Tuesday, March 17, 2009

change (blogpost#5)

Farewell to the Printed Monograph
Within the next two years, University of Michigan Press will shift the majority of its annual scholarly publications from a print format to a digital format. They hope that this will give their books a much broader distribution. While readers will still have the option to pay for print-on-demand physical copies, the new publications will be released in digital format only. Michigan reps believe the business model based on printed monographs is not merely failing, but is broken and doomed.

Coming from the standpoints of both a consumer and a future library professional, I think that Michigan is making a mistake. Granted, a lot of "scholarly" work isn't necessarily read by the masses, but I don't think that Michigan will be doing themselves any favors in making this shift... even with whatever popularity Kindles and other portable e-book readers may carry.

From a personal standpoint: I really don't read e-books. It's not that I'm trying to rebel against anything, it is just that I hate staring at a screen for hours on end. There is absolutely nothing satisfying in doing so. If I am going to spend the time reading a book, I want it in my hand. I want to put it down and pick it up. I want to mark my progress by looking to see how many pages are left. This doesn't even mention that I also don't want to spend money on an e-book reader or carry my computer around. So, in terms of a reaching a broader audience, I can't be the only one that isn't interested.

From a library standpoint: I don't see this as being very beneficial. First of all, libraries won't be ordering the cheap, print-on-demand copy... meaning the only access will have to be electronic. Aside from a change in who will read or even have access to the book, what will have to change for the library? How will the library obtain/maintain a license to all of these books? What will the cost of all of this actually be to the library in the long run?

I really don't have a problem with publishers offering e-books, but I think completely replacing the traditional print publishing is a mistake. I don't believe libraries will benefit and I don't think it will invite new readers... at least enough new readers to replace the ones being left out. While Michigan insists that it isn't about the money, the current economic conditions are probably calling for people to come up with answers. I suppose that a complete change probably entices those who are trying to stay afloat and relevant in a technology driven environment.

6 comments:

  1. I am in complete and utter agreement with you on this...completely replacing the traditional print with digital sounds like a huge mistake. I personally do not know a single person who likes reading text online, e-books, online articles, etc. We all print them! (Question, would students have to pay for print on demand or would it be possible to print the document without going that route?) I don't know, it just seems to me that doing this will result in less readers, not more. And then too, what if the system somehow crashed?

    At the same time, this all just goes to show how bad this serials crisis has truly gotten doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I dislike reading e-books as well. Even when I find an article online, I print it so I can actually have it in my hands. After my experiences with attempting to access the Internet on my husband's phone, there is no way I would enjoy reading a novel on a kindle. I need to have that book in my hands. Same with a periodical. I admit that this is just my preference and the world in which I grew up in had no other choices but....I'll take the hard copy any day.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with you on the e-book front--I don't enjoy reading e-books and much prefer a printed copy. However, in terms of journals and other scholarly publications, I think electronic distribution is the best way to go. It's easier for researchers to search e-publications and for those publications to be indexed and it allows for a much wider audience. In a perfect world, I think publications would come out electronically and in print, but from an economic standpoint, this is increasingly less feasible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No surprise, I also agree with you. There has even been peer reviewed studies that indicate better retention of information from reading print sources than electronic ones. Yes, you heard that right: the brain can comprehend and retain information longer and more efficiently by reading print than by reading the same material electronically. I can only imagine where the future will lead us to...

    And yes, it seems that money has become the most important thing, even now for the sacred university press. Sadly, no one seems to be in any position to do anything about it. Even more sadly, will anyone step up and try to stop this?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I also agree with you: I'm not a fan of e-books. I think they can be great if the book is more academic in nature with articles, but a full novel? No, thanks.

    I don't think I will ever jump on the Kindle bandwagon. Holding an electronic device is not nearly as comforting as holding a real book and turning the pages.

    I can also completely agree with Peter's statement on information retention. From personal experience, I know I retain more from print than electronic material. I think most would agree. If something is readily available in print, I'll choose that over electronic material any day.

    ReplyDelete
  6. My sense is that this change came about in part because the cost of printing and binding a book has decreased so dramatically. U of Michigan has a kiosk in the library where people can print books. It's more cost effective for publishers than to print a run of 1000 copies only to have to store 900 of them in a warehouse and pay to ship the physical items. Easier and cheaper to distribute electronically and have people print their own. As for me, my Community of Practice had money left at the end of the year and I'm using mine to get a Kindle. I'll let you know what I think of it. I'm not sure about it but think it's time to check it our for myself.

    ReplyDelete