Promoting Scholarly Publishing as a Core Service of Academic Libraries
by Isaac Gilman (Associate Professor/Scholarly Communication and Publishing Services Librarian, Pacific University Libraries)
The founding of the Library Publishing Coalition (LPC) in 2013 appears to substantiate earlier claims from the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) that “[t]here is an emerging consensus that some sort of basic publishing services will become a core service for research libraries.”1 However, even with a growing LPC membership — and calls for digital publishing to be considered a new “core competency” for librarians2 — complete consensus among library leaders about publishing has not yet been reached.3 The lack of agreement is hardly surprising: if publishing services do become part of the core identity of academic libraries, it will represent a fundamental shift in the role of libraries within the scholarly community. Beyond this philosophical transition, it also presents a practical challenge for library administrators; as noted in Mike Furlough’s discussion of library publishing, “library budgets […] are not infinitely flexible, and it can also be difficult to continually absorb new services with existing staff.”4 Despite these challenges to both tradition and resources, however, it is becoming increasingly evident that for academic libraries — both large and small — to continue to provide unique value to our local and global communities, publishing must become an integral part of our identity.
From Commercial Collections to Unique Creations
While some libraries have been engaged as publishers for well over a decade, there are two recent arguments that point to the necessity of a profession-wide shift towards library-as-publisher. Both arguments recognize that the traditional focal point for libraries — our commercially purchased collections — no longer provide the distinct value that they once did. As Scott Walter notes, “when access to content is no longer scarce,”5 the ability of a library to provide access to books and journals is less “distinctive” than the services (teaching, research support, publishing, et al.) that the library provides to its community. Similarly, Rick Anderson observes that “[a] small and fast-shrinking number [of the purchased books in his library’s circulating collection] is checked out or even consulted by students and faculty in any given year, and yet their acquisition and management absorbs roughly 25% of our library’s total fund of staff time.”6 In light of this disparity between committed resources and observed value to the community, Anderson calls on libraries to pivot from “commodity documents” (commercially available works) to dedicate resources toward “provid[ing] broad and easy access to the intellectual content of rare and unique non-commodity documents that would otherwise remain unfindable and unusable.”7 Although he is speaking specifically about rare and special collections, it is reasonable to apply the same logic to the publication of unique and valuable scholarship — which, for lack of a publisher (because it was deemed commercially unviable or too niche), would remain “unfindable” to other scholars (and for which, if simply shared online, the author could not receive the formal recognition obtained through peer-reviewed publication). Walter and Anderson point to an increasingly shared conclusion: in a world of seamless resource sharing and collaborative library consortia, in which dozens (and sometimes hundreds) of libraries hold the same titles and subscribe to the same journal and eBook packages, it is easy to see that there is unnecessary duplication of resources and effort within our community. This needless duplication is occurring at the same time that there is a demonstrated need for additional resources to be dedicated to university-based publishing programs8 (as of 2009, there were fewer than 100 university presses in the United States to support faculty scholarship from 2,719 colleges and universities9). Academic libraries are well-positioned — and even compelled by our mission to disseminate knowledge — to shift resources and effort away from traditional, less valuable services, and to meet the need of authors and the broader scholarly community for quality, scholar-driven, non-commercial publishing venues.
Addressing Quality Concerns by Committing Resources
As libraries explore this shift, however, there is some skepticism that library-based publishing services will offer the same quality and value as those provided by traditional university presses (leaving aside the group of libraries in which independent presses have been organizationally located). Such skepticism (both external and internal to the library community10) is likely due in part to the perception — and in many cases, the reality — that library publishing services are being tacked on as extensions of digital library or institutional repository programs; that, in effect, the focus for libraries is on providing access to as much information as possible rather than providing the services necessary to create a quality scholarly product.11 This perception has doubtless been exacerbated by statements from the library community such as those found in ARL’sResearch Library Publishing Services report, which observes that it “could be a short step” from “repository services” to “managing publication of works like journals and monographs.”12
While skepticism from within the scholarly publishing community is frustrating for libraries that are making significant attempts to respect traditional publishing processes, such doubt is merited in cases where libraries are not able or willing to commit the resources needed to engage in the meaningful review, editing, and production of scholarly products (e.g., books). Although additional financial commitments from university administrators are ultimately necessary to grow and validate library publishing,13 libraries must demonstrate the importance of the shift from solely collecting “commodity documents” to publishing original works by rethinking our internal priorities for staffing and financial resources. Especially for smaller libraries, a commitment to a new identity as scholarly publisher may require significant restructuring and evaluation of legacy services that no longer provide the value they once did — particularly in the face of the value that can be provided through publishing services.
