View full-text
(Re-)De-commodification in academic knowledge distribution?
Journal Article: Science Studies 01/2001; 14:21-42.
Comments on this publication
ResearchGate members can add comments. Sign up now and post your comment!
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 1
Science Studies 2/2001
Science Studies, Vol. 14(2001) No. 2, 21–42
(Re-)De-Commodification
in Academic Knowledge Distribution?
Michael Nentwich
This paper argues that the system of formal scholarly publication is entering its third
phase of evolution. This phase has not yet taken full shape, but is characterised by a
strong de-commodified core with only niches for commercial publishers – in con-
trast to phase II which was the age of increasing commodification. The main reasons
for this development are economic, functional and ideational. The current economic
crisis of academic publishing is driving academia to alternative models. From a func-
tional perspective, the advent of E-publishing makes it possible that academia will
take over most of what is currently done by the commercial publishers. Finally, the
last decade has seen an increasing awareness of the research community that its
products should not be treated as a commodity, but should instead be freely avail-
able to the whole community.
Keywords: commodification, information & communication technologies, scholarly
publication
The output of research can be viewed
from three perspectives. Beyond any
doubt, the primary function of research
is to contribute to scholarship on which
future research can be based. Second,
the output converted into publications
plays an important role in the academic
career of individual researchers. The so-
called record often forms the basis of as-
sessments for hiring or tenure. From a
final point of view, research output in the
form of publications can also be re-
garded as a commodity. This will be
looked at in depth here.
There are considerable differences
among the disciplines: mainly in the sci-
ence, technology and medicine (STM)
disciplines, where research is often very
close to application and particularly
valuable. But also in the humanities,
where publications are regarded also as
trade objects, a view with unintended
consequences.
Many academics readily assign the
copyrights to the publishers because
they do not view their articles as valu-
able commodities. Others tend to do the
same because they want to get published
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2021
Science Studies, Vol. 14(2001) No. 2, 21–42
(Re-)De-Commodification
in Academic Knowledge Distribution?
Michael Nentwich
This paper argues that the system of formal scholarly publication is entering its third
phase of evolution. This phase has not yet taken full shape, but is characterised by a
strong de-commodified core with only niches for commercial publishers – in con-
trast to phase II which was the age of increasing commodification. The main reasons
for this development are economic, functional and ideational. The current economic
crisis of academic publishing is driving academia to alternative models. From a func-
tional perspective, the advent of E-publishing makes it possible that academia will
take over most of what is currently done by the commercial publishers. Finally, the
last decade has seen an increasing awareness of the research community that its
products should not be treated as a commodity, but should instead be freely avail-
able to the whole community.
Keywords: commodification, information & communication technologies, scholarly
publication
The output of research can be viewed
from three perspectives. Beyond any
doubt, the primary function of research
is to contribute to scholarship on which
future research can be based. Second,
the output converted into publications
plays an important role in the academic
career of individual researchers. The so-
called record often forms the basis of as-
sessments for hiring or tenure. From a
final point of view, research output in the
form of publications can also be re-
garded as a commodity. This will be
looked at in depth here.
There are considerable differences
among the disciplines: mainly in the sci-
ence, technology and medicine (STM)
disciplines, where research is often very
close to application and particularly
valuable. But also in the humanities,
where publications are regarded also as
trade objects, a view with unintended
consequences.
Many academics readily assign the
copyrights to the publishers because
they do not view their articles as valu-
able commodities. Others tend to do the
same because they want to get published
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2021
Page 2
Science Studies 2/2001
22
in prestigious journals and therefore
obey the ‘rules of the game’ as developed
over the last decades. As a result, the
publishers gain the right to sell the pub-
lications under their own (commercially
oriented) terms. This is often in contrast
with both the interests of the individual
researcher and of the scientific commu-
nity at large, in particular the interests
of the universities which need to devote
ever larger shares of their library budgets
to buying back their faculty’s material
previously given to the publishers.
Atkinson (2000) has framed the issue
in terms of an ideological difference be-
tween the main intermediaries in the
scholarly information exchange process:
libraries and publishers. He argues that
the long-term evolution of information
services will depend finally upon the ul-
timately prevailing intermediary ideol-
ogy. In his words, the fundamental ideo-
logical question is “whether specialized
academic information should be under-
stood as a commodity, intended prima-
rily for (and judged in each case by the
extent to which it succeeds in generating)
revenue – or whether access to scholarly
information is a social good that must be
freely available (Atkinson, 2000: 62).”
This paper is structured as follows:
first, I distinguish three phases of schol-
arly communication to set the scene for
a description of the current develop-
ments. I describe the crisis of the existing
system in phase II and then systematise
the various initiatives to change the sta-
tus quo with a view to shaping phase III.
Against this background, I assess whether
the initiatives are doomed or whether we
have to expect either a split system – partly
commodified and partly de-commodified
– or a uniformly de-commodified one in
the medium run.
Three Phases of Scholarly
Communication
Seen from the viewpoint of the relation-
ship between scholarly publications and
the market, we are able to distinguish
three phases of scholarly communica-
tion: the original state of greatest pos-
sible distance, the system of commodi-
fication and finally, the present partial
counter-movement. Note that these
phases are certainly not clear- cut in the
sense that one may give an exact point
in time when one phase is over and the
other started. For our analytical pur-
poses here, it is nevertheless very useful
to contrast these three phases with a
view to highlight their main character-
istics.
The first phase is characterised by the
advent of the early academic journals in
the 17th century which institutionalised
and generalised the earlier (pre-
Gutenberg) system of written scholarly
correspondence among individual
scholars and exchange of manuscripts.
The first journals published were by
Académie Française in Paris and the
Royal Society of London for the Promo-
tion of Natural Knowledge in 1665. These
publications were still heavily influ-
enced by the previous form of “letters”.
The important point to note here is that
it was scholarly associations (academies
and societies) of the state (the King)
which supported this new system. As it
is still the custom today, national schol-
arly societies and academies exchanged
their respective series. Scholarly publi-
cations were not yet treated as “com-
modities”, but heavily subsidised by the
scholarly institutions until the 1960s.
Walker (1998) reports that although sci-
entific societies published most science
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2022
22
in prestigious journals and therefore
obey the ‘rules of the game’ as developed
over the last decades. As a result, the
publishers gain the right to sell the pub-
lications under their own (commercially
oriented) terms. This is often in contrast
with both the interests of the individual
researcher and of the scientific commu-
nity at large, in particular the interests
of the universities which need to devote
ever larger shares of their library budgets
to buying back their faculty’s material
previously given to the publishers.
Atkinson (2000) has framed the issue
in terms of an ideological difference be-
tween the main intermediaries in the
scholarly information exchange process:
libraries and publishers. He argues that
the long-term evolution of information
services will depend finally upon the ul-
timately prevailing intermediary ideol-
ogy. In his words, the fundamental ideo-
logical question is “whether specialized
academic information should be under-
stood as a commodity, intended prima-
rily for (and judged in each case by the
extent to which it succeeds in generating)
revenue – or whether access to scholarly
information is a social good that must be
freely available (Atkinson, 2000: 62).”
This paper is structured as follows:
first, I distinguish three phases of schol-
arly communication to set the scene for
a description of the current develop-
ments. I describe the crisis of the existing
system in phase II and then systematise
the various initiatives to change the sta-
tus quo with a view to shaping phase III.
Against this background, I assess whether
the initiatives are doomed or whether we
have to expect either a split system – partly
commodified and partly de-commodified
– or a uniformly de-commodified one in
the medium run.
Three Phases of Scholarly
Communication
Seen from the viewpoint of the relation-
ship between scholarly publications and
the market, we are able to distinguish
three phases of scholarly communica-
tion: the original state of greatest pos-
sible distance, the system of commodi-
fication and finally, the present partial
counter-movement. Note that these
phases are certainly not clear- cut in the
sense that one may give an exact point
in time when one phase is over and the
other started. For our analytical pur-
poses here, it is nevertheless very useful
to contrast these three phases with a
view to highlight their main character-
istics.
The first phase is characterised by the
advent of the early academic journals in
the 17th century which institutionalised
and generalised the earlier (pre-
Gutenberg) system of written scholarly
correspondence among individual
scholars and exchange of manuscripts.
The first journals published were by
Académie Française in Paris and the
Royal Society of London for the Promo-
tion of Natural Knowledge in 1665. These
publications were still heavily influ-
enced by the previous form of “letters”.
The important point to note here is that
it was scholarly associations (academies
and societies) of the state (the King)
which supported this new system. As it
is still the custom today, national schol-
arly societies and academies exchanged
their respective series. Scholarly publi-
cations were not yet treated as “com-
modities”, but heavily subsidised by the
scholarly institutions until the 1960s.
Walker (1998) reports that although sci-
entific societies published most science
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2022
Page 3
23
Michael Nentwich
journals, some were published by other
non-profit institutions, such as univer-
sities, museums and governments while
commercial publishers were generally
not attracted to the field because there
was too little potential for profit. The
same holds true for the university presses,
which started to print scholarly books
only shortly after the invention of print-
ing from movable type in the late 15 th
century. Oxford University Press, for in-
stance, started printing already in 1478.
The presses’ explicit goal was not prima-
rily to sell books, but to advance schol-
arship through making the research re-
sults available to fellow scholars.
The second phase rests on an increas-
ing role of the “market” and so-called
trade-publishers since the beginning of
the last century. Elsevier Science, for in-
stance, has been in the business for more
than 100 years. The time of these new ac-
tors came in the 1960s (Walker, 1998) and
they proved to be very efficient in turn-
ing scholarly output into commodities.
This development did not take place at
equal speed and similar success in all aca-
demic disciplines. In general, however,
large parts of academic publishing are in
the hands of the private sector today. The
noteworthy characteristic of the present
situation is the fact that scholarly authors
normally give away their to-be-published
works for free, or almost free, to the com-
mercial publishers which, in turn, sell
their final products back to the universi-
ties and their libraries at increasingly high
prices. This has led to the so-called “se-
rial crisis” or “journal crisis” (i.e. ever
higher prices while library budgets went
down) with regard to mainly journals in
the STM sector, which stretches to other
disciplines and the humanities book mar-
ket in particular.
