Interview


“These were the harsh Thatcher years and I railed against the many social injustices at that time”


be much use! Yet I am certain that we will still be doing what publishers have done for hundreds of years: acquiring, developing, designing, producing, marketing, distributing and preserving content. I imagine that research publishing will


diverge. There will be large-scale, open, global, digital solutions for research findings and all supplementary project material that can be accessed through a multitude of tools, probably managed by communities of scholarly associations, funders and government bodies. Other outputs will be produced


The UP sector is very collaborative and


supportive. Traditional publishers have been placed in opposition to the new OA ones by some, which I feel is unhelpful. Traditional publishers also offer a wide range of sustainable and high-quality OA options, plus innovative solutions such as LUP’s Modern Languages Open – or our own OA ‘shorts’, produced rapidly to influence policy in real time. We can learn from each other; Megan Taylor, of University of Huddersfield Press, and myself will be doing a joint presentation at UKSG this year.


What is the biggest challenge facing the scholarly communications industry? We should be concerned about the push to one-size-fits-all scholarly communication, both in relation to academic incentives and esteem, and to how we assess quality and value at a time of over-publication and predatory publishing. The culture of trophy publication,


where scholars strive to publish certain kinds of publications – notably highly cited papers in high impact journals – to gain prestige, promotions and grants is reductive, and does not fit with the notion of public good. This publishing form also does not suit all disciplines. Plan S and the UKRI OA mandates are policies where HSS disciplines are having to defend their preferred publishing models against a seemingly STM-focused policy. The original ISI and Science Citation


Index were not designed to be applied in this way, and I have never understood why academia accepted how this blunt tool steered their communication choices.


www.researchinformation.info | @researchinfo


Metrics and altmetrics have advanced and DORA and the idea of ‘responsible metrics’ will hopefully start to change how research is evaluated and published, as well as challenging the notion that academic excellence is tied so closely to particular types of publication. At BUP we start with content, then think


about format, audience and impact. This could be a monograph or journal article written in the scholarly style, or it could be an accessible book with accompanying free content or professional guidance. This is not just about valuing different formats, but publishing a diverse range of voices and writing styles, like the personal testimonies we publish which powerfully demonstrates the reality of social problems. As a UP, our work has a rigorous two and often three- stage peer review process, so librarians and researchers can be confident in the quality, regardless of the format. Going back, academics published in the


way they felt best-suited their audience – a report; specialist journal; pamphlet or trade book, and even in STEM subjects, researchers supported their disciplinary society journals where they engaged with their community. If we broadened the definition of ‘quality’ and instead focused on the usefulness of the output for the chosen audience, we could perhaps decouple rigid publication-type expectations from the recognition and esteem of scholars.


Fast-forward 20 years. What will be the state of the industry at that point? Given the speed of technological transformation, I feel my crystal ball may not


by information analytics companies, commercial scholarly and university presses. Books will live on! Everyone loves a story, and research often has a powerful story to tell, be that in a journalistic piece, a virtual reality world, or a beautifully written book. Equality of access to high-quality


research findings will be vital if we are to address the global social challenges that we face. Traditional English language dominance will be challenged with the rise of local language publishing in China, India, South America, Africa and other LICs. Automated translation, open publishing systems and transformed discoverability mechanisms will democratise scholarly endeavour and bring a diversity of voices, methods and approaches.


AI and machine learning will undoubtedly


transform the scholarly communications ecosystem but we need to be aware of the risks, as technology is developing faster than our ability to manage it. There is an imperative to ensure that scholarship remains untainted by the data manipulation we have seen in our political sphere and that automated quality review mechanisms are appropriate. We established BUP to outlive us for


decades (hopefully centuries) to come. Hopefully The Press will still be addressing global social challenges, igniting debate and inspiring social and cultural change, in whatever form scholars and students, journalists and social commentators, policy makers and the public want to access it.


Interview by Tim Gillett


February/March 2019 Research Information 25


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  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36