Open Questions for Library Publishers
For small academic libraries, which are largely absent from ARL-dominated literature on library publishing (with some notable exceptions14), the decision to pivot towards publishing services leads to several key questions: What skills and resources are needed in order to ensure quality and avoid Daniel Coit Gilman’s disdained practice of “printing without publishing”?15 In what ways should the traditional work of the library change in order to accommodate this shift in focus? At the same time, in what ways can the work of publication be connected with traditional work and skills found within the library?
I will attempt to begin to address these questions here — first by focusing specifically on the necessary skills and resources, and then by speaking to the remaining questions of what a library transformed to focus on publishing as a core service area might look like. While my focus is on smaller academic libraries — which are presumed to have less room for flexibility with staffing and resources, and so present a unique challenge — it is my hope that some of the ideas presented will be relevant for any library.
Before moving forward, it is important to explicitly state several assumptions and limitations that underlie this exploration. This discussion:
• Focuses on the requirements for monograph publishing. Journal publishing has a lower threshold to entry and different considerations.
• Focuses on traditional, comprehensive publishing services. There is a continuum of library publishing services, which range from simple dissemination to comprehensive peer-reviewed publication. While less than comprehensive publishing services do provide value, there have been fewer questions about this “complementarian” role for libraries (in relation to university presses). This piece assumes “egalitarian”16 aspirations for library publishers/presses (in relation to traditional university presses).
• Assumes that a library is at an institution without an existing university press. Much has been written on library-university press partnerships,17 and those dynamics are beyond the scope of this piece.
• Assumes that universities recognize the value and importance of supporting scholarly publishing on campus (whether through an independent press or through a library-based press); this is not necessarily a given.
Monograph Publishing Requirements
Traditional monograph publishers (whether focused on print or digital books) address seven functional areas: acquisitions, editorial, design, production, marketing, distribution, and management18 (two additional areas, sales and accounting, are also important in a revenue-based publishing context, but are less relevant to most library publishers, who function under an open access or hybrid open access model). As noted by the American Association of University Presses(AAUP), these are areas in which traditional, independent university presses have well-established competencies — particularly in the areas of “editorial selection processes” (acquisitions) and “editorial engagement” with authors.19 These two areas present unique challenges for libraries. For example, the necessary editorial filtering process is, to a certain extent, antithetical to librarians’ inclusive approach to collection building: “Editors narrow the field of potential works. Selectors seek to deepen the collections to respond to local research and curricular needs.”20 Libraries also generally lack the internal structures to support “peer-review [and] manuscript-development systems,”21 which provide critical feedback and substantive and copy editing services to ensure high quality works.
Where the acquisitions and editorial processes are concerned with identifying, selecting, and improving manuscripts for publication, the publisher’s role is not complete without properly packaging, promoting, and distributing the finished work. AAUP touts the “presentational expertise” of university presses and emphasizes the importance of “fund[ing] the graphic and typographic” functions of the press.22 While libraries can appreciate the importance of good design — many libraries already employ staff skilled in design work — it is the promotion and distribution of the published work that may be unfamiliar territory.23 Focused promotion of books is essential for ensuring their visibility and use — particularly in an open access context where sales figures are not available as measures of impact. Determining which distribution formats (print, print-on-demand, PDF, EPUB, et al.) and channels (print/ebook distributors, e-reader platforms, catalogs, aggregator databases, et al.) are appropriate for a given work is essential for ensuring it reaches its intended audience (and has the opportunity to reach unintended audiences).