Consequently, at the beginning of the
21st century, it seems that the second
phase is giving way to a third phase. It is
not clear yet what shape it will take, but
it features, at least partially, what we might
call de-commodification or, with regard to
the first phase, re-de-commodification
since it might reinstate the original, un-
commodified situation. Information and
communication technologies (ICT) have
brought about new opportunities, in
particular electronic publishing in the
form of E-journals, E-pre-print servers
(self-archiving) and self-publishing. E-
publishing potentially improves the eco-
nomic situation of not-for- profit jour-
nal publishers and opens up the possi-
bility that the academic community re-
appropriates the publishing business.
On the one hand, libraries try to pool
their resources and purchasing power in
consortia and thus stay within the
present paradigm. On the other hand,
academics, scholarly associations and
libraries set up free E-print-servers and
open archives as well as non-commer-
cial E-journals and other free knowledge
resources in the WWW. A parallel infra-
structure seems to emancipate itself
from strict commercial considerations,
facilitating various forms of not-for-
profit knowledge circulation. Some of
them appear to be similar to those pre-
ceding the advent of strong commercial
interests in the academic publishing
market. Others are quite different from
the original system, due to the new op-
portunities provided by current ICT (see
below).
The Crisis of Phase II
The crisis in the scholarly publication
system (called the ‘serial crisis’) “has
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2023
Michael Nentwich
journals, some were published by other
non-profit institutions, such as univer-
sities, museums and governments while
commercial publishers were generally
not attracted to the field because there
was too little potential for profit. The
same holds true for the university presses,
which started to print scholarly books
only shortly after the invention of print-
ing from movable type in the late 15 th
century. Oxford University Press, for in-
stance, started printing already in 1478.
The presses’ explicit goal was not prima-
rily to sell books, but to advance schol-
arship through making the research re-
sults available to fellow scholars.
The second phase rests on an increas-
ing role of the “market” and so-called
trade-publishers since the beginning of
the last century. Elsevier Science, for in-
stance, has been in the business for more
than 100 years. The time of these new ac-
tors came in the 1960s (Walker, 1998) and
they proved to be very efficient in turn-
ing scholarly output into commodities.
This development did not take place at
equal speed and similar success in all aca-
demic disciplines. In general, however,
large parts of academic publishing are in
the hands of the private sector today. The
noteworthy characteristic of the present
situation is the fact that scholarly authors
normally give away their to-be-published
works for free, or almost free, to the com-
mercial publishers which, in turn, sell
their final products back to the universi-
ties and their libraries at increasingly high
prices. This has led to the so-called “se-
rial crisis” or “journal crisis” (i.e. ever
higher prices while library budgets went
down) with regard to mainly journals in
the STM sector, which stretches to other
disciplines and the humanities book mar-
ket in particular.
Consequently, at the beginning of the
21st century, it seems that the second
phase is giving way to a third phase. It is
not clear yet what shape it will take, but
it features, at least partially, what we might
call de-commodification or, with regard to
the first phase, re-de-commodification
since it might reinstate the original, un-
commodified situation. Information and
communication technologies (ICT) have
brought about new opportunities, in
particular electronic publishing in the
form of E-journals, E-pre-print servers
(self-archiving) and self-publishing. E-
publishing potentially improves the eco-
nomic situation of not-for- profit jour-
nal publishers and opens up the possi-
bility that the academic community re-
appropriates the publishing business.
On the one hand, libraries try to pool
their resources and purchasing power in
consortia and thus stay within the
present paradigm. On the other hand,
academics, scholarly associations and
libraries set up free E-print-servers and
open archives as well as non-commer-
cial E-journals and other free knowledge
resources in the WWW. A parallel infra-
structure seems to emancipate itself
from strict commercial considerations,
facilitating various forms of not-for-
profit knowledge circulation. Some of
them appear to be similar to those pre-
ceding the advent of strong commercial
interests in the academic publishing
market. Others are quite different from
the original system, due to the new op-
portunities provided by current ICT (see
below).
The Crisis of Phase II
The crisis in the scholarly publication
system (called the ‘serial crisis’) “has
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2023
Page 4
Science Studies 2/2001
24
been well-known for almost two de-
cades” (Whisler & Rosenblatt, 1997). In-
creased prices of journals and books
lead to cancellations of subscriptions
and reduced orders, which lead to higher
prices because less subscribers pay less
while the production costs stay the
same. This, again, leads to cancellations
and higher prices (Okerson, 1997; Pew
Higher Education Roundtable, 1998;
Frisch, 1996: 362 ff.). Another source of
this vicious circle is the increased focus
of commercial publishers on share-
holder value. “(T)he partnership be-
tween... academia and commerce is now
breaking down” (Owen, 2000: 2). At the
same time, library budgets are under
pressure. In Germany, the funding of
university libraries increased only mar-
ginally (nominal 1,3% from 1991-97), but
the prices of journals went up 27% in the
humanities and social sciences and even
77% in the natural sciences. In the US,
the average price of a journal increased
by 169% from 1987 to 1997, three times
more than the inflation rate. All libraries
organised in the Association of Research
Libraries (ARL) had to pay 124% more for
7% less journals in 1997. In the same
year, Elsevier made a profit of 365 mil-
lion EUR with a turnover of 910 million
EUR (Sietmann, 1999: 216; cf. also Bär,
1999; Okerson, 1997).
Atkinson formulates the dilemma in
terms of agent-client relationships and
argues that the primary clientele of pub-
lishers are their owners (often share-
holders). “When it comes to making de-
cisions, publishers will inevitably, un-
derstandably, and justifiably make those
decisions that are in the best interest of
their primary clientele.” (Atkinson, 2000:
63) He rightly points at the possibility of
a severe aggravation of what we have
observed as the traditional serial crisis
through information technology which
greatly enhances the control of access to
information: “If it is in the primary
client’s best interest for the publisher to
use that control to restrict access to
needed information as much as pos-
sible, in order to make such information
scarce and to drive up its price, then that
is exactly what will happen”.
Thatcher (1996: 201) speaks of only a
partial failure of the market (to provide
the services necessary for scholarly
communication) since (at least some)
science journals (still?) sell well and do
not rely solely on the academic demand.
The market fails in particular for non-
science: in the humanities, books can-
not be sold in high enough numbers to
make profits (e.g. Wasserman, 1998); the
same is true for most social sciences. But
even in entomology, a rather small bio-
logical discipline, “the cost of subscrip-
tion- financed commercial publication
was contributing heavily to the serials
crisis” (Walker, 1998). Thatcher’s differ-
entiation overlooks, however, that both
science and non-science books and
journals are in crisis: science because of
high prices, humanities/social sciences
because of too few sales. There is, how-
ever, another danger involved. Whisler
& Rosenblatt (1997: 5) describe what
they call the “crowding out effect”: STM
journals would eventually crowd out
other, lesser-used journals if their prices
increase more than those of other seri-
als and monographs and if library bud-
gets increase less than serial prices go
up. At the end of the day, scholars may
publish in “write-only journals” (Den-
ning, 1996), i.e. journals they do not sub-
scribe, nor do their institutions and li-
braries.
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2024
24
been well-known for almost two de-
cades” (Whisler & Rosenblatt, 1997). In-
creased prices of journals and books
lead to cancellations of subscriptions
and reduced orders, which lead to higher
prices because less subscribers pay less
while the production costs stay the
same. This, again, leads to cancellations
and higher prices (Okerson, 1997; Pew
Higher Education Roundtable, 1998;
Frisch, 1996: 362 ff.). Another source of
this vicious circle is the increased focus
of commercial publishers on share-
holder value. “(T)he partnership be-
tween... academia and commerce is now
breaking down” (Owen, 2000: 2). At the
same time, library budgets are under
pressure. In Germany, the funding of
university libraries increased only mar-
ginally (nominal 1,3% from 1991-97), but
the prices of journals went up 27% in the
humanities and social sciences and even
77% in the natural sciences. In the US,
the average price of a journal increased
by 169% from 1987 to 1997, three times
more than the inflation rate. All libraries
organised in the Association of Research
Libraries (ARL) had to pay 124% more for
7% less journals in 1997. In the same
year, Elsevier made a profit of 365 mil-
lion EUR with a turnover of 910 million
EUR (Sietmann, 1999: 216; cf. also Bär,
1999; Okerson, 1997).
Atkinson formulates the dilemma in
terms of agent-client relationships and
argues that the primary clientele of pub-
lishers are their owners (often share-
holders). “When it comes to making de-
cisions, publishers will inevitably, un-
derstandably, and justifiably make those
decisions that are in the best interest of
their primary clientele.” (Atkinson, 2000:
63) He rightly points at the possibility of
a severe aggravation of what we have
observed as the traditional serial crisis
through information technology which
greatly enhances the control of access to
information: “If it is in the primary
client’s best interest for the publisher to
use that control to restrict access to
needed information as much as pos-
sible, in order to make such information
scarce and to drive up its price, then that
is exactly what will happen”.
Thatcher (1996: 201) speaks of only a
partial failure of the market (to provide
the services necessary for scholarly
communication) since (at least some)
science journals (still?) sell well and do
not rely solely on the academic demand.
The market fails in particular for non-
science: in the humanities, books can-
not be sold in high enough numbers to
make profits (e.g. Wasserman, 1998); the
same is true for most social sciences. But
even in entomology, a rather small bio-
logical discipline, “the cost of subscrip-
tion- financed commercial publication
was contributing heavily to the serials
crisis” (Walker, 1998). Thatcher’s differ-
entiation overlooks, however, that both
science and non-science books and
journals are in crisis: science because of
high prices, humanities/social sciences
because of too few sales. There is, how-
ever, another danger involved. Whisler
& Rosenblatt (1997: 5) describe what
they call the “crowding out effect”: STM
journals would eventually crowd out
other, lesser-used journals if their prices
increase more than those of other seri-
als and monographs and if library bud-
gets increase less than serial prices go
up. At the end of the day, scholars may
publish in “write-only journals” (Den-
ning, 1996), i.e. journals they do not sub-
scribe, nor do their institutions and li-
braries.
