Mar
9
I was 19 when my father in law to be made the remark . I had been astonished when a friend of his , a member of the House of Lords and a close advisor to the Prime Minister , had blatantly cheated during a game of billiards . “ Dont blame him too much “, he said “ he went through Auschwitz as a capo . The man is a moral amputee . “ The expression came back to me time and again during the years in the mid 1980s when I worked as a consultant for Pergamon and then for Maxwell Communications Corporation . I do not know what made Maxwell like this , and I do not know what happened to him during the “missing ‘ wartime years from 1939 to the point where he enlisted in the British army in 1944. Nothing can excuse his criminality , or his cruel and abusive behaviour towards his family and his employees . But both John Preston’s recent book , a comment from Richard Charkin , and a long and interesting letter from Doug Whitehead , a senior MCC manager at the time of my engagement there , have given me pause for thought . We have the full measure of Maxwell the Monster : we do not have yet a proper reckoning on the man as a publisher .
In many ways Maxwell can lay claim to being the first modern publisher , and from my own experience I can testify to the way in which he terrified his competitors into trying to keep up with him . Having founded Pergamon in the late 1940s off the back of Springer reprint and distribution contracts , he turned it into a spectacular growth story as he mapped together the explosion of postwar science with the rapid development of new universities who needed reference collections . Then , by employing science editors and writers like Dr Ivan Klimes , for ever my image of the innovative scholarly communications publisher , it gained a competitive edge which , when Maxwell sold it to Elsevier , became the growth battery inside that company that propelled it to market leadership .
This world was succeeded by the B2B world of MCC . The Captain stopped telling people like me that he wanted to be the biggest microfiche publisher in the world (1985) and started saying he wanted to be things like “ the biggest satellite communications company in the world “. My work had changed from two years of contract labour for a week a month ( 1985-7, always paid immaculately on time ) to ad hoc M&A and due diligence work . I shared the satellite dream , but when despatched to find the satellite takeover , drew a blank . Nothing suitable was for sale bar a three man outfit in Redhill which supplied links for realtime screen updating, advertising late availability holidays ( “ One seat left for Famagusta on Friday “) in travel agents windows . But it was profitable . Maxwell’s eyes gleamed . Soon I was drafting the press release for Maxwell Satellite Communications ( “ world leader in growth sector “ , “ additive to group margins “ , “ largest player in the travel sector “)
Doug Whitehead reminds me of the range of innovation . We were deep into GIS and intelligent mapping . We were dabbling in the ‘80s with linked content within digitised media . MCC led DIMPE , an EU project in distributed interactive media , seeking to build standards with people like Monotype ans Linotype . There was a feeling that we could kick the tyres of any new idea and get a hearing . And , of course , some things failed and were taken out of the shop window , or in fact proved to be the catalyst for something different which we had not envisaged . Maxwell blamed someone else and fired them in the first instance , and claimed the foresight credit in the second . But he was never afraid of failure . He expected it to happen , he made the appropriate divestments , but then he re-invested with the same tireless optimism.
As my own clientele grew wider through the 1990s , people always wanted to hear a good Maxwell story . As I satisfied that demand I often reflected on how timorous some of these corporate players seemed compared to the piratical Captain . He had often forced them to innovate in order to keep up , and they resented it . But the fact remains , for me , that innovation on the scale practised by Maxwell needed courage and sustained self belief , and all too often those have been characteristics in very short supply in UK publishing and media boardrooms . Maxwell has a very good claim on the title “ first modern publisher “ as he sought to bridge the print to digital gulf in its earliest years .
Feb
18
There is sometimes a feeling around scholarly publishing that its existence is self-justifying, and its margins are simply the price paid by the academy for a necessary service . If anyone doubts the entrenched complacency of many industry players ( and their owners and investors ), then they are invited to look at results from companies like RELX , published last week , which showcase a fine performance by the industry leader Elsevier . If not the growth engine in the portfolio any more , Elsevier still reports over 30% Ebitda , come OA , come Covid , come what may .
Those of us , and I am one , who now believe that the current publishing system is crucially undermined , and that pure-play journal publishing is an increasingly high risk business , have advised publishers for years to concentrate on the wider services and solutions context of getting research disseminated, to look at the data needs and their implications , and to concentrate on the emerging digital needs of researchers , institutions and funders working in the same contextual network.
And then , all of a sudden , you find yourself reading something rare – a White Paper from people who DO understand, who are addressing the whole workflow process of the researcher , who do appreciate the entire value equation at work here . The White Paper, entitled “ Imagining the Post Covid World of Scholarly Communications “ ( see link below ) comes from Cactus Global , an organization whose underlying DNA is in supporting the researcher , and not in journal publishing , but every journal publisher should read this , and then think long and hard about its implications .
For me , the commentary on peer review and its automation has special impact . Think of a time when authors are able to pre-prepare peer review research and package it with the submitted article . The implications of that for publisher claims around costs and publishing time scales are one thing . The potential for this to lift peer review away from publishers altogether is another . I had similar feelings about the section on recommendation engines and author engagement , and about the democratisation of access . The writers here are fully conversant with the ‘digital first’ world inhabited increasingly by researchers but , apparently , by few of their publishers. .Above all , this team of writers envisage a future based on searchable data , and the primacy of data , metadata and data derived from usage is a backbone assumption .
So what will the shifting of the tectonic plates described here produce ? Here are a few pointers that reading this paper induced me to think about :
- Will articles of the future be part-published , in stages , as research projects proceed? First the aims , objectives and funding efforts application ,and then the planned methodology , pre-registered in good Open Science practice . Then literature review , then findings after completion . All linked but timed differently .
- How close are we to the article made for machine readability ? I still have little idea of how much end to end reading by humans of newly published articles still exists in the market , but asking researchers the question usually produces hilarity that I might think that article reading , rather than machine interaction with articles , was still an issue .
- Will peer review then become a continuous process ? At inception , completion , and then a re-rating after 5 or 10 years ?
- Will OA authors demand services for their APCs? Dissemination to peer networks and groups ? Potential interest groups detected by knowledge Graph technology and updated ?
- Will reputational badging become standardised and accepted ? How will universities and researchers respond to the need for rapid assessment of the repute on value of research being reported ?
- And how will publishers and librarians react to the challenges involved ? Will they try to keep traditional practices and workflows afloat . Or will they be the champions of digital first methodologies as they strive to create fresh value within the research process.
These questions remain for me , stimulated by an excellent and thought provoking paper . Through this type of discussion a digitally initiated , as distinct from a print world simulated , workflow and value chain for bringing funding to research , research reports to users of all classes , evaluation of outcomes to and reputation management to all who need it will slowly emerge . The issues really are much more important than the future of publishing .
https://www.cactusglobal.com/imagining-the-post-covid-world-scholarly-communication/
« go back — keep looking »