Undergirding all of these functional areas must be sound management, both of the editorial and the production and distribution processes. At a large publisher, there may be managers in each functional area (e.g., publisher, production manager, marketing manager24), but at a small press these roles will likely be collapsed. This requires one or two individuals to possess the requisite expertise to manage budgeting and intellectual property,25 contracts (authors, distributors, independent contractors), and royalty payments (if applicable), as well as the workflow of all the functional areas.
A library that is planning to offer publishing services must consider how to address each of these areas — and whether it is even possible to do so. While it is not required that a library adopt identical practices to existing presses (indeed, part of the value of libraries engaging as publishers is found in our ability to experiment with emerging practices), it is important to reflect on the value provided by each functional area, and to determine how similar value can be best provided in the local context.
Rethinking and Repurposing in Support of Publishing
In order to position publishing as a core service, academic libraries must resist our tendency to silo non-traditional services or treat them as an adjunct to our core work. The best way to do this is to intentionally integrate publishing workflows into existing service areas, creating ownership and investment in publishing services across the library. Each publishing function and workflow should be carefully mapped to areas with corresponding or similar functions or skill sets. (Individual staff may also have skills outside the requirements of their current positions and so can contribute to additional publishing tasks).
Integrating the work of a library publishing unit (hereafter “press”) into existing staff roles and making a commitment to the press as a core service will, of necessity, require the reprioritization or rethinking — and sometimes the planned obsolescence — of current activities. However, it is important for a library to recognize that, even with internal reorganization, there may not be an appropriate space or adequate set of available skills26 to perform some publishing functions. It is in these areas (such as editorial work) that a library press should seek help from outside the library; doing so acknowledges the importance of these tasks and the library’s commitment to quality — rather than attempting to perform them in-house with subpar results. (Outsourcing some tasks may still require the library to revisit or sunset existing practices in order to make resources available). The following recommendations address possible strategies — whether library reorganization or outsourcing — for supporting press functions.
Acquisitions and Editorial — In order for a library press to maintain the editorial independence and academic freedom that are hallmarks of university presses, it is recommended that the editorial leadership of the press be located outside of the library. While the library director should function as press director and serve important management functions, an external (to the library) editorial board and experienced editors should be appointed to oversee manuscript selection, peer review, and any necessary developmental editing with authors. Engaging faculty (both internal and external to the institution) in these roles not only ensures appropriate scholarly expertise to guide authors, but also addresses a concern expressed regarding university presses that “active scholarly leadership” has been “considerably weakened”27 by a diminished role for scholars.
One model from a library-based press that creates an explicit delineation between editorial and production processes is seen at the Australian National University Press (ANU Press). The ANU Press uses over 20 disciplinary editorial boards (composed of faculty and scholars both internal and external to the university) to solicit manuscripts, oversee peer review, and ensure the final quality of accepted manuscripts before they are delivered to the press for production and distribution.
While it may not be necessary to compensate editorial board members, faculty engaged in more direct editorial functions will require compensation. For example, Pacific University is currently considering a library press plan that, in addition to a volunteer editorial board, proposes stipends or course release for faculty with relevant expertise to serve as developmental editors. The proposed editorial structure also encourages release from additional university service for faculty who volunteer as acquisitions editors for the press (working in conjunction with the board to solicit and review manuscripts/proposals).
By investing greater control in faculty and scholars who are engaged with the press as board members or editors, a library is able to commit more resources to — and restructure staff responsibilities in support of — the management, production, distribution, and marketing of press titles.
Creating Space for Management, Production, Distribution, and Marketing — Restructuring and reallocation of resources should not be primarily based on identifying discrete tasks or areas for efficiency in order to make room for the additional work of publishing. Instead, it should be driven by a philosophical commitment to the shift described earlier: from commercial collections to unique publications; from performing redundant processes to offering valuable scholarly services. A commitment to this shift will result in the identification of resources and personnel that are available to support the work of the press.