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2024
Page 5
25
Michael Nentwich
It is important to note that the crisis
is not only a journals crisis, but also a
book crisis. In the humanities, in par-
ticular, and some social sciences, the po-
tential readership of specialised books is
all but sufficient to sustain their produc-
tion. Bennett (1994: 244) observes that
the “core business of the university press
– that of publishing scholarly mono-
graphs – is becoming economically im-
possible while, simultaneously, the
presses’ core group of authors – faculty
– increasingly rely on commercial pub-
lishers and on self directed Internet pub-
lishing ventures to meet the most press-
ing needs of scholarly communication.”
This means that near-comprehensive
access to the products of academic
knowledge production is no longer guar-
anteed in the sense that raising prices
make it less and less certain that a par-
ticular item can be found in any one aca-
demic library. Document delivery and
online full text databases are only par-
tially solving the problem as they make
it easier to get remote access if the local
repository is not able to deliver, but costs
are again a problem. The commercial
exploitation of academic knowledge by
commercial publishers seems, however,
to have reached a watershed. Increasing
numbers of academics no longer acqui-
esce this erosion of the foundations of
academic communication.
One arena of the ‘battle’ is intellectual
property rights issues. As “the means by
which we manage the dual identity of
information as a private commodity to
be bought and sold and as public good
to be freely shared” (Bennett, 1996: 187)
copyright is a pivotal issue for scholarly
communication. At times, university
teachers have difficulty using their own
articles as course material (Bennett &
Matheson, 1992: B1), even under the
“fair use” regime. The Pew Higher Edu-
cation Roundtable (1998: 4) manifesto
holds that the constraints to the flow of
scholarly information result “not just
from prohibitive pricing but from the
restrictions that commercial publishers
seek to impose on the kind of use an in-
dividual faculty member can make of his
or her own published work.”
This is not the place to go into the de-
tails of copyright issues involved here; in
particular, because this would involve
assessing the differences between the
U.S. and the European copyright re-
gimes. The difficulties and problems,
however, did not diminish with the ad-
vent of E-publishing, quite to the con-
trary.
The Developments in Phase III
Given, on the one hand, the financial
crisis of academic libraries coupled with
restrictive copyright management, while
on the other, the new opportunities of
E-publishing, various initiatives have
emerged over recent years to change the
dissatisfactory situation. A general
motto of these initiatives might be: “The
free and uninhibited exchange of aca-
demic information – efficient and at fair
prices – is the pre-condition of all sci-
ence.” (Grötschel & Lügger, 1996: 9) In
addition, Rohe claims to observe an in-
creasing demand for a non-profit pub-
lishing model using the new technology
and submits: “Conditions are ripe for
scholars to take control of scholarly pub-
lishing.” (1998: 4)
In this spirit, there are various calls for
action and initiatives in the (mainly) US
higher education (“librarians’’) scene
and beyond (see Okerson, 1997). These
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2025
Michael Nentwich
It is important to note that the crisis
is not only a journals crisis, but also a
book crisis. In the humanities, in par-
ticular, and some social sciences, the po-
tential readership of specialised books is
all but sufficient to sustain their produc-
tion. Bennett (1994: 244) observes that
the “core business of the university press
– that of publishing scholarly mono-
graphs – is becoming economically im-
possible while, simultaneously, the
presses’ core group of authors – faculty
– increasingly rely on commercial pub-
lishers and on self directed Internet pub-
lishing ventures to meet the most press-
ing needs of scholarly communication.”
This means that near-comprehensive
access to the products of academic
knowledge production is no longer guar-
anteed in the sense that raising prices
make it less and less certain that a par-
ticular item can be found in any one aca-
demic library. Document delivery and
online full text databases are only par-
tially solving the problem as they make
it easier to get remote access if the local
repository is not able to deliver, but costs
are again a problem. The commercial
exploitation of academic knowledge by
commercial publishers seems, however,
to have reached a watershed. Increasing
numbers of academics no longer acqui-
esce this erosion of the foundations of
academic communication.
One arena of the ‘battle’ is intellectual
property rights issues. As “the means by
which we manage the dual identity of
information as a private commodity to
be bought and sold and as public good
to be freely shared” (Bennett, 1996: 187)
copyright is a pivotal issue for scholarly
communication. At times, university
teachers have difficulty using their own
articles as course material (Bennett &
Matheson, 1992: B1), even under the
“fair use” regime. The Pew Higher Edu-
cation Roundtable (1998: 4) manifesto
holds that the constraints to the flow of
scholarly information result “not just
from prohibitive pricing but from the
restrictions that commercial publishers
seek to impose on the kind of use an in-
dividual faculty member can make of his
or her own published work.”
This is not the place to go into the de-
tails of copyright issues involved here; in
particular, because this would involve
assessing the differences between the
U.S. and the European copyright re-
gimes. The difficulties and problems,
however, did not diminish with the ad-
vent of E-publishing, quite to the con-
trary.
The Developments in Phase III
Given, on the one hand, the financial
crisis of academic libraries coupled with
restrictive copyright management, while
on the other, the new opportunities of
E-publishing, various initiatives have
emerged over recent years to change the
dissatisfactory situation. A general
motto of these initiatives might be: “The
free and uninhibited exchange of aca-
demic information – efficient and at fair
prices – is the pre-condition of all sci-
ence.” (Grötschel & Lügger, 1996: 9) In
addition, Rohe claims to observe an in-
creasing demand for a non-profit pub-
lishing model using the new technology
and submits: “Conditions are ripe for
scholars to take control of scholarly pub-
lishing.” (1998: 4)
In this spirit, there are various calls for
action and initiatives in the (mainly) US
higher education (“librarians’’) scene
and beyond (see Okerson, 1997). These
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2025
Page 6
Science Studies 2/2001
26
initiatives have been sponsored by a va-
riety of organisations as well as various
individual or groups of universities and
libraries, both inside and outside the US,
both national and international.1 Most
of these initiatives mainly aim at top-
down solutions, i.e. solutions supported
by associations and consortia which can
be interpreted to be aiming to replace
the present with an (at least partly) de-
commodified system. The new system
would rest on E-publishing and univer-
sity or associational publishing, as op-
posed to trade publishing.
Self-publishing – Public Self-archiving
In addition to the above top-down solu-
tions, various initiatives exploit the new
electronic opportunities bottom-up.
Self-publishing comes in a variety of
forms: individuals setting up download
pages, research institutes offering elec-
tronic working-paper series, students
running low-cost E-journals etc. Franks
(1993: part I) calls individual publishing
the “vanity press model” and Ullman
(1996) comments: “Today, the amateur
has returned to the world of research
publication.” There are, however, also
more organised models of the “new”
publishing: E-journals, meta-archives
and E-pre-print archives. Most impor-
tantly, there are “faculty and research
entrepreneurs” (Thatcher, 1996: 202;
Bennett, 1996: 191) or “trailblazers”
(Okerson, 1991b: 15) who initiate, de-
velop and often run these free services
in favour of the research community.
E-journals
Given the low costs of running an E-jour-
nal, it comes as no surprise that this has
become a quite common bottom-up
route for establishing an alternative self-
publishing market for academic publi-
cations. The (online) Directory of Schol-
arly Electronic Journals (first edition)
reports that in December 2000, there
were 5436 E-journals whereas the sev-
enth edition (1997) of its predecessor
counted only 1465. While it is true that
many of these additional E-journals are
commercial E-journals which parallel
their traditional paper counter-parts,
there are many genuine electronic-only
series, mostly offered for free or at very
moderate fees because they are sup-
ported by the enthusiasm of individuals
and their affiliations. One illustrative
example is reported by Sietmann (1999:
218) with a journal’s editors and edito-
rial staff leaving its publisher due to
enormous price increases (several 100%)
and successfully founding a new journal,
mainly distributed as an E-journal (Evo-
lutionary Ecology Research).
It is not the place here to assess in de-
tail the merits of E-journals and their
place vis-à-vis the traditional journals.
Note however, that E-journals have al-
ready acquired an important place in
many disciplines and are, for instance,
recognised in the British research assess-
ment exercise since 1996. Many of them
are sustainable academic endeavours,
publishing already for many years with
much success (with considerable differ-
ences between the various academic
specialities).
Meta Archives
Another route are electronic archives,
which make departmental or associa-
tional E-publications (mainly working
paper series) centrally accessible and
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2026
26
initiatives have been sponsored by a va-
riety of organisations as well as various
individual or groups of universities and
libraries, both inside and outside the US,
both national and international.1 Most
of these initiatives mainly aim at top-
down solutions, i.e. solutions supported
by associations and consortia which can
be interpreted to be aiming to replace
the present with an (at least partly) de-
commodified system. The new system
would rest on E-publishing and univer-
sity or associational publishing, as op-
posed to trade publishing.
Self-publishing – Public Self-archiving
In addition to the above top-down solu-
tions, various initiatives exploit the new
electronic opportunities bottom-up.
Self-publishing comes in a variety of
forms: individuals setting up download
pages, research institutes offering elec-
tronic working-paper series, students
running low-cost E-journals etc. Franks
(1993: part I) calls individual publishing
the “vanity press model” and Ullman
(1996) comments: “Today, the amateur
has returned to the world of research
publication.” There are, however, also
more organised models of the “new”
publishing: E-journals, meta-archives
and E-pre-print archives. Most impor-
tantly, there are “faculty and research
entrepreneurs” (Thatcher, 1996: 202;
Bennett, 1996: 191) or “trailblazers”
(Okerson, 1991b: 15) who initiate, de-
velop and often run these free services
in favour of the research community.
E-journals
Given the low costs of running an E-jour-
nal, it comes as no surprise that this has
become a quite common bottom-up
route for establishing an alternative self-
publishing market for academic publi-
cations. The (online) Directory of Schol-
arly Electronic Journals (first edition)
reports that in December 2000, there
were 5436 E-journals whereas the sev-
enth edition (1997) of its predecessor
counted only 1465. While it is true that
many of these additional E-journals are
commercial E-journals which parallel
their traditional paper counter-parts,
there are many genuine electronic-only
series, mostly offered for free or at very
moderate fees because they are sup-
ported by the enthusiasm of individuals
and their affiliations. One illustrative
example is reported by Sietmann (1999:
218) with a journal’s editors and edito-
rial staff leaving its publisher due to
enormous price increases (several 100%)
and successfully founding a new journal,
mainly distributed as an E-journal (Evo-
lutionary Ecology Research).
