have long been suffering from the declining market
for scholarly books and increased financial scrutiny from their institutions. Reducing expenses is a priority,
and opportunities to share overhead costs with campus partners are beneficial.
As libraries increasingly either de-accession or remove print materials to
remote storage, subsidized or “free” physical space is becoming available that
may be suitable for press occupancy, although presses interested in a central
campus location will often have to wrestle with other priority needs
(especially those focused on student learning) when lobbying for premium
library space. Other opportunities for synergy frequently come in the areas of
IT services, combined human resource and business office support, and shared
legal counsel.
In a survey conducted by AAUP’s
Library Relations Committee in 2012, 11% of libraries provided some form of
cash subsidy to university presses, while 53% of libraries provided some other
kinds of service. This included rent-free space but also support for basic
office functions, digitization, metadata enrichment, and preservation services.
Both libraries and presses share specific needs in these areas that would not
be well accommodated by other campus partners. For example, IT specialists in
the library tend to understand the metadata standards needed for bibliographic
information and the demands of digital preservation, HR recruiters are often
advertising in similar venues for library and press staff, and legal expertise
in areas such as intellectual property is desirable for both partners (even if
they may sometimes approach the law from different angles). While many of the
business office functions needed by the partners are similar, some challenges
can emerge in this area. These are mostly related to handling a
revenue-generating unit whose income and expenditure fluctuate over a multiyear
cycle (e.g., expenses incurred on a book in one financial year may not be
recouped until the following financial year) rather than a library, which
spends down an annually renewed budget over a single financial year, and having
to track cash flow. Indeed, while many press/library collaborations have found
synergies in back-office operations related to expenditure, it has been much
harder to merge systems related to revenue, including the time-consuming
demands of royalty tracking.
A less tangible area of economic
opportunity for both presses and libraries is in developing a better mutual
understanding of the economic challenges facing the scholarly communication
ecosystem in order to develop more informed strategies for intervention. One
example of this lies in the area of open-access publishing, where questions
about the “real cost” of publishing both journal articles and, increasingly,
books are at the center of library strategies to support this emerging field.
University presses, over 50% of which publish journals, can help untangle the
issues and inform an understanding of what might constitute a fair level of
subsidy. With the growing interest in open-access monographs, questions of what
constitutes a reasonable first copy cost are again coming to the fore, and the
opportunities to work through cost components in an environment of mutual trust
are invaluable. Where university press staff members are involved in
discussions about collections development choices, presses gain insights into
the processes by which libraries choose what and what not to buy. These are
valuable for decision-making locally and may give a library-based university
press a competitive advantage, but there are also ripple effects as informed
press directors and staff spread an understanding of the constraints libraries
are operating under within the publishing community more broadly.
Perhaps even more important than
back-office efficiencies, there are perceptual advantages (especially for smaller
presses) in having university press budgets incorporated into those of a larger
parent organization on campus. Because they produce sales revenue, university presses
generally are classified by their parent institutions as “auxiliary” operations
alongside entities such as student housing, catering, and sometimes even
athletics. Not only are academic publishing revenues dwarfed by those other
sources of earned income, but the metrics of success for such units tend to
primarily be financial rather than mission-related. Libraries, meanwhile, are
classified as core academic units. Funds spent on the library and its
subsidiary units are classified as “designated” for pursuit of the academic
mission of the university. By changing its classification from “auxiliary” to
“designated” in university accounts (the exact terms used will vary by
institution), the press’s appearance under the library’s financial accounting
umbrella can change the way in which the parent institution’s senior administrators
understand the purpose of supporting an academic publishing unit – to the
advantage of the university press. No more being called before the Provost to
account for yet another year of deficit!
Sociopolitical: As libraries move from stewarding
collections to providing services, academic librarians are eager to acquire expertise
in serving the needs of faculty as “authors” rather than “users” of scholarly
information. Even though the individuals may be the same, the attitudes and
expectations of faculty as authors and as users of scholarly content are as
different as “Dr. Jekyll and Dr. Hyde." The development
of data management services and library publishing services are two
manifestations of this change in emphasis, but it has become clear that
libraries are struggling to gain acceptance by faculty members in these new
“research support” roles, as reflected in the results of the latest Ithaka US
faculty survey which suggests little advance in the library’s credibility as a
research partner vs. increasing perception of its value in supporting students. While the credibility of the university
press as a partner to authors may be greatest in humanities and social science
disciplines, an association between a press and a library can advance the reputation
of the library in this space and provide valuable access to knowledge about
effective ways to solicit and work with authors.
A perennial
challenge for university presses has been in demonstrating relevance to their
parent institutions. Focused on the needs of specific disciplines across
institutions rather than on a single institution, university presses provide a
public good that is clear at the system level but is much less apparent to
administrators evaluating the local benefits of their investments. Partnership
with the library allows the press to create programs that demonstrate alignment
with the needs of the institution, while also advancing the ambitions of the
library in areas such as scholarly communication and information literacy
instruction. These successes can be represented to senior administration by the
dean or director of libraries who, unlike the press director, is a visible
presence in institutional leadership meetings.