Fortunately, academic libraries have been considering — and experimenting with — a shift away from hand-picked collections “bought largely for the potential that they might someday be used”28 for quite some time. Realizing the resources and selectors’ time being devoted to building collections that were largely unused, many libraries have instituted patron-driven acquisition (PDA) programs (for e- and/or print books),29 and libraries like those at the University of North Texas and Oregon State University have declared a commitment to “access-based, JIT [just-in-time] service”30 and “a preference for access rather than ownership”31 that focus on meeting — rather than speculatively predicting — user needs. Although there is some debate as to the wisdom of PDA replacing item-by-item selection,32 carefully-constructed PDA programs for books, used in conjunction with approval plans, show considerable promise as a means of efficiently using (and saving) a library’s resources.33 This is especially true for undergraduate institutions, 34 which don’t require the same type of collection focus or face the same accreditation requirements as graduate and professional programs.
Committing to a less speculative model of collection development is a fundamental step in reducing our emphasis on collecting widely available materials — however, it is not the only way in which libraries can refocus our work. For commercial materials that are purchased for library collections, reducing the amount of internal work needed to process these items is also important. For example, purchasing shelf-ready materials and catalog records from vendors can reduce unnecessary work in acquisitions and cataloging units. Efficiencies can also be found outside of individual institutions through collaborative efforts at the consortium level that eliminate the need for individual libraries to perform redundant tasks (as an example, consider the work of the Collaborative Technical Services Team in the Orbis Cascade Alliance35).
Reducing the amount of time and resources spent by library staff on selecting, acquiring, and processing commercial content — and the above strategies are certainly not comprehensive — will create time for the library to engage in the uniquely valuable work of publishing original work. The units and personnel who will be most impacted by this shift are liaison librarians (subject specialists) and technical services — and, appropriately, these are the library staff who are most likely to have the skills and knowledge to support the press functions of management, production, distribution, and marketing.
Management: While production and distribution workflows may be integrated across different library units or positions, as will be discussed shortly, it is essential for the press to have a dedicated manager to supervise all processes. Assuming that it is not possible to create a new position, a reasonable solution is to reassign the most interested and qualified liaison librarian to this role (most likely one already involved in scholarly communication initiatives). If the librarian has existing collection development duties, these should be reassigned without much difficulty due to the decreased amount of time spent by each liaison on item-by-item ordering. Aside from collection development, changes to other traditional liaison roles may also be considered; there is a growing body of literature that calls for liaisons to transform their work in support of new services.36
Production: While the press manager will coordinate production processes, the majority of the workflows should be integrated into technical services — or outsourced, as appropriate — with support from the systems librarian or unit. There is precedent for integrating scholarly production tasks within technical services (primarily within the context of institutional repository management37) and for a shifting focus in technical services towards support for local collections/content.38
For the purposes of the press, the production workflow should be understood to encompass everything from copyediting of the final manuscript to creation of eBook or print-ready files for distribution. Professional copyediting is outside of the expected scope of technical services staff, and should ideally be contracted to freelance copyeditors. However, library staff can perform initial checks on the manuscript for internal consistency of word choice, abbreviations, hyphenation, and similar items, as well as ensuring all references are correctly cited. Affordable tools such as PerfectIt and ReferenceChecker (both used by Sydney University Press) work seamlessly with Microsoft Word and can reduce the time needed by a professional copyeditor. These types of checks can even be performed by a student employee or publishing program intern.