It is not the place here to assess in de-
tail the merits of E-journals and their
place vis-à-vis the traditional journals.
Note however, that E-journals have al-
ready acquired an important place in
many disciplines and are, for instance,
recognised in the British research assess-
ment exercise since 1996. Many of them
are sustainable academic endeavours,
publishing already for many years with
much success (with considerable differ-
ences between the various academic
specialities).
Meta Archives
Another route are electronic archives,
which make departmental or associa-
tional E-publications (mainly working
paper series) centrally accessible and
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2026
Page 7
27
Michael Nentwich
searchable. This helps to overcome the
intrinsic weakness of the self-publishing
model that access to the various elec-
tronic sources is unorganised, unfiltered
and hence difficult. Such meta archives
exist in many disciplines, e.g. in eco-
nomics (RePEc)2 or in European integra-
tion research (ERPA).
Recently, the Open Archives Initiative
(OAi) succeeded in setting a common
standard for the meta-data of papers in-
cluded in these archives. This is expected
to be implemented gradually by many
archives. The aim is to make all archives
inter-operable world-wide and to pro-
mote their establishment by making the
necessary software available for free.
E-pre-print Servers
A third route is the establishment of dis-
cipline-specific electronic pre-print serv-
ers. The idea is that papers are “uploaded”
individually to a central server before they
are published in a traditional or E-jour-
nal. Bennett (1996: 190) observes:
“that in today’s increasingly digital en-
vironment, by the time a research pa-
per is ready for publication, it has al-
ready been widely read... The common-
place observation is that published
journals are now little more than the
archives of science, while most of the
vital work of scholarly communication
is carried elsewhere. Of course there is
much variation from discipline to dis-
cipline in this disassociation of valida-
tion from conventional publication.”
Many such servers have followed the first
well-known and very busy physics server
at Los Alamos (ArXiv), for instance in the
cognitive sciences (CogPrint) and in the
philosophy of science (PhilSciArchive).
Harnad (n.y.) is sure that ArXiv “is the her-
ald of what will happen in all disciplines
sooner or later” (see Hibbitts, 1996a;
1996b).
That the formal exchange of spe-
cialised scholarly information “can
thrive outside of traditional publishing
channels” (Atkinson, 2000: 59) has a
revolutionary touch since widespread
electronic distribution of pre-prints
seems bound to destroy high-cost jour-
nals (Odlyzko, 1994: 45). Perhaps the
most prominent advocate of this route
is the brain scientist Stevan Harnad
(1993; 1997), with his well-known Sub-
versive Proposal extensively discussed in
Okerson and O’Donnell (1995). In a later
paper, Harnad summarises his proposal
– which is already practiced in the
CogPrint archive – as follows:
All authors should continue to entrust
their work to the paper journals of their
choice. But if, in addition, they were to
publicly archive their pre-refereeing
pre-prints and then their post-referee-
ing reprints on-line on their home serv-
ers, for free for all, then the de facto prac-
tices of the reader community would
take care of the rest...; library serial can-
cellations, the collapse of the paper
cardhouse, publisher perestroika, and a
free for all, e-only serial corpus financed
by author-end page charges would
soon follow suit. (Harnad, 1998: 128)
As pointed out by many, the system of
public E-pre-print archiving could eas-
ily be combined with a journal system
in the sense that the archives are for reg-
istering priority claims and making in-
formation available as quickly as pos-
sible, while the new journal system
would consist of refereeing and certify-
ing. Taubes (1996: 768) refers to the idea
that submitting to the journal would
then only mean that the author submits
the reference number of the manuscript
in the archives. The journal could then
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2027
Michael Nentwich
searchable. This helps to overcome the
intrinsic weakness of the self-publishing
model that access to the various elec-
tronic sources is unorganised, unfiltered
and hence difficult. Such meta archives
exist in many disciplines, e.g. in eco-
nomics (RePEc)2 or in European integra-
tion research (ERPA).
Recently, the Open Archives Initiative
(OAi) succeeded in setting a common
standard for the meta-data of papers in-
cluded in these archives. This is expected
to be implemented gradually by many
archives. The aim is to make all archives
inter-operable world-wide and to pro-
mote their establishment by making the
necessary software available for free.
E-pre-print Servers
A third route is the establishment of dis-
cipline-specific electronic pre-print serv-
ers. The idea is that papers are “uploaded”
individually to a central server before they
are published in a traditional or E-jour-
nal. Bennett (1996: 190) observes:
“that in today’s increasingly digital en-
vironment, by the time a research pa-
per is ready for publication, it has al-
ready been widely read... The common-
place observation is that published
journals are now little more than the
archives of science, while most of the
vital work of scholarly communication
is carried elsewhere. Of course there is
much variation from discipline to dis-
cipline in this disassociation of valida-
tion from conventional publication.”
Many such servers have followed the first
well-known and very busy physics server
at Los Alamos (ArXiv), for instance in the
cognitive sciences (CogPrint) and in the
philosophy of science (PhilSciArchive).
Harnad (n.y.) is sure that ArXiv “is the her-
ald of what will happen in all disciplines
sooner or later” (see Hibbitts, 1996a;
1996b).
That the formal exchange of spe-
cialised scholarly information “can
thrive outside of traditional publishing
channels” (Atkinson, 2000: 59) has a
revolutionary touch since widespread
electronic distribution of pre-prints
seems bound to destroy high-cost jour-
nals (Odlyzko, 1994: 45). Perhaps the
most prominent advocate of this route
is the brain scientist Stevan Harnad
(1993; 1997), with his well-known Sub-
versive Proposal extensively discussed in
Okerson and O’Donnell (1995). In a later
paper, Harnad summarises his proposal
– which is already practiced in the
CogPrint archive – as follows:
All authors should continue to entrust
their work to the paper journals of their
choice. But if, in addition, they were to
publicly archive their pre-refereeing
pre-prints and then their post-referee-
ing reprints on-line on their home serv-
ers, for free for all, then the de facto prac-
tices of the reader community would
take care of the rest...; library serial can-
cellations, the collapse of the paper
cardhouse, publisher perestroika, and a
free for all, e-only serial corpus financed
by author-end page charges would
soon follow suit. (Harnad, 1998: 128)
As pointed out by many, the system of
public E-pre-print archiving could eas-
ily be combined with a journal system
in the sense that the archives are for reg-
istering priority claims and making in-
formation available as quickly as pos-
sible, while the new journal system
would consist of refereeing and certify-
ing. Taubes (1996: 768) refers to the idea
that submitting to the journal would
then only mean that the author submits
the reference number of the manuscript
in the archives. The journal could then
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2027
Page 8
Science Studies 2/2001
28
“freeze the article” by changing the pass-
word disallowing the author to change
that manuscript with a view to assuring
that a paper that has been accepted for
publication is indeed the same one
readers have been downloading (see
Atkinson, 2000: 67). A less far-reaching
proposal would redefine the copyright
transfer to publishers. Bennett et al. pro-
pose that, when the author/university
agreed to give the copyright to the pub-
lisher, they would explicitly give non-
profit organizations like universities and
libraries the right to copy the articles in
response to specific requests for them.
The core of their proposal is that “fac-
ulty members would not transfer the
copyrights of articles... to any publisher
unwilling to accept that condition”
(Bennett & Matheson, 1992).
The “Subversive Proposal” and simi-
lar ideas are, of course, very much dis-
puted. For instance, Harnad proposes
author- end page charges to finance the
system (e.g. Harnad, 1997: 6; Walker,
1998). Tomlins (1998: 147) notes that this
“reproduces what has long been tradi-
tional practice in the humanities, a
model as now beset by precisely those
pressures that he thinks it can subvert”.
Note also the extensive debate between
Harnad and Varian in (Harnad et al.,
2000), followed up in much “skywriting”
(to use Harnad’s own term) in electronic
forums like the September98Forum on
these issues and the current online de-
bate in “Nature”. There is certainly no
space to list all the arguments here. Al-
though both agree in principle that
online self-archiving is a way to solve the
current crisis, they disagree on the rea-
soning why this is so.
One strand of opposition to the self-
publishing models focuses on the cost
issue, arguing that the costs of publica-
tion are not eliminated, but only shifted,
often hidden in other university budgets
and perhaps even increasing overall as
it is unlikely that the work will be done
either as well or as cheaply as it would
be by professional publishers (Day, 1998:
2) Day notes the danger that the re-
searchers who would otherwise be do-
ing research and teaching or their sup-
port staff enabling those crucial activi-
ties become both engaged in the work
of publishing to the detriment of the
time available for teaching and research.
While there is certainly some truth in this
observation, it is not really an argument
against self-publishing since, already
now, most work involved in publishing
has to be done by the scientific commu-
nity itself.
E-print servers have the potential ei-
ther to replace the traditional scholarly
publication system altogether or to
organise the pre-refereeing phase very
differently. In the latter case, quality con-
trol would still be entrusted in the jour-
nal system, while in the former case it
would be incorporated. Their main ad-
vantages over the phase II system are
their universal accessibility, speed and
low cost. How such systems would be fi-
nanced, is still an open question, but it
seems that the relatively low costs could
be borne by the professional associa-
tions.
Central, Comprehensive Digital Archives
and Open Source
While the E-pre-print archives only in-
clude pre-prints and the meta archives
mainly departmental working papers, a
number of initiatives go one step further
(respectively take another route) aiming
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2028
28
“freeze the article” by changing the pass-
word disallowing the author to change
that manuscript with a view to assuring
that a paper that has been accepted for
publication is indeed the same one
readers have been downloading (see
Atkinson, 2000: 67). A less far-reaching
proposal would redefine the copyright
transfer to publishers. Bennett et al. pro-
pose that, when the author/university
agreed to give the copyright to the pub-
lisher, they would explicitly give non-
profit organizations like universities and
libraries the right to copy the articles in
response to specific requests for them.
The core of their proposal is that “fac-
ulty members would not transfer the
copyrights of articles... to any publisher
unwilling to accept that condition”
(Bennett & Matheson, 1992).
The “Subversive Proposal” and simi-
lar ideas are, of course, very much dis-
puted. For instance, Harnad proposes
author- end page charges to finance the
system (e.g. Harnad, 1997: 6; Walker,
1998). Tomlins (1998: 147) notes that this
“reproduces what has long been tradi-
tional practice in the humanities, a
model as now beset by precisely those
pressures that he thinks it can subvert”.
