AKMA's post "Rice Univ. Press Has A Clue" points to an Inside Higher Ed article "New Model for University Presses". That succinctly outlines the problem from an academic's perspective:
The article refers to the Ithaca report “University Publishing in a Digital Age,” which has been sitting on my desktop for a few days gathering...press editors freely admit that they routinely review submissions that deserve to be books, but that can’t be, for financial reasons.
Basically Rice University Press is trying a "new model" Long Tail Press which will publish (electronically with print on demand for tyhose who demand it!) works that have passed the required peer review processes but cannot be "published" for economic reasons.
Now, why is this NEWS? I suppose because no one else had the courage to try it.
And, how will a Long Tail book, once PODed, be different from a "proper" monograph? Ah, yes money, real scholarship makes a profit, only second rate scholarship is true, clever, accurate, new but fails to make a profit!
Labels: not.funny, not.satire, peer-review, publish
¶ 9:20 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
No one else has had the courage to try it??? You're kidding, right? I've been railing about EXACTLY this for several years now and just the other day mentioned the fact that the University of Goettingen is doing precisely what you say Rice is now considering (not to mention that the school with which I am affiliated as an Adjunct has been using electronic and print on demand for three years!).
It is decidedly incorrect to laud Rice for doing what others have been doing as though they have just come up with it out of the blue. Rubbish.
By 
Jim, at
August 1, 2007 10:08 AM
Thanks, Jim, it's good to be corrected when one risks a small exaggeration! You are right, one or two people have begun to try such a model.
The points my hyperbole intended to make were that:
the "system" of academic publishing is in crisis,
the mix of electronic publication and PoD offers a simple, neat, easy and cheap solution.
So, why is someone trying it "news"?
By 
Tim, at
August 2, 2007 9:53 AM
Tim be sure to check out the latest sbl forum. they barely touch on the topic. but maybe, just maybe it's a start.
By Jim, at
August 4, 2007 2:44 AM
Jim West drew my attention (in his post Oh Those Crazy New Zealanders) to the absurd "new parliamentary rules which ban using images of MPs in the debating chamber to make fun of them" (NZ Herald). With a (sadly) few (but notable) exceptions politicians have no sense of humour. But this rule is ridiculous. The TV networks have no need to ignore the rule, they just need to broadcast selected highlights of the parliamentary debate with no comment. Depending on the level of idiocy achieved in the selection broadcast we'll all either fall asleep, or perceive the deep and biting satire of human life that is politics.As for Anthony Flannery's claim that
That is one right that I am happy to fail to exercise 99.99999% of the time - I have better things to do.The public has a right to see how their elected representatives behave and perform in Parliament -- warts and all.
Please note the photo and caption on the right (taken from Scoop) are in NO WAY intended to satirise our respected PM, who will no doubt continue to defend her errant minister to the bitter end!
Labels: not.funny, not.satire, politics
¶ 5:11 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