Although not as common as metadata creation, there is evidence that technical services staff are already involved in formatting and editing content for digital publishing projects.39 Though the industry standard for monograph design and formatting has long been Adobe InDesign, the learning curve necessary to master the software — and the difficulty in exporting multiple formats for digital distribution — normally makes using it untenable for inexperienced library staff. Fortunately, there are several platforms — both well-tested and emerging — that accommodate the single-source creation of print-ready PDFs and multiple formats of eBooks. IGP:Digital Publisher (Infogrid Pacific) is a full-featured platform used by Sydney University Press (who partnered with IGP on the development of the indexing module40) and other scholarly publishers, and is available as a hosted portal or for local installation. Two newer offerings, Atlas (O’Reilly) and PressBooks, offer simpler interfaces and functionality, but still allow publishers to create attractive and user-friendly single-source book files for print and digital distribution. Because an enhanced WordPress plug-in is available for textbook authoring, PressBooks may be of particular interest to libraries interested in publishing open textbooks.41 Although use of any of these platforms would require library staff to become proficient with them, the efficiencies they bring over traditional desktop publishing programs should ultimately result in better use of staff time.
Distribution: Although certain aspects of distribution, such as negotiation of contracts with aggregators (e.g., JSTOR), discovery services (e.g., Google Books or OAPEN Library), or distributors (e.g., Amazon or Ingram), should be handled by the press manager, creating metadata for press works and delivering required metadata and files to distributors is well within the scope of technical services workflows. Registration and assignment of standard numbers (ISBNs, DOIs) or the creation of original MARC records (as seen at Australian National University in a workflow arranged between ANU Press and ANU Library cataloging staff) are basic components of the workflow, which may also include uploading records to WorldCat, placing requests for cataloging-in-publication data, and creating Excel spreadsheets or XML metadata files for delivery to aggregators. (It should be noted that these limited distribution tasks assume a common model among library publishers of digital and/or print-on-demand distribution, which removes the need to coordinate printing and distribution to wholesalers, retailers, or direct to consumers).
Marketing: While some library publishers of open access or print-on-demand titles may assume that easy availability and online access create enough visibility for a title, there is every reason to actively promote published works. Launch events (easily coordinated by library administrative staff or by liaison librarians) are opportunities to get news coverage and to raise the local visibility of the press. Promotional materials for launch events or general materials like postcards or email/social media announcements can be designed by library staff, or in conjunction with university design personnel. Liaison librarians who specialize in the subject area of a specific published title are well-suited to suggest possible review sources (realizing the irony, of course, of having discouraged the use of library review sources by curtailing item-by-item selecting); the audience for such reviews would be other scholars in relevant disciplines or even the general public.
Although the focus here has been on scholarly monograph publishing, it is important to note that this restructuring and integration of publishing workflows can easily — and should — support a complete continuum of library publishing services, many of which may exist outside of a formal press structure. For example, the formatting and distribution of non-peer-reviewed content or the production of works from within the university community are common value-added services. Zea Books (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), Maize Books (University of Michigan), and Purdue University’s Scholarly Publishing Services are all examples of valuable publishing services provided by the library outside of the context of a traditional press.
Sustaining Publishing as a Core Service
Whether a library engages solely in traditional scholarly publishing — peer-reviewed monographs and/or journals — or expands its program to meet a wider spectrum of scholars’ needs, there must be a consistent focus on how best to sustain these services. Integrating them into the work of the library and connecting them to the library’s (and broader institution’s) strategic goals and priorities is a vital first step. However, it is not enough for the library to commit to publishing through reorganization and reallocation of finite resources. Library leaders must strike a balance by prioritizing publishing over legacy services and demonstrating the value of doing so, while also advocating with university administrators for new resources and personnel — in essence, demanding visible institutional recognition of that value. While other avenues for funding scholarly publishing exist — external funding from foundations (or governments, in the case of Canada42) may be available, and author subventions are a recognized cost-recovery method — these cannot and should not substitute for an ongoing institutional commitment. The recent proposal from the Association of American Universities (AAU) and ARL for a “first-book subvention”43 explicitly recognizes the need for institutional subsidy of scholarly publishing. Actively affirming the evolution of libraries into scholarly publishers by dedicating additional funds to library presses is an equally important way for administrators to acknowledge the importance of scholarship — and for universities to contribute unique and valuable knowledge to our scholarly community.