Note also the extensive debate between
Harnad and Varian in (Harnad et al.,
2000), followed up in much “skywriting”
(to use Harnad’s own term) in electronic
forums like the September98Forum on
these issues and the current online de-
bate in “Nature”. There is certainly no
space to list all the arguments here. Al-
though both agree in principle that
online self-archiving is a way to solve the
current crisis, they disagree on the rea-
soning why this is so.
One strand of opposition to the self-
publishing models focuses on the cost
issue, arguing that the costs of publica-
tion are not eliminated, but only shifted,
often hidden in other university budgets
and perhaps even increasing overall as
it is unlikely that the work will be done
either as well or as cheaply as it would
be by professional publishers (Day, 1998:
2) Day notes the danger that the re-
searchers who would otherwise be do-
ing research and teaching or their sup-
port staff enabling those crucial activi-
ties become both engaged in the work
of publishing to the detriment of the
time available for teaching and research.
While there is certainly some truth in this
observation, it is not really an argument
against self-publishing since, already
now, most work involved in publishing
has to be done by the scientific commu-
nity itself.
E-print servers have the potential ei-
ther to replace the traditional scholarly
publication system altogether or to
organise the pre-refereeing phase very
differently. In the latter case, quality con-
trol would still be entrusted in the jour-
nal system, while in the former case it
would be incorporated. Their main ad-
vantages over the phase II system are
their universal accessibility, speed and
low cost. How such systems would be fi-
nanced, is still an open question, but it
seems that the relatively low costs could
be borne by the professional associa-
tions.
Central, Comprehensive Digital Archives
and Open Source
While the E-pre-print archives only in-
clude pre-prints and the meta archives
mainly departmental working papers, a
number of initiatives go one step further
(respectively take another route) aiming
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2028
Page 9
29
Michael Nentwich
at archives comprehending not only
“grey”, but also published literature. The
most prominent examples of this are
PubMed Central for the life sciences
managed by the US National Library of
Medicine (NLM). A famous new initia-
tive by a number of scientists, including
Nobel laureates (Roberts et al., 2001)
aims to create “public, electronic ar-
chives of the scientific literature, con-
taining complete copies of all published
scientific papers”.
In the beginning, at least, the com-
mercial publishers of STM literature are
quite reluctant to give free access to their
products via such services. Therefore
only a few journals are already available
through PubMed Central. The number
is steadily growing, but some think ar-
chives such as these will never cover an
area completely because of the financial
interests involved.
Open Source
Phase III de-commodification is not only
driven by primarily economic reasons,
but also inspired by another movement
which has its roots in software develop-
ment. Raymond (1999) describes the
‘bazaar method’ of managing large soft-
ware projects according to the open
source model. It rests on collaboration
over the Internet while the source code
remains in the public domain and can-
not, in principle, be sold. “Science, after
all, is ultimately an Open Source enter-
prise.” (DiBona et al., 1999: 1) DiBona et
al. argue that the sources have to be
shared: the hypothesis, the test condi-
tions, and the results. They argue that it
is one function of academic publishing
to put the scientific knowledge in the
public domain because the open shar-
ing of scientific results facilitates discov-
ery minimises duplication of effort.
DiBona et al. hold that programming
according to the open source model
shares with science an emphasis on
reputation: “Scientists aren’t supposed
to hoard profits from their inventions,
they are supposed to publish and share
their inventions for all to benefit from.”
(DiBona et al., 1999: 7)
Although much of the academic en-
terprise is not profit- oriented, some is.
For the not-for-profit sectors, the open
source model may be a model for the
future. There are already projects like
OpenBook, OpenTheory and the like. The
Open eBook Consortium tries to promote
an open standard for e-books to avoid the
present splitting due to commercial
considerations (Adobe PDF, Microsoft
Reader). In its OpenCourse-Ware project,
MIT plans to make all teaching material
available over the Internet free of charge
(see Hartmann, 2001).
Gräbe (1998) brings in another aspect:
if scholarly publishing moves to the elec-
tronic world, then the software and the
standards of knowledge representation
become an important issue. He warns
that it may well happen that academia
will not be able to pay for accessing the
digital knowledge units, if the software
were not open-source-like or if the rights
are not kept within the academic realm.
A New Role for University Presses and
Academic Libraries
“We are a not-for-profit organisation,
but also a not-for-loss organisation.”
(Martin Blume, editor in chief of the
American Physical Society, interviewed
by Albrecht, 2001)
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2029
Michael Nentwich
at archives comprehending not only
“grey”, but also published literature. The
most prominent examples of this are
PubMed Central for the life sciences
managed by the US National Library of
Medicine (NLM). A famous new initia-
tive by a number of scientists, including
Nobel laureates (Roberts et al., 2001)
aims to create “public, electronic ar-
chives of the scientific literature, con-
taining complete copies of all published
scientific papers”.
In the beginning, at least, the com-
mercial publishers of STM literature are
quite reluctant to give free access to their
products via such services. Therefore
only a few journals are already available
through PubMed Central. The number
is steadily growing, but some think ar-
chives such as these will never cover an
area completely because of the financial
interests involved.
Open Source
Phase III de-commodification is not only
driven by primarily economic reasons,
but also inspired by another movement
which has its roots in software develop-
ment. Raymond (1999) describes the
‘bazaar method’ of managing large soft-
ware projects according to the open
source model. It rests on collaboration
over the Internet while the source code
remains in the public domain and can-
not, in principle, be sold. “Science, after
all, is ultimately an Open Source enter-
prise.” (DiBona et al., 1999: 1) DiBona et
al. argue that the sources have to be
shared: the hypothesis, the test condi-
tions, and the results. They argue that it
is one function of academic publishing
to put the scientific knowledge in the
public domain because the open shar-
ing of scientific results facilitates discov-
ery minimises duplication of effort.
DiBona et al. hold that programming
according to the open source model
shares with science an emphasis on
reputation: “Scientists aren’t supposed
to hoard profits from their inventions,
they are supposed to publish and share
their inventions for all to benefit from.”
(DiBona et al., 1999: 7)
Although much of the academic en-
terprise is not profit- oriented, some is.
For the not-for-profit sectors, the open
source model may be a model for the
future. There are already projects like
OpenBook, OpenTheory and the like. The
Open eBook Consortium tries to promote
an open standard for e-books to avoid the
present splitting due to commercial
considerations (Adobe PDF, Microsoft
Reader). In its OpenCourse-Ware project,
MIT plans to make all teaching material
available over the Internet free of charge
(see Hartmann, 2001).
Gräbe (1998) brings in another aspect:
if scholarly publishing moves to the elec-
tronic world, then the software and the
standards of knowledge representation
become an important issue. He warns
that it may well happen that academia
will not be able to pay for accessing the
digital knowledge units, if the software
were not open-source-like or if the rights
are not kept within the academic realm.
A New Role for University Presses and
Academic Libraries
“We are a not-for-profit organisation,
but also a not-for-loss organisation.”
(Martin Blume, editor in chief of the
American Physical Society, interviewed
by Albrecht, 2001)
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2029
Page 10
Science Studies 2/2001
30
The crisis described above might not
only be solved via self-publishing, but
also by those academic institutions
which are traditionally in the business
of publishing and archiving, namely uni-
versity presses and libraries. Three rea-
sons can be listed:
First, while (groups of) scholars engag-
ing in the business of self-publishing in
whatever form are tackling something
relatively new for them, the presses are
professionals and might be at the core
of cyberscience publishing because
“(t)he geniuses of this new technology
have created the new vocabulary... but
their brainchild lacks depth. It is a thou-
sand miles broad but only a quarter-inch
deep, and we can offer depth.”(Zeigler,
1997: 42) Thatcher (1996: 202) suggests
an important role for university presses
instead of amateurish “faculty and re-
search entrepreneurs” doing it them-
selves. He argues that presses have valu-
able and cheap skills to offer and that the
time of academics is often treated as a
free good, but it is not. Presses’ special
skills are not only in the technical do-
main, but in organising the certification
and filtering of scholarship (which re-
mains the realm of academics).
Second, the financial crisis is an in-
centive. As Okerson (1991a: 3) notes, it
is hardly surprising that a vision of uni-
versity-based publishing captures the
imagination of parts of academe since
“(a)bout 90% of formal academic publi-
cations migrate outside the academy
before returning home as repurchased
monographs and serials.” Thatcher
demonstrates that the dissociation of
supply and demand, i.e. the insufficient
demand for scholarly publications in the
marketplace, was “the very basis of the
rationale for university-based publishing
in the first place, not a new phenomenon
just affecting us today”(1996: 200). Most
university presses, however, publish prin-
cipally in the humanities (Walker, 1995:
38). Consequently, if the presses should
play a more prominent or even dominant
role in academic publishing, they would
also need to capture the science market.
Third, there is a necessity of academic
institutions to become (again) publish-
ers themselves in many areas since they
could not find a commercial partner, e.g.
for the publication of scientific software,
databases and the like (Grötschel &
Lügger, 1996). Hence, it is not only finan-
cial reasons which make academics and
their institution initiate moves away
from commercial publishers, but also
the (perceived) impossibility to market
particular categories of academic results
(because there is no market, the costs are
too high). In this respect, E-publishing
might offer “many new opportunities for
university presses [because] (u)ni-
versities have human and computing
resources that would offset the factor of
market dominance to some degree”
(Walker, 1995: 40).
Like the self-publishing route dis-
cussed above, another potential central
role for university presses in phase III
could lead to a nearly de-commodified
system of scholarly exchange. Chodorow
argues that there are three possible ways
to solve the serial crisis: consortial pur-
chase and licensing of information re-
sources; a new pricing system for infor-
mation; and exploring schemes to
change the information market itself.
