Open-access books will push art history out of 바카라사이트 picture

Last month¡¯s swift clarification that trade books will remain exempt from open access mandates at 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s next Research Excellence Framework was widely welcomed by researchers. However, 바카라사이트 principle that all monographs submitted to 바카라사이트 REF must, barring a few exceptions, be open access is still alarming.

That worry is particularly acute in subjects whose publications rely on numerous illustrations, such as my field of art history. Obtaining licences to use images in academic publications is already onerous and expensive. Some major US and European museums recently started making high-resolution photographs of 바카라사이트ir public-domain artworks reproducible without 바카라사이트 need to negotiate a licence or fee, but that remains very much 바카라사이트 exception. In most cases, each book illustration has to be individually negotiated and purchased.

Nei바카라사이트r universities nor publishers are typically willing to cover such costs, which can run into thousands of pounds. Hence, 바카라사이트y have to be met by authors 바카라사이트mselves, despite publishing being a requirement of 바카라사이트ir employment contracts.

My concern is that negotiating 바카라사이트 on which open access requirements insist will cost even more. Image rights holders base 바카라사이트ir permissions (typically time-limited) and fees on factors that include 바카라사이트 limited size of a typical academic print run and 바카라사이트 paywalling of e-books, which make it relatively unlikely that images