Writers Magazine 2009

Reports from the 2009 London Book Fair

by London bookworm 2009

3: So what about academic publishing?

The area of academic publishing might not appear to highlight issues of interest to a wider writing audience but these specialist journals are being forced to respond to the digital world where faster turnaround times and the downward pressure on prices are forcing rapid change. So the SMT (Science, Medical & Technical) journals might be pointing a way towards the future.

The conflict

In academic publishing the needs of the writer and the pressures on the publisher are somewhat different. The writer is anxious to have their work made available as quickly as possible, especially in a fast-moving area where publication might establish certain commercial rights. Even if it is simply a matter of pride and wanting to be the first to explain a discovery or invention, making the work visible as quickly as possible is an issue.

But publishers in the scientific medical and technical field have a reputation to protect. The success of their journals depends upon publishing relevant, credible and accurate material, so they are not in as much of a hurry as the writer.

Another driving force behind these changes is the increasing role of government and not-for-profit organisations as the sponsors of research. It is often a condition of any grant of public funds that the findings should be published and the results open to all, which adds another conflict. To get round the clashes between these diverse interests some creative approaches have been adopted.

There is also an increasing trend towards allowing the issue of a licence rather than getting involved in licensing copyright.

Licensing

Because it is increasingly difficult to decide exactly who owns which rights, journal publishers are turning to licences that specify what the author is entitled to do with their work and also what the publisher is allowed to do.

Once an article is accepted for publication, the publisher often allows some pre-publication of the work. This is often circumscribed, perhaps limiting publication to a private or institutional website.

A licence might set out what happens to any pre-published piece when the final article is actually published. If the writer is allowed to publish their work on their own website they might be required to remove it and replace it with the PDF which the publisher has produced. This version incorporates all the reviewing, editing and quality artwork which is the hallmark of many of the journals. Most writers would of course want to remove their initial efforts and replace them with a definitive model, but that again has to be agreed.

Because the publisher often relies on subscriptions for their income, the licence might call for any pre-published piece to be replaced with a link to the publisher’s site. The writer gets the benefit of early exposure and the publisher picks up lots of links as news of the article spreads.

The use of the embargo as one of the licensing conditions is increasing. An embargo might prevent the work being pre-published too early and will not allow for it to be re-published before a certain date. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that funding bodies apply pressure to keep such restrictions as short as possible. The conflict is between the rights of the publisher to obtain money by restricting access against the desire of the writer and those probably funding research to have the work made freely accessible.

The tight definition of these rights, with each stage being specified, could provide a good model for new writers in other fields who recognise the need to put their work about. Most academic writers will have had to sign several amendments to existing publishing contracts over the last few decades, and a model where the creator grants rights for certain purposes and for specified durations has much to recommend itself, from the writer’s point of view.

The ultimate copyright used to rest with the publishers, but in the modern world of SMT publication the rights of the creator over their work can be better set out in a licence. This is the case in about half of the journals which responded to a poll run by John Cox Associates. In that same survey it also emerged that 13% of journals did not appear to worry about constructing a licence, with publication effectively providing open access with publication.

Some disciplines are noticeably more conservative. The report was rather coy in identifying these areas but we should all be relieved to discover that the pharmaceutical and medical journals are very cautious in what they publish and in the use of that is made of their material.

It is interesting to note that the smaller journals appear to be more cautious and restrictive when compared with the larger organisations, which tend to be less concerned or less prescriptive about what the writer can do with their work pre- and post-publication. But they do like to define the timetable.

© Chas Jones 2009

©WritersServices.com 2001-2009