Only the third way is, in his view, prom-
ising: “...the creation of a new market for
scholarly information that preserves the
low prices necessary to the successful
maintenance of the modern academic
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2030
30
The crisis described above might not
only be solved via self-publishing, but
also by those academic institutions
which are traditionally in the business
of publishing and archiving, namely uni-
versity presses and libraries. Three rea-
sons can be listed:
First, while (groups of) scholars engag-
ing in the business of self-publishing in
whatever form are tackling something
relatively new for them, the presses are
professionals and might be at the core
of cyberscience publishing because
“(t)he geniuses of this new technology
have created the new vocabulary... but
their brainchild lacks depth. It is a thou-
sand miles broad but only a quarter-inch
deep, and we can offer depth.”(Zeigler,
1997: 42) Thatcher (1996: 202) suggests
an important role for university presses
instead of amateurish “faculty and re-
search entrepreneurs” doing it them-
selves. He argues that presses have valu-
able and cheap skills to offer and that the
time of academics is often treated as a
free good, but it is not. Presses’ special
skills are not only in the technical do-
main, but in organising the certification
and filtering of scholarship (which re-
mains the realm of academics).
Second, the financial crisis is an in-
centive. As Okerson (1991a: 3) notes, it
is hardly surprising that a vision of uni-
versity-based publishing captures the
imagination of parts of academe since
“(a)bout 90% of formal academic publi-
cations migrate outside the academy
before returning home as repurchased
monographs and serials.” Thatcher
demonstrates that the dissociation of
supply and demand, i.e. the insufficient
demand for scholarly publications in the
marketplace, was “the very basis of the
rationale for university-based publishing
in the first place, not a new phenomenon
just affecting us today”(1996: 200). Most
university presses, however, publish prin-
cipally in the humanities (Walker, 1995:
38). Consequently, if the presses should
play a more prominent or even dominant
role in academic publishing, they would
also need to capture the science market.
Third, there is a necessity of academic
institutions to become (again) publish-
ers themselves in many areas since they
could not find a commercial partner, e.g.
for the publication of scientific software,
databases and the like (Grötschel &
Lügger, 1996). Hence, it is not only finan-
cial reasons which make academics and
their institution initiate moves away
from commercial publishers, but also
the (perceived) impossibility to market
particular categories of academic results
(because there is no market, the costs are
too high). In this respect, E-publishing
might offer “many new opportunities for
university presses [because] (u)ni-
versities have human and computing
resources that would offset the factor of
market dominance to some degree”
(Walker, 1995: 40).
Like the self-publishing route dis-
cussed above, another potential central
role for university presses in phase III
could lead to a nearly de-commodified
system of scholarly exchange. Chodorow
argues that there are three possible ways
to solve the serial crisis: consortial pur-
chase and licensing of information re-
sources; a new pricing system for infor-
mation; and exploring schemes to
change the information market itself.
Only the third way is, in his view, prom-
ising: “...the creation of a new market for
scholarly information that preserves the
low prices necessary to the successful
maintenance of the modern academic
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2030
Page 11
31
Michael Nentwich
enterprise.” (Chodorow, 1998: 7)
Chodorow describes the new market
as separate from the ‘edutainment’ mar-
ket now developing, and as not needing
the middlemen – the commercial pub-
lishers – in the academic market. He ar-
gues that those features would enable
scholars and universities to distribute in-
formation among themselves “in a sys-
tem affected by costs instead of prof-
its”(1998: 7). Whisler and Rosenblatt sug-
gest a scenario for universities in which
they themselves would invest capital re-
sources more heavily in university-based
information flows and new forms of
scholarly publication, as well as place
increased market pressures on the com-
mercial sector. They argue that if univer-
sities “were to make strategic capital and
staffing investments in university presses
during the short term, the presses could
be more likely to make a successful and
rapid transition to electronic publication”
(Whisler & Rosenblatt, 1997: 22). At the
same time, intensive university efforts
(i.e. investments) to recover STM and
business publishing from the private sec-
tor should be made to reduce the crowd-
ing out of university press publications by
for profit publishers which could also be
accompanied by libraries placing strong
market pressures on commercial pub-
lishers through cancellation of journals
whose prices rise faster than the average
rates for scholarly journals in general.
Whisler and Rosenblatt predict that the
investments could be recovered over
time through reductions in capital in-
vestments in library buildings. If their
vision came true, the university itself
would encompass most of the informa-
tion flow in scholarly communication
through its networked capability. “That
information having commodity value
outside of the academy could be sold in
the marketplace, and the revenues used
as a subsidy to the system itself.” (Whisler
& Rosenblatt, 1997: 22)
There is, however, still a long way to
go since “(m)any universities have com-
mitted a major error in trying to force
their university presses to become self-
supporting. This policy has resulted in
the presses identifying increasingly with
– and adopting the values of – commer-
cial publishers.” (Atkinson, 1996: 261)
Bennett and Matheson (1992) envisage
that universities might funnel more
money into the university presses if the
money now spent in their libraries could
be redirected to university-published
journals. As Okerson reported, this train
has been set in motion already at the
beginning of the last decade. At least in
the US, university-based publishing was
receiving significant attention. In 1991
she noted that “(t)he mechanisms are
almost in place; the community is ener-
getic and eager; the need is urgent”
(Okerson, 1991a: 6).
Given their quandary between trade
publishers and demanding faculty, aca-
demic libraries are among the most ac-
tive promoters of phase III. Apart from
their activist agenda- setting role, librar-
ies contribute two things: first, they can
cooperate among themselves to gain
greater market power vis-à-vis the com-
mercial publishers, and second, they
may themselves enter the domain of
publishing. Such examples are the
Scholarly publishing and academic re-
source coalition (SPARC), High Wire
Press and Cooperative Online Resource
Catalog (CORC) initiatives (Owen, 2000:
3). Libraries have also a traditional role
to play with regard to providing access
to the published material. “However, the
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2031
Michael Nentwich
enterprise.” (Chodorow, 1998: 7)
Chodorow describes the new market
as separate from the ‘edutainment’ mar-
ket now developing, and as not needing
the middlemen – the commercial pub-
lishers – in the academic market. He ar-
gues that those features would enable
scholars and universities to distribute in-
formation among themselves “in a sys-
tem affected by costs instead of prof-
its”(1998: 7). Whisler and Rosenblatt sug-
gest a scenario for universities in which
they themselves would invest capital re-
sources more heavily in university-based
information flows and new forms of
scholarly publication, as well as place
increased market pressures on the com-
mercial sector. They argue that if univer-
sities “were to make strategic capital and
staffing investments in university presses
during the short term, the presses could
be more likely to make a successful and
rapid transition to electronic publication”
(Whisler & Rosenblatt, 1997: 22). At the
same time, intensive university efforts
(i.e. investments) to recover STM and
business publishing from the private sec-
tor should be made to reduce the crowd-
ing out of university press publications by
for profit publishers which could also be
accompanied by libraries placing strong
market pressures on commercial pub-
lishers through cancellation of journals
whose prices rise faster than the average
rates for scholarly journals in general.
Whisler and Rosenblatt predict that the
investments could be recovered over
time through reductions in capital in-
vestments in library buildings. If their
vision came true, the university itself
would encompass most of the informa-
tion flow in scholarly communication
through its networked capability. “That
information having commodity value
outside of the academy could be sold in
the marketplace, and the revenues used
as a subsidy to the system itself.” (Whisler
& Rosenblatt, 1997: 22)
There is, however, still a long way to
go since “(m)any universities have com-
mitted a major error in trying to force
their university presses to become self-
supporting. This policy has resulted in
the presses identifying increasingly with
– and adopting the values of – commer-
cial publishers.” (Atkinson, 1996: 261)
Bennett and Matheson (1992) envisage
that universities might funnel more
money into the university presses if the
money now spent in their libraries could
be redirected to university-published
journals. As Okerson reported, this train
has been set in motion already at the
beginning of the last decade. At least in
the US, university-based publishing was
receiving significant attention. In 1991
she noted that “(t)he mechanisms are
almost in place; the community is ener-
getic and eager; the need is urgent”
(Okerson, 1991a: 6).
Given their quandary between trade
publishers and demanding faculty, aca-
demic libraries are among the most ac-
tive promoters of phase III. Apart from
their activist agenda- setting role, librar-
ies contribute two things: first, they can
cooperate among themselves to gain
greater market power vis-à-vis the com-
mercial publishers, and second, they
may themselves enter the domain of
publishing. Such examples are the
Scholarly publishing and academic re-
source coalition (SPARC), High Wire
Press and Cooperative Online Resource
Catalog (CORC) initiatives (Owen, 2000:
3). Libraries have also a traditional role
to play with regard to providing access
to the published material. “However, the
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2031
Page 12
Science Studies 2/2001
32
job of organizing, coding, linking, updat-
ing, licensing, and maintaining that wide
range of material takes on new signifi-
cance.” (Wittenberg, 1998: 2) The exam-
ple given is CIAO, a repository and re-
source portal for researchers in the field
of international affairs research.
A New Role for Academic Associations
Many argue that it should be the primary
task of academic associations to organise
the de-commodified phase III scholarly
communication system. Some of the ini-
tiatives have been mentioned already
when discussing the electronic archives
and pre-print servers; here we shall add
some proposals and initiatives directly
engaging the professional associations.
Getz has proposed that scholarly as-
sociations might ally themselves with
the working-paper sites, give the service
an official status and invest in the fea-
tures with a view to make it more robust
and useful. “Although freebie... services
are useful, an enhanced... service for a
fee (or as part of membership) might be
much better.” (Getz, 1997: 9) If profes-
sional bodies and associations will again
become more actively involved in pub-
lishing, the flow of information might be
more directly and quickly delivered form
host institution to requester, author or
researcher (Johnston, 1998: 12). A non-
commercial system of refereed scholarly
communication can be combined with
peer review. Morton favours a centralised
system on the shoulders of scholarly as-
sociations who would sponsor a ’super
site’ providing “sanctioned stature – a
surety that only bona fide scholarly work
would be resident” (Morton, 1997: 4). He
proposes that copyright remains with
the author or the employing institution
and concludes that in his model the pro-
cess of communication would predomi-
nate over the issues of product and own-
ership embodied in the present com-
mercial model.
