ANALYSIS AND NEWS
SURVEY REVEALS RESEARCHERS’ VIEWS ON MONOGRAPHS
Ellen Collins considers a recent survey of researcher attitudes to monographs and asks what the future is for the academic book
A
cademic monographs have been getting a lot of attention in policy circles of late. In the UK, HEFCE, Jisc and the AHRC have all been running projects
on the subject, while international research funders such as the Mellon Foundation in the USA and DfG in Germany are supporting experiments to try to build a more stable future for the monograph.
A perception that monographs are in trouble underpins this sudden upsurge in interest. For years, researchers, publishers, librarians and other interested parties have been suggesting that it is getting harder to publish them. This matters because monographs are a crucial way of communicating research findings in many humanities and social-science disciplines. Moreover, many researchers feel that they are a non-negotiable step on the job ladder – a marker that must be reached in order to achieve progression at every career stage. The traditional narrative about the decline of the monograph tends to focus upon book sales. Library budgets, which are shrinking, are further pressurised by locked-in price increases on journal ‘big deals’, where libraries commit to buying large bundles of journals for a certain number of years with (in most cases) annual price rises. The amount of money available to buy books is declining. Publishers argue that fewer copies of each book are being sold, driving up the price per copy and (of course) making it even harder for librarians and researchers to buy books. Researchers are concerned that this, in turn, affects publication decisions, with easily marketed and saleable books being more likely to get published – regardless of whether they are actually important for the discipline.
Data to test these hypotheses can be difficult to come by. However, a new survey from the Jisc and AHRC-funded project, OAPEN-UK, run in association with HEFCE’s Open Access and Monographs project, reveals some interesting perspectives
from researchers themselves. With more than 2,200 responses from UK-based humanities and social science researchers, the survey gives a unique insight into how academics perceive the monograph and its role. The survey confirms that humanities and social-science researchers remain keen to read and to publish monographs. Overall, 94 per cent of respondents (2,056 people) said it was important or very important to access monographs, while 84 per cent (1,882 people) said it was important or very important to publish monographs. In neither case were monographs the most important type of research output – that position is held by journal articles – but they are clearly valued by researchers.
Junior researchers, especially PhD candidates, seem to find it less important to publish monographs than their senior
‘It seems that researchers find it harder to publish monographs than to access them’
colleagues, but researchers at all career stages attach equal importance to reading them. Bigger differences are evident when it comes to discipline. Social scientists are less likely than humanities researchers to consider the monograph important, as both authors and readers.
It also seems that researchers find it harder to publish monographs than to access them. Some 50 per cent of respondents said that it was both important and difficult to publish monographs, but only 10 per cent said it was both important and difficult to access them. There’s an important message here for publishers, research funders and universities: the publishing system may well be failing researchers who want to share their findings, but there’s less evidence that researchers have the kinds of problem that open access was originally intended to solve in the journals
4 Research Information DECEMBER 2014/JANUARY 2015
environment – that is to say, the problem of researchers not being able to get at the high- quality published content that they needed to do their work.
Another interesting finding, and one that questions some aspects of the ‘monograph in decline’ narrative, is that most researchers bought their own copy of the last book that they read. There was considerable variation by career stage – junior researchers were more likely to borrow a copy from the library, while more senior colleagues bought their own. This is unsurprising – professors may have access to personal, departmental and project funds that PhD students don’t. There were also disciplinary differences, with social scientists being more likely to buy a copy than humanities researchers – this may be because humanities researchers read more books and can’t afford to buy them all.
But this finding does suggest that pressurised library budgets alone cannot be held responsible for decreasing sales – academics do buy their own copies of books, and perhaps business models could take greater advantage of this market?
So, researchers are keen to publish, read and buy monographs, but sometimes struggle to do so (particularly in relation to publishing). What can be done to help them? The National Monograph Strategy, a Jisc project, worked with the research, library, publishing and funder communities to begin exploring how the UK might develop shared, national approaches to the challenges that face the scholarly monograph. The project has developed a strategy roadmap that outlines seven core ideas that aim to address the challenges facing the creation, collection, use and preservation of the academic book. One of the most popular ideas was the shared, open publishing platform. This is a technical solution aimed at reducing the barriers for universities and libraries that wish to develop their own publishing presence on campus. The idea articulates the growing interest and development of university presses in the UK. While significant work needs to
@researchinfo
www.researchinformation.info
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 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32