A
particularly interesting opportunity for collaboration lies in finding ways for
the university press and library to engage with students in new ways. A number
of university presses are working with their parent libraries to create open
and/or affordable textbooks (e.g., Indiana, Temple, Purdue, Oregon State).
Meanwhile, under the banner of “publishing as pedagogy”,
others are working to integrate the experience of publishing student work into the
experiential learning opportunities that are increasing in number on North American
campuses. The development of scholarly communication curricula involving the
production of the graduate-produced Michigan
Journal of Medicine (http://www.michjmed.org/) or the undergraduate-run Journal of Purdue Undergraduate Research
(http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jpur/) are examples. As well as
completing the scholarly communication cycle and providing a tangible output
that students can use in their future careers, involvement in a publishing
process also involves the application of a number of high impact learning
experiences that can be shown to have a positive impact on student success.
Technological: As faculty members increasingly apply
digital tools to their research, their needs for support in publishing the full
record of their work electronically is increasing. The evidence-based 2007
study by the Ithaka organization on “university publishing in the digital age”
identified four emerging needs for scholars whose modes of information
production and consumption are increasingly electronic. These are that
everything must be electronic, that scholars will rely on deeply integrated
electronic research/publishing environments, that multimedia and multi-format
delivery will become increasingly important, and that new forms of content will
enable different economic models . Almost a decade later, it is clear that university
presses are seeing these needs expressed by almost every author, not just
“digital humanists.”
Press/library
collaborations have the capacity to effectively meet these needs by not only
harnessing the complementary skills of publishers and librarians but also
enabling university presses to connect peer-reviewed scholarship with less
formally produced material, the idea of publishing “across the continuum”
described by Daniel Greenstein. The
inclination to experiment, which at many university presses has been suppressed
by the need to constantly look to the bottom line, can be released by financial
relief that being part of the library can offer to enable new opportunities to
be explored. While a recent round of grants given by the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation to improve university press capacity to support digital scholarship
in the humanities have gone to presses with a range of organizational
structures, a disproportionate number of recipients represent library/press
partnerships. The projects proposed by presses reporting to libraries have
characteristics that leverage the relative strengths of each party and
emphasize the logic of deep collaboration. For example, New York University’s
Enhanced Network Monograph project focuses on issues of the discoverability of
digital projects, especially open access publications, an area of joint concern
to libraries and presses. The University of Michigan’s Fulcrum
platform (fulcrum.org), meanwhile, leverages library-based work to develop data
repositories using the open source Hydra/Fedora framework to serve the needs of
humanists for long-term digital preservation of the digital research outputs
they wish to link to their monographs. Michigan is working on
this project with three other presses strongly linked to their libraries
(Indiana, Northwestern, and Penn State) and one that is not (Minnesota).
Why Not Just Good Friends?
Achieving
some of the benefits of the sorts of collaboration described above does not absolutely
require an integrated press/library structure. There are good examples of
collaboration where the press and library have different reporting lines, or
even are at different institutions, such as Duke University Press and Cornell
University Libraries for Project Euclid or Oxford
University Press and University of Utah Library in hosting supplemental content
for a faculty member’s book. University of North Carolina
Press especially has shown leadership in creating relationships with its system
libraries to advance initiatives such as the creation of open educational
resources through its Office of Scholarly Publishing Services.
Some university presses that report to libraries continue to maintain
self-conscious separation of functions: Stanford University Press has chosen to
collaborate with the University of Richmond’s Digital Scholarship Lab rather
than its parent library to create its Mellon-funded digital scholarship
platform.
It is also
important not to dismiss the real challenges that integrating two organizations
with different cultures and traditions pose, especially since the historical
relationship of client/vendor has built-in tensions. Cultural differences
between librarians and publishers that make collaborating on joint projects
challenging have sometimes been exemplified by the idea that “libraries are
service organizations whose funding comes in part from their success in
anticipating needs, they tend to say yes” while “publishers, working to break
even in a highly competitive business, evaluating many potential projects, and
with quantifiable limits on their productivity, tend to say no." Meanwhile, the need to pursue
business strategies that cover most costs through earned revenue and the
razor-thin margins most university presses operate on are often overlooked by
libraries, and university press directors often feel unfairly picked upon when
libraries accuse them of dragging their feet on open access or being
“disconnected from the academic values of their parent institutions,” a common
refrain in debate around the Georgia State University lawsuit.
However, as the above discussion has
hopefully illustrated, the deep partnership required to truly unleash the power
of the complementary skills and infrastructure that exist in university presses
and academic libraries can only develop when press and library staff are
collocated and share a common vision. Only in such “marriages” can resources be
gifted and received, uncertain futures explored without risk, and the cultural
differences between the partners truly appreciated and valued. Just good
friends is not good enough.