Another important issue at stake is
quality control. The associations pool all
resources necessary to secure quality in
phase III. As Atkinson puts it: “It should
be the function of academic information
services to ensure that national – or pref-
erably international – peer review struc-
tures are in place.” (Atkinson, 1993: 210)
Various models have been proposed,
some of them involving the cooperation
with traditional journal structures, be
they run by commercial publishers or
not, others setting in place completely
new structures. For instance, Atkinson
(2000: 60) sees “an unprecedented op-
portunity to reconfigure information
services” and argues that “the academy
needs to use disintermediation as a tool
to re-appropriate responsibility for for-
mal scholarly communication that in the
past has been the exclusive domain of
scholarly publishers.” His own proposal
is called ‘The Designated Channel’ for
each discipline. All scholarly work would
go into this channel. This means that
“the item does indeed add substantial
knowledge” and that academia will guar-
antee its access over time. There will be
“normative meta data” informing about
currently perceived importance of an
item in the database and will be indexed
based on controlled vocabulary. Use-
tracking, i.e. access data, will add further
information about the paper’s merits.
The library’s task would be to create a
synopsis, stipulating what is new or
unique in the publication which should
add up to cumulative meta data form-
ing a sort of encyclopaedia. Politically,
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2032
32
job of organizing, coding, linking, updat-
ing, licensing, and maintaining that wide
range of material takes on new signifi-
cance.” (Wittenberg, 1998: 2) The exam-
ple given is CIAO, a repository and re-
source portal for researchers in the field
of international affairs research.
A New Role for Academic Associations
Many argue that it should be the primary
task of academic associations to organise
the de-commodified phase III scholarly
communication system. Some of the ini-
tiatives have been mentioned already
when discussing the electronic archives
and pre-print servers; here we shall add
some proposals and initiatives directly
engaging the professional associations.
Getz has proposed that scholarly as-
sociations might ally themselves with
the working-paper sites, give the service
an official status and invest in the fea-
tures with a view to make it more robust
and useful. “Although freebie... services
are useful, an enhanced... service for a
fee (or as part of membership) might be
much better.” (Getz, 1997: 9) If profes-
sional bodies and associations will again
become more actively involved in pub-
lishing, the flow of information might be
more directly and quickly delivered form
host institution to requester, author or
researcher (Johnston, 1998: 12). A non-
commercial system of refereed scholarly
communication can be combined with
peer review. Morton favours a centralised
system on the shoulders of scholarly as-
sociations who would sponsor a ’super
site’ providing “sanctioned stature – a
surety that only bona fide scholarly work
would be resident” (Morton, 1997: 4). He
proposes that copyright remains with
the author or the employing institution
and concludes that in his model the pro-
cess of communication would predomi-
nate over the issues of product and own-
ership embodied in the present com-
mercial model.
Another important issue at stake is
quality control. The associations pool all
resources necessary to secure quality in
phase III. As Atkinson puts it: “It should
be the function of academic information
services to ensure that national – or pref-
erably international – peer review struc-
tures are in place.” (Atkinson, 1993: 210)
Various models have been proposed,
some of them involving the cooperation
with traditional journal structures, be
they run by commercial publishers or
not, others setting in place completely
new structures. For instance, Atkinson
(2000: 60) sees “an unprecedented op-
portunity to reconfigure information
services” and argues that “the academy
needs to use disintermediation as a tool
to re-appropriate responsibility for for-
mal scholarly communication that in the
past has been the exclusive domain of
scholarly publishers.” His own proposal
is called ‘The Designated Channel’ for
each discipline. All scholarly work would
go into this channel. This means that
“the item does indeed add substantial
knowledge” and that academia will guar-
antee its access over time. There will be
“normative meta data” informing about
currently perceived importance of an
item in the database and will be indexed
based on controlled vocabulary. Use-
tracking, i.e. access data, will add further
information about the paper’s merits.
The library’s task would be to create a
synopsis, stipulating what is new or
unique in the publication which should
add up to cumulative meta data form-
ing a sort of encyclopaedia. Politically,
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2032
Page 13
33
Michael Nentwich
these channels would separate informa-
tion access from the institutions. The
bibliographic value is “one-stop shop-
ping”, e.g. on the basis of the OAi stan-
dard. Atkinson’s proposal is based on his
earlier thoughts about a “control zone”
into which all important scholarly ma-
terial would go, namely “a single, virtual,
distributed, international digital library”
which he describes as a library which has
(conceptual, virtual) boundaries and
which defines its service operationally
on the basis of the opposition between
what is inside and outside those bound-
aries. He claims that the academic com-
munity would have to consider the cre-
ation of a control zone understood as
something that is technically and con-
ceptually separate from the open zone
(Atkinson, 1996: 254 ).
Whether or not the scholarly associa-
tions will actually support these new sys-
tems depends on at least two issues: the
relationship to commercial publishers
and financial issues. If a scholarly asso-
ciation is already linked with (or finan-
cially supported) conventional journals
that are published by commercial pub-
lishers, withdrawing from such links and
going entirely the E-way poses serious
dilemmas for them since the commer-
cial publishers in many cases hold pro-
prietary rights to the journals. Conceiv-
ably, the publishers might just go their
own way if associations sever their links,
and would end up competing with the
new de-commodified (associational)
journals. This dilemma may inhibit
many associations from going this
route.3 Associations, however, may be in
a quite powerful position, for instance if
journal subscriptions are linked to mem-
bership in the association. In this case,
the commercial publisher would lose
almost all of its subscribers at once while
the competing new journal would take
up most of them.
As to financing such systems, Walker
(1998) proposes a scheme of charges
paid by the authors for re-prints in a
society’s journal whereby part of the rev-
enue would finance eventually putting
all papers online for free access by us-
ers. Morton (1997: 4) proposes “annual
institutional site-gateway fees” to be
based on the institutional budget or on
the number of researchers who poten-
tially could place publications at the site.
Ginsparg (1996: 7) envisages for those
research communities with a relatively
small number of authors and a much
larger number of readers a model
“wherein the institutions that support
the research assert copyright privilege,
assume the role of publishers, and dis-
seminate material produced in-house
for a fee to those institutions that only
consume it.” He admits that this would
upset proponents of free electronic ac-
cess to all publicly supported research
material but claims that it would be a
logical system, in which the real risk-tak-
ers (the institutions that support re-
search by way of investment in salary
and equipment) are able to profit from
and protect the products of that invest-
ment.
De-commodification?
Phase III is, so far, a time of change. It is
not clear yet what shape exactly it will
take, but it features, at least partially, what
we might call de-commodification or re-
de-commodification since it might rein-
state the original, un-commodified situ-
ation. Most probably, there will be a
mixed system – partly commodified,
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2033
Michael Nentwich
these channels would separate informa-
tion access from the institutions. The
bibliographic value is “one-stop shop-
ping”, e.g. on the basis of the OAi stan-
dard. Atkinson’s proposal is based on his
earlier thoughts about a “control zone”
into which all important scholarly ma-
terial would go, namely “a single, virtual,
distributed, international digital library”
which he describes as a library which has
(conceptual, virtual) boundaries and
which defines its service operationally
on the basis of the opposition between
what is inside and outside those bound-
aries. He claims that the academic com-
munity would have to consider the cre-
ation of a control zone understood as
something that is technically and con-
ceptually separate from the open zone
(Atkinson, 1996: 254 ).
Whether or not the scholarly associa-
tions will actually support these new sys-
tems depends on at least two issues: the
relationship to commercial publishers
and financial issues. If a scholarly asso-
ciation is already linked with (or finan-
cially supported) conventional journals
that are published by commercial pub-
lishers, withdrawing from such links and
going entirely the E-way poses serious
dilemmas for them since the commer-
cial publishers in many cases hold pro-
prietary rights to the journals. Conceiv-
ably, the publishers might just go their
own way if associations sever their links,
and would end up competing with the
new de-commodified (associational)
journals. This dilemma may inhibit
many associations from going this
route.3 Associations, however, may be in
a quite powerful position, for instance if
journal subscriptions are linked to mem-
bership in the association. In this case,
the commercial publisher would lose
almost all of its subscribers at once while
the competing new journal would take
up most of them.
As to financing such systems, Walker
(1998) proposes a scheme of charges
paid by the authors for re-prints in a
society’s journal whereby part of the rev-
enue would finance eventually putting
all papers online for free access by us-
ers. Morton (1997: 4) proposes “annual
institutional site-gateway fees” to be
based on the institutional budget or on
the number of researchers who poten-
tially could place publications at the site.
Ginsparg (1996: 7) envisages for those
research communities with a relatively
small number of authors and a much
larger number of readers a model
“wherein the institutions that support
the research assert copyright privilege,
assume the role of publishers, and dis-
seminate material produced in-house
for a fee to those institutions that only
consume it.” He admits that this would
upset proponents of free electronic ac-
cess to all publicly supported research
material but claims that it would be a
logical system, in which the real risk-tak-
ers (the institutions that support re-
search by way of investment in salary
and equipment) are able to profit from
and protect the products of that invest-
ment.
De-commodification?
Phase III is, so far, a time of change. It is
not clear yet what shape exactly it will
take, but it features, at least partially, what
we might call de-commodification or re-
de-commodification since it might rein-
state the original, un-commodified situ-
ation. Most probably, there will be a
mixed system – partly commodified,
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2033
Page 14
Science Studies 2/2001
34
partly de-commodified. Although some
hopes of a completely new scholarly pub-
lication system are not yet fulfilled (and
may never be), I hold that in the medium
run, free access archives like ArXiv and the
like may succeed in most disciplines. The
main driving force is that, with the help
of ICT, the core business of academic
publishing, in the sense of formal schol-
arly communication, can be done with-
out commercial publishers.
The Case for De-commodification
This argument rests on the answer to the
following question: What does publish-
ing involve and who can render the ser-
vices? If it turns out that the traditional
system is neither adding evident value
nor in a significantly better position to
render the necessary services, and if, at
the same time, the alternative system is
much cheaper, the latter might ulti-
mately replace the former.
If we look at the various functions to
be performed, we can distinguish be-
tween four groups. First, those tasks
which, already in phase II, are done by
the scholarly community as a whole any-
way. This includes editing, i.e. “running”
the journal. Managing editorial rules and
corresponding with authors, referees etc.
is typically done by an academic anyway
(now increasingly via E-mail, see Appel,
1996). Scholarly quality control, i.e. find-
ing out whether the submitted article is
new, valuable etc., is always done by aca-
demics. Reputation or branding is cer-
tainly a service provided by publishers,
as Rohe (1998: 2) argues: “A well-known
publisher’s name is similar to a brand
name.” According to Atkinson, “We do
not really pay for what is in [the publish-
ers] publications; what we pay for is
rather that what is in their publications
acquires a certain status and attracts a
certain attention by virtue of its location
in those publications.” (Atkinson, 2000:
64, emph. in orig.) No doubt, scholarly
associations or universities could be, as
they are already in some areas, the new
brand names for scholarly publications.
