Several myths about scholarly publishing are described and examined in this article, insofar as the absence of relevant data and space permit. Is it a myth or a fact that the university presses own scholarly publishing or are essential for the continued publication of scholarship? Is it a myth or true that scholarly publishing is in trouble— and, if so, what kind of trouble? Does every well-researched and well-written manuscript have, in fact, an equal chance to be considered and published? The roles of the senior scholar broker, the college traveler and the sponsoring editor are briefly sketched, as well as the connections between publishing decisions and tenure. No conclusions are reached, since the data do not permit objective analysis. However, this article argues that a full-fledged sociology of publishing is badly needed and raises the question of whether “society gets the scholarly publications it is willing to pay for,” and what this means.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
This definition of demythologizing is paraphrased from the Random House Dictionary of the English Language (1966) and the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), s.v. “Myth in the NT.”
2.
Since scholarly publishing results from scholarly research, either in the field or in the library, a very substantial proportion of it is reported in conference proceedings or in journal articles, refereed or nonrefereed. An adequate discussion of scholarly publishing demands equal time at least for scholarly journals; however, since my experience is entirely in book publishing, this discussion must be restricted to books
3.
I am not going to suggest a bibliography because the existing literature, what there is of it, will be mentioned elsewhere in this volume. However, it may be useful to direct attention, as Marion Kilson did for me, to EscarpitRobert, Sociology of Literature, 2nd ed., trans. PickErnest, (London: Frank Cass & Co.1971). The original French edition appeared in 1958. Escarpit's approach is distinguished by a provocative study of the entire environment of literary creation, distribution and consumption. He describes (p. 46) the publisher as an obstetrician, “a prenatal counseler, a judge of life or death for new-born babies (even an abortionist), a hygienist, a pedagogue, a tailor, a guide and … a dealer in slavery.”
4.
Books in Print for 1974 lists approximately 3,600 publishers in the United States, but they do not differentiate in this listing between major conglomerates, prestige houses and cottage industries. The 70 to 80 university presses represent 0.02 percent of the total—in all, a nice problem for cost-benefit analysis
5.
FraseRobert W.“The Market for Book Manufacturing: A 1963–1972 Review and a Look Forward to 1980,”Bowker Annual of Library and Book Trade Information, 19th ed. (New York and London: R. R. Bowker Company1974), p. 173
6.
Frase“Market for Book Manufacturing,” p. 175
7.
Frase“Market for Book Manufacturing,” pp. 167ff
8.
The American Association of University Presses (AAUP), including eight international affiliates, does record the number of new titles, revised editions, and paper editions of earlier cloth editions published yearly by its 70 or so members (when members provide the information). The figures quoted are from MontagnesIan, “Looking at the Last Dollar,”Scholarly Publishing6 (October 1974), p. 36. The AAUP figures, however, are not always comparable from year to year, leading in this instance to a minor lapse of scholarly accuracy. For 1971 Montagnes uses a total of 3,521 new titles published in cloth and paper, including 547 reported by the Oxford University Press, but for 1973 he omits Oxford's 626. This explains the dramatic 30 percent drop—from 3,521 to 2,499—to which he calls attention. There is a drop, but it is more gentle—to 3,125. Moreover, the total of all titles issued by all members reporting (there are some members every year who do not report, and there are 10 or so university presses which do not belong to the association) is 3,295 in 1966; 4,130 in 1971; and 3,639 in 1973. These figures were taken from reports kindly provided by the AAUP staff in New York City
9.
RiesmanDavid personal correspondence, 27 January 1975: “Commonly, major foundations do not consider it part of their responsibility to see to the cost not only of publishing a book but of preparing for publication, which in my case, for example, would include the costs of typing a manuscript, sending copies around to people for criticism, rewriting on the basis of criticism, etc.”
10.
There is evidence that libraries are being used more extensively at a time when their budgets have been slashed, but this is generally, not always, because students want to spend money on other luxuries and are driven out of their quarters by hi-fi and their roommates' affairs. Riesman, correspondence
11.
RoloCharles“Book Publishing in 1974,”Publishers Weekly, 30 December 1974, pp. 20–21
12.
In different ways these points were raised by Merton Kahne, David Riesman and Mark Granovetter
13.
OrlovAnn“On the Snell Prank,”American Sociologist8 (November 1973), p. 195
14.
See, Lewis Coser's article in this volume
15.
The rules are different for textbooks and readers or other works which are designed to be adopted on a large scale by a particular market. In these cases (my information comes only from the compulsive reading of advertisements), books designed for state colleges tend to be authored (or by-lined) by state college faculty or faculty with which they feel comfortable. The same holds for community colleges
16.
RawlsJohnA Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press1971); Raoul Berger, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems, Studies in Legal History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973)
17.
JencksChristopherRiesmanDavidThe Academic Revolution (New York: Doubleday & Company1968); Talcott Parsons and Gerald M. Platt, The American University (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973)
18.
In “At the Gates of Tenure” (forthcoming) I will pursue the role of publishers in the American tenure system systematically. There are many reasons why this role is not often discussed—one may be the question of scale and distortion in the view of a university press. Oliver Fulton and Martin Trow suggest that research activity in American higher education is far from evenly distributed in Sociology of Education47 (Winter 1974), pp. 29–73. In a phone conversation Trow pointed out that there are approximately 500,000 faculty members at approximately 2,500 colleges and universities in the United States. Only 100 or so of these can properly be called research universities; in fact, research and publishing (book and journal) is concentrated in only 25 or 30 institutions. At many schools publishing does not affect tenure; at some it seems to affect initial appointments but not promotion. At others it is not wise to publish more than one's peers
19.
DessauerJohn P.“Where the Book Buyers' Money Goes,”Bowker Annual of Library and Book Trade Information, 19th ed. (New York and London: R. R. Bowker Company1974), p. 197
20.
PhilipsonMorris“The Quality of Scholarly Writing and Scholarly Publishing Today,”Scholarly Publishing6 (October 1974), p. 18
21.
This article was written in January 1975. In June 1975 it was announced that the American Council of Learned Societies had been awarded a $600,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, with matching funds from the Rockefeller, Mellon, and Ford Foundations, for a National Enquiry into the Production and Dissemination of Scholarly Knowledge. Presumably many of the issues raised here will be addressed by this enquiry
