tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post4161176730050367783..comments2024-03-10T20:46:19.274-04:00Comments on In the Middle: A Time for Radical Hope: Freedom, Responsibility, Publishing, and Building New PublicsCord J. Whitakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06224143153295429986noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-39972692756059654332013-12-11T11:17:31.465-05:002013-12-11T11:17:31.465-05:00One thing that has been bothering me a bit about t...One thing that has been bothering me a bit about this talk ever since writing it, presenting it, and then publishing it in augmented form here on In The Middle, and this point was raised by Steve Mentz after the original talk was given at GWU's Gelman Library, is that maybe we should pause every now and then to NOT beat up [so much] on commercial publishers, such as Palgrave Macmillan, since they have helped to establish and sustain many academic careers and to also sustain the public-intellectual commons in general, and I am, of course, on record, here and elsewhere, making that point incessantly. BABEL's journal postmedieval has, of course, benefited immensely from the lavish attention and money Palgrave has expended upon it, but alas, many many many people have no access to it]. But as I have also said incessantly, open-access is NOT FREE. If you want an open commons in which there is no such thing as intellectual "property" [which I am actually a bit suspicious of, to be frank: look at what has happened to the music industry and to musicians, especially], or if you simply don't want our work to be locked behind various paywalls, well, someone still has to fund this: the editing, the design, the typesetting, the archiving/cataloguing, the distribution/marketing, etc. I personally favor partnership and consortium models for going forward, such as Open Library of Humanities and Anvil Academic, and between commercial publishers, university presses, and university libraries. At the same time I am fiercely in favor of having realms that are completely independent of all of these entities in order to ensure the wides range of creativity [of forms and content] possible. I would also URGE companies such as Palgrave Macmillan to consider the damage that is done when they clamp down so hard on intellectual property [which is not shared equitably with their authors and editors] and also innovate in ways that don't seem as innovative as what is happening in the so-called "trade" industry. I think publishers like Palgrave Macmillan should try a little harder to be "fleet of foot" with their new publishing initiatives, such that we could somehow have well-designed and well-edited books that don't cost so much.<br /><br />I want to also correct some infelicities and inaccuracies in my description of how Palgrave Macmillan has responded to open-access mandates in the UK. To whit [and these corrections come by way of Amy Bourke, Corporate Communications Manager for Palgrave]:<br /><br />Palgrave Pivots are available for individuals to buy in digital formats for almost any device from ebooks.com. Kindle is just one option. Libraries which purchase Pivots via Connect get both the PDF and the ePub versions with no DRM.<br /><br />Librarians are by no means locked into buying collections - we offer a Build Your Own option, where libraries can pick and choose what books they want. But if they purchase collections, they will pay less than the single-copy price, so this is a popular option.<br /><br />For both monographs and Palgrave Pivots, we pay peer reviewers.<br /><br />You're right that we offer template jackets for Palgrave Pivot authors. But there are 14 different designs, and multiple colourways to choose from, meaning you've actually got 150 options.<br /><br />Our article processing charge for journals is $2,600 +VAT.<br /><br />I'd also like to say that we do care very much about the trade market, but that Palgrave Pivots were never intended as trade books. They are meant to be scholarly research works. (And I respect your view that we should offer a short ebook for trade option.)<br /><br />Furthermore, we encourage non-metaphoric titles because it makes it easier for customers to discover titles online, since the predominant discovery route is via Google. You're right in that enabling customers to find the book more easily encourages sales. This is good for authors, and will become even more important in an open access paradigm. (For the same reason, some newspapers give articles different - and more direct - titles online.)<br />Eileen Joyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13756965845120441308noreply@blogger.com