<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.6.0">
</HEAD>
<BODY LINK="#0000ff">
<BR>
Le samedi 19 janvier 2013 à 10:14 +1100, Arthur Sale a écrit : <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Thanks Jean-Claude Guédon and Falk Reckling for your comments. It is difficult to answer them succinctly, but I will try.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
1. There is a substantial difference between books and articles in the current situation. Almost no researcher reads the printed copy of a journal article any more: they access the online version. Journal publishers who continue to print paper journals are largely wasting money, or doing it for archival purposes. On the other hand, until very recently, no-one read a book in any other format than paper. This is beginning to change with Kindle, iPad and other tablets, but the paradigm change is far from complete.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
The reading situation you describe is not yet the dominant situation in HSS. As for publishers who continue to publish on paper, I agree, they are wasting money, but this is not the point of this discussion. They are doing so, however, in part to respond to a real demand from significant fractions of their readership. This may be a generational thing, but the generalization above is inaccurate in HSS.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
2. Editorial work on journal articles is mimimal (and often counter-productive), while refereeing (selectivity of articles) is a major issue. With books the situation is reversed. Editorial work is often extensive, and acceptance (the parallel for refereeing) is largely in-house and there are fewer proposals.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Again, you generalize too fast. Editorial work is still important in SSH journals, in part because articles do not obey any particular templates. It is comparable to book editing. <BR>
<BR>
Many academic publishers use external referees to evaluate book manuscripts ( I have done such work on a number of occasions). Granting agencies that support the publishing of academic books use external referees extensively, if only to have ready justification for their decision-making results.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
3. I used ibooks as my example because they offer the best example of where electronic books are going: interactive. The conventional ebook that one can see in novels or .pub format is just a slightly souped-up pdf of text and a few pictures. An ibook is an interactive object, albeit at present in a proprietary format. I could also have cited Wolfram’s CDF (Computable Document Format). Have you used an ibook or CDF? Tried to write one? I have done both and the experience tells me that this is going to be an influential development.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
I obviously do not have your expertise on this topic, but this was only a very minor, marginal point in my counter-argument.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
4. Why do academic presses produce open access books? Because they are subsidized to do so, and their performance indicators are not profit-oriented, but academic prestige. I know that Jean-Claude realizes this, because he says so. The same for some professional societies. Good for them too, but it is not the norm.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
The norm is that academic presses that produce books are generally subsidized. The are subsidized by either by their own institution or by external, governmental, agencies. This is true of OA books, but it is also true of books for sale. OA books, and I agree with you, are not the norms among academic presses, but various projects (e.g. OAPEN in Europe) point in that direction. <BR>
<BR>
The subsidies from institutions have gone down and this has led a number of academic presses to become more like commercial presses. In turn, this situation has produced a crisis for the career management of many SSH disciplines. Both Robert Darnton (historian) and Stephen Greenblatt (literature) have, as presidents of their respective associations, published their concern about this. It demonstrates, in passing, the central importance of books in those disciplines.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
5. Printing, stock and distribution is largely wasted effort for journals. My own university library frequently simply trashes unwanted print copies sent to them as not worth the costs of cataloguing or shelving.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
But It just happens, to repeat myself, that many SSH journals are still being distributed in paper form, if only because a number of (presumably) old farts want to read them that way. Personally, I don't, but many of my colleagues do. And the type of reading needed to study a 30-page SSH article is a lot easier when print is available. In SSH disciplines, people, when they use on-line journals, download and print to read. Try reading Derrida on a screen... <IMG SRC="cid:1358559585.8478.33.camel@maison.outlook.umontreal.ca" ALIGN="middle" ALT=":-)" BORDER="0"> <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
6. A book is not just a long article, any more than the Golden Gate Bridge is just a long log across a creek. Scale changes things. Every engineer knows this. So do the publishing industries. Books have much smaller purchasing groups and much greater costs, in general, than a journal house. They also are not serials and cannot rely on continuing business.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Again, this is way too general and too fast. Book series exist, as do thematic journal that really are book series in disguise. Books vary in length from a few dozen pages to thousands of pages; articles vary from a few pages to a few dozen pages. In the print world, historians know that articles published in two or three instalments, although a minority, do exist. In short, drawing a firm boundary line between articles and books is a difficult task.<BR>
<BR>
The purchasing groups of books are not large, it is true, but the subscription lists of some journals are equally pitiful. Once, Hindawi picked up a journal that was indexed in the Web of Science but had fewer than one hundred subscribers, if I remember correctly the story I was told from the horse's mouth. <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
7. Yes, I agree that academic presses will reduce costs to produce books. The ANU Press for example publishes online OA, or on-demand print for a fee. Sensible and makes OA books more viable. But academic presses are subsidized.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
And many journals are subsidized too. In fact, in a number of countries, even commercial scholarly journals are subsidized. France is a good example of this situation, as is Italy. Canada also plays with this formula.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
8. My point in mentioning other forms of research outputs (and some of them are research outputs in the fine arts, others in engineering, and others in various other disciplines) was to point up the absurdity of interpreting “all research outputs” literally. <BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
OK<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I apologise to any pure scientists who are bemused by this exchange. If one only publishes in journals or conferences, then the practices of other disciplines may appear strange. You may note that I did not include furniture prototypes, sculptures, etc to try to be succinct. The concept of making a sculpture open access would be an interesting question for a morning tea discussion. I could have made up a much longer list of objects which are research outputs, including databases and datasets, plant patents, etc. I fully expect that the ARC guidelines will spell out what research outputs they specifically intend.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
OK<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I hope that this explanation has helped.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Well, it has demonstrated one point I have regularly felt: the OA debate is sometimes framed in terms that fit well with only some disciplines. Arthur's answers reflect this limitation extremely well. As a historian of science first trained in chemistry and teaching now comparative literature, I have explored wide enough a variety of research practises to know that they are very diverse indeed. Disciplinary provincialism is one of the problems we must face up to in the OA community. Some of the tactics offered from a limited disciplinary perspective do not agree well with other disciplinary contexts, and they may even work against wider strategic goals. Being sensitive and open to these possibilities can only help the OA communities.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
<PRE>
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
</PRE>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>