In principle, there is no need for com-
mercial brands which are mainly tar-
geted at increasing revenues, less at in-
creasing reputation for scholars. The
tricky question involved here is, how-
ever, whether setting up a parallel infra-
structure, run by academia itself, would
have the power to attract enough aca-
demic authors to break even, i.e. to de-
tract authors and consequently reputa-
tion from the commercial system.
One proposed route is that universi-
ties do not allow their faculty to submit
to commercial publishers any more.
This could be combined (and in fact is
already in some areas) with libraries not
buying these journals any longer (also
because they are too expensive anyway)
which would make them less accessible
and hence less attractive. A more liberal
alternative would be to make the alter-
native system more attractive. This
could be done for instance by formally
upgrading the status of the alternative
vis-à-vis the traditional journals when it
comes to research assessments. Further-
more, attractiveness could be enhanced
by high-quality and all-encompassing
search-engines which cannot be pro-
vided by commercial publishers due to
their competitive policies. We can only
speculate whether the scholarly system
and, indeed, the academics themselves
are flexible enough to gradually switch
to the new system. In any case, there are
already a number of powerful proto-
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2034
34
partly de-commodified. Although some
hopes of a completely new scholarly pub-
lication system are not yet fulfilled (and
may never be), I hold that in the medium
run, free access archives like ArXiv and the
like may succeed in most disciplines. The
main driving force is that, with the help
of ICT, the core business of academic
publishing, in the sense of formal schol-
arly communication, can be done with-
out commercial publishers.
The Case for De-commodification
This argument rests on the answer to the
following question: What does publish-
ing involve and who can render the ser-
vices? If it turns out that the traditional
system is neither adding evident value
nor in a significantly better position to
render the necessary services, and if, at
the same time, the alternative system is
much cheaper, the latter might ulti-
mately replace the former.
If we look at the various functions to
be performed, we can distinguish be-
tween four groups. First, those tasks
which, already in phase II, are done by
the scholarly community as a whole any-
way. This includes editing, i.e. “running”
the journal. Managing editorial rules and
corresponding with authors, referees etc.
is typically done by an academic anyway
(now increasingly via E-mail, see Appel,
1996). Scholarly quality control, i.e. find-
ing out whether the submitted article is
new, valuable etc., is always done by aca-
demics. Reputation or branding is cer-
tainly a service provided by publishers,
as Rohe (1998: 2) argues: “A well-known
publisher’s name is similar to a brand
name.” According to Atkinson, “We do
not really pay for what is in [the publish-
ers] publications; what we pay for is
rather that what is in their publications
acquires a certain status and attracts a
certain attention by virtue of its location
in those publications.” (Atkinson, 2000:
64, emph. in orig.) No doubt, scholarly
associations or universities could be, as
they are already in some areas, the new
brand names for scholarly publications.
In principle, there is no need for com-
mercial brands which are mainly tar-
geted at increasing revenues, less at in-
creasing reputation for scholars. The
tricky question involved here is, how-
ever, whether setting up a parallel infra-
structure, run by academia itself, would
have the power to attract enough aca-
demic authors to break even, i.e. to de-
tract authors and consequently reputa-
tion from the commercial system.
One proposed route is that universi-
ties do not allow their faculty to submit
to commercial publishers any more.
This could be combined (and in fact is
already in some areas) with libraries not
buying these journals any longer (also
because they are too expensive anyway)
which would make them less accessible
and hence less attractive. A more liberal
alternative would be to make the alter-
native system more attractive. This
could be done for instance by formally
upgrading the status of the alternative
vis-à-vis the traditional journals when it
comes to research assessments. Further-
more, attractiveness could be enhanced
by high-quality and all-encompassing
search-engines which cannot be pro-
vided by commercial publishers due to
their competitive policies. We can only
speculate whether the scholarly system
and, indeed, the academics themselves
are flexible enough to gradually switch
to the new system. In any case, there are
already a number of powerful proto-
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2034
Page 15
35
Michael Nentwich
types which shed some light on the pos-
sible future (see above).
The second group of functions is in-
creasingly being performed by the au-
thor, not by the publisher. For instance,
typesetting, formatting, page-composi-
tion, layout, tagging, including the
HTML or, later on, XML coding, is done
to an ever increasing degree by the au-
thor with the help of auto-formatting
editor software.4 As to proof-reading,
there will be no differences to the status
quo: the author him- or herself is proof-
reading. In any case, professionalism in
the academic publishing process, in
general, and with a view to typesetting
and copy-editing, would have to be up-
held. But these are functions which
could also be supervised by people
within academia (e.g. in the university
presses or scholarly associations).
A third group of tasks in academic
publishing are typically outsourced.
These can as well be done by phase II/
III non- profit publishers, such as uni-
versity presses and/or the university or
research institutions itself. This includes
language editing which, in most cases,
is already done by the scholars them-
selves; copyediting, i.e. the part of qual-
ity control which relates to formal neces-
sities, such as a complete and coherent
bibliography, etc., is either included in
the typesetting/tagging or still out-
sourced as done now with most books.
Furthermore, ever more sophisticated
software is spreading among research-
ers and doing much of the job of a
copyeditor in advance and automati-
cally. For instance, new bibliographic
software makes sure that the reference
list is accurate and comprehensive, as
well as in the desired format.
A fourth set of tasks will be increas-
ingly handed over to specialised soft-
ware and could be simply or nearly su-
perfluous in phase III. For instance link-
ing, i.e. fitting the articles into a web of
knowledge, making them retrievable etc.
could be done by the publishers (Hunter,
1998: 2). However, there are already first
examples of linking tools which do the
job automatically on the basis of input
by authors and editors. Printing will be
done locally, by the reader or the library.
Distribution is, in the E-world, done via
the Internet. No packaging or shipping
is necessary. Financial transactions, if at
all necessary, are being automated. Mar-
keting is trickier, but how much market-
ing is actually done by scientific publish-
ers? Is it not mainly the authors who pro-
mote their books in conferences, by ref-
erencing in journal articles and referee-
ing books for journals? In an E-world,
marketing could be turned into an infor-
mation service, eventually via central-
ised access points with E-mail subscrip-
tion services and/or accessible by know-
bots (personalised knowledge robots).
MacKie-Mason and Riveros (1997: 2)
may be right to claim that “(g)ood schol-
ars are good at research, not at finding
readers” but finding readers could be
organised in a more refined and prob-
ably more efficient way. By contrast,
Mueller holds that “the global niche of
scholars who do [a particular speciality]
can be expected to spread the word
among themselves.” (2000: 4)
Furthermore, copyright management
would be almost superfluous in a de-
commodified scholarly world. Fisher
(1993), for instance, opposes the present
copyright management system to two
alternative systems which he calls ‘au-
thor-managed’, i.e. one where the au-
thors retain their copyrights and conse-
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2035
Michael Nentwich
types which shed some light on the pos-
sible future (see above).
The second group of functions is in-
creasingly being performed by the au-
thor, not by the publisher. For instance,
typesetting, formatting, page-composi-
tion, layout, tagging, including the
HTML or, later on, XML coding, is done
to an ever increasing degree by the au-
thor with the help of auto-formatting
editor software.4 As to proof-reading,
there will be no differences to the status
quo: the author him- or herself is proof-
reading. In any case, professionalism in
the academic publishing process, in
general, and with a view to typesetting
and copy-editing, would have to be up-
held. But these are functions which
could also be supervised by people
within academia (e.g. in the university
presses or scholarly associations).
A third group of tasks in academic
publishing are typically outsourced.
These can as well be done by phase II/
III non- profit publishers, such as uni-
versity presses and/or the university or
research institutions itself. This includes
language editing which, in most cases,
is already done by the scholars them-
selves; copyediting, i.e. the part of qual-
ity control which relates to formal neces-
sities, such as a complete and coherent
bibliography, etc., is either included in
the typesetting/tagging or still out-
sourced as done now with most books.
Furthermore, ever more sophisticated
software is spreading among research-
ers and doing much of the job of a
copyeditor in advance and automati-
cally. For instance, new bibliographic
software makes sure that the reference
list is accurate and comprehensive, as
well as in the desired format.
A fourth set of tasks will be increas-
ingly handed over to specialised soft-
ware and could be simply or nearly su-
perfluous in phase III. For instance link-
ing, i.e. fitting the articles into a web of
knowledge, making them retrievable etc.
could be done by the publishers (Hunter,
1998: 2). However, there are already first
examples of linking tools which do the
job automatically on the basis of input
by authors and editors. Printing will be
done locally, by the reader or the library.
Distribution is, in the E-world, done via
the Internet. No packaging or shipping
is necessary. Financial transactions, if at
all necessary, are being automated. Mar-
keting is trickier, but how much market-
ing is actually done by scientific publish-
ers? Is it not mainly the authors who pro-
mote their books in conferences, by ref-
erencing in journal articles and referee-
ing books for journals? In an E-world,
marketing could be turned into an infor-
mation service, eventually via central-
ised access points with E-mail subscrip-
tion services and/or accessible by know-
bots (personalised knowledge robots).
MacKie-Mason and Riveros (1997: 2)
may be right to claim that “(g)ood schol-
ars are good at research, not at finding
readers” but finding readers could be
organised in a more refined and prob-
ably more efficient way. By contrast,
Mueller holds that “the global niche of
scholars who do [a particular speciality]
can be expected to spread the word
among themselves.” (2000: 4)
Furthermore, copyright management
would be almost superfluous in a de-
commodified scholarly world. Fisher
(1993), for instance, opposes the present
copyright management system to two
alternative systems which he calls ‘au-
thor-managed’, i.e. one where the au-
thors retain their copyrights and conse-
Nentwich 11.12.2001, 16:2035
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Loading ...
Resources
-
158.67 KB · Uploaded Jan 26, 2012 by Michael Nentwich
Science & Research Jobs
W3-Professorship in "Energy Economics and Energy Systems"
Position: Professor (Full)
Employer: University of Stuttgart