Acknowledgements: My thanks to the Australian Department of Education Endeavour Fellowships, Susan Murray-Smith and Agata Mrva-Montoya at Sydney University Press, and Lorena Kanellopoulos at ANU Press and Roxanne Missingham at ANU Library for supporting my exploration of library press publishing in Australia — and thanks also to Korey Jackson of Oregon State University Libraries and Press for introducing me to Atlas. — IG
1. Karla L. Hahn. Research Library Publishing Services: New Options for University Publishing. (Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 2008), p. 27.
2. Julie Lefevre and Terence K. Huwe, “Digital Publishing from the Library: A New Core Competency,” Journal of Web Librarianship 7 (2013).
3. See for example, AAUP, Press and Library Collaboration Survey (New York: AAUP, 2014). http://www.aaupnet.org/resources/for-members/data-collection-and-analysis/library-press-collaboration-survey;Maria Carpenter, Jolie Graybill, Jerome Offord, Jr. and Mary Piorun, “Envisioning the Library’s Role in Scholarly Communication in the Year 2025,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 11 (2, 2011); and Tyler Walters, “The Future Role of Publishing Services in University Libraries,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 12 (4, 2012).
4. Michael J. Furlough, “The Publisher in the Library,” in The Expert Library: Staffing, Sustaining, and Advancing the Academic Library in the 21st Century, Scott Walter and Karen Williams, eds(Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2010), p. 196.
5. Scott Walter, “’Distinctive Signifiers of Excellence’: Library Services and the Future of the Academic Library,” College & Research Libraries 72 (1, 2011), p. 6.
6. Rick Anderson, Can’t Buy Us Love: The Declining Importance of Library Books and the Rising Importance of Special Collections, (New York: Ithaka, 2013), p. 7. http://www.sr.ithaka.org/sites/default/files/files/SR_BriefingPaper_Anderson.pdf&nid=614
7. Rick Anderson, p. 4.
8. See, for example, James A. McPherson, “A Crisis in Scholarly Publishing,” Perspectives on History (October 2003). http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/october-2003/a-crisis-in-scholarly-publishing
9. Richard W. Clement, “Library and University Press Integration: A New Vision for University Publishing,” Journal of Library Administration 51 (5-6) [Author post-print], p. 4-5. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/lib_pubs/104
10. AAUP, 2014.
11. Rowland Lorimer, “Libraries, Scholars, and Publishers in Digital Journal and Monograph Publishing,” Scholarly and Research Communication 4 (1, 2012).
12. Karla L. Hahn, p. 10.
13. Karla L. Hahn.
14. See, for example, Raym Crow, October Ivins, Allyson Mower, Daureen Nesdill, Mark Newton, Julie Speer, and Charles Watkinson, Library Publishing Services: Strategies for Success (Final Research Report, March 2012). http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/purduepress_ebooks/24/ and Lisa Spiro, “Nimble and Oriented towards Teaching and Learning: Publishing Services at Small Academic Libraries,” in Getting the Word Out: Academic Libraries as Scholarly Publishers, Maria Bonn and Michael J. Furlough, eds (ALA/ACRL: In press).
15. Daniel Coit Gilman, “Research: A Speech Delivered at the Convocation of the University of Chicago, June, 1903,” in The Launching of a University (New York: Garrett Press, 1969), p. 241.
16. I acknowledge that my use of “complementarian” and “egalitarian” here is an appropriation of terms of art from another discipline (theology).
17. See, for example, Raym Crow, Campus-Based Publishing Partnerships: A Guide to Critical Issues (Washington, DC: SPARC, 2009) and Against the Grain 20 (6, December 2008-January 2009).
18. Kevin Williams, The Business of Book Publishing, SFU Publishing Workshops [course notes] (2013).
19. AAUP, Sustaining Scholarly Publishing: New Business Models for University Presses (New York: AAUP, 2011), p. 7. http://www.aaupnet.org/policy-areas/future-of-scholarly-communications/task-force-on-economic-models-report
20. Michael J. Furlough, p. 204.
21. Laura Brown, Rebecca Griffiths, and Matthew Rascoff, University Publishing in a Digital Age (New York: Ithaka, 2007), p. 36. http://www.sr.ithaka.org/research-publications/university-publishing-digital-age
22. AAUP, 2014, p. 7.
23. Michael J. Furlough, p. 209.
24. Kevin Williams.
25. Raym Crow, 2009, p. 28.
26. For a discussion of skills development in support of library publishing, see Katharine Skinner, Sarah Lippincott, Julie Speer, & Tyler Walters, “Library-as-Publisher: Capacity Building for the Library Publishing Subfield,” Journal of Electronic Publishing 17 (2, Spring 2014).
27. Rowland Lorimer, p. 7.
28. Michael Levine-Clark, “Developing a Multiformat Demand-Driven Acquisition Model,” Collection Management 35 (2010), p. 201.
29. Lisa Shen, Erin Dorris Cassidy, Eric Elmore, Glenda Griffin, Tyler Manolovitz, Michelle Martinez, and Linda M. Turney, “Head First into the Patron-Driven Acquisition Pool: A Comparison of Librarian Selections versus Patron Purchases,” Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship 23 (2011).
30. Laurel Sammonds Crawford, Beth Avery, Karen Harker, Todd Enoch, and Coby Condrey, White Paper: Redefining Collection Development at University of North Texas Libraries (2014). http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc335286/
31. Oregon State University Libraries and Press, Collection Management Principles & Practices (November 2013). http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/collection-management-principles-practices
32. William H. Walters, “Patron-Driven Acquisition and the Educational Mission of the Academic Library,” Library Resources & Technical Services 56 (3, 2012).
33. In a similar vein, pay-per-view (PPV) programs for articles in lieu of subscriptions offer another patron-driven, cost-saving option. See, for example, Clint Chamberlain and Barbara MacAlpine, “Pay-per-view article access: A viable replacement for subscriptions?” Serials 21 (1, March 2008).
34. Joseph J. Esposito, Kizer Walker, and Terry Ehling, “PDA and the University Press,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 44 (3, 2012), p. S18.
35. See https://www.orbiscascade.org/.
36. See, for example, Karen Williams, “A Framework for Articulating New Library Roles,” Research Library Issues 265 (August 2009) and Anne R. Kenney, Leveraging the Liaison Model: From Defining 21st Century Research Libraries to Implementing 21st Century Research Universities (New York: Ithaka, 2014). http://www.sr.ithaka.org/blog-individual/leveraging-liaison-model-defining-21st-century-research-libraries-implementing-21st
37. Tschera Harkness Connell and Thomas Cetwinski, “The Impact of Institutional Repositories on Technical Services,” Technical Services Quarterly 27 (4, 2010).
38. Gregory C. Colati, Katherine M. Crowe, and Elizabeth S. Meagher, “Better, Faster, Stronger: Integrating Archives Processing and Technical Services,” Library Resources & Technical Services 53 (4, 2009); Anne M. Mitchell, J. Michael Thompson, and Annie Wu, “Agile Cataloging: Staffing and Skills for a Bibliographic Future,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 48 (2010).
39. Ben Hunter, “The Effect of Digital Publishing on Technical Services in University Libraries,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (1, 2012).
40. Agata Mrva-Montoya, Bronwyn O’Reilly, Deepak Chandran, and Richard Pipe. “Dynamic Indexing: Infogrid Pacific and Sydney University Press Join Forces,” The Indexer 32 (3, 2014).
42. See the Awards to Scholarly Publications Program, Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, http://www.ideas-idees.ca/aspp.
43. AAU and ARL, Prospectus for an Institutionally Funded First-book Subvention (June 12, 2014). http://www.arl.org/publications-resources/3280-aau-arl-prospectus-for-an-institutionally-funded-first-book-subvention
Leah was appointed Executive Director of the Charleston Conference in 2017, and has served in various roles with the Charleston Information Group, LLC, since 2004. Prior to working for the conference, she was Assistant Director of Graduate Admissions for the College of Charleston for four years. She lives in a small town near Columbia, SC, with her husband and two kids where they raise a menagerie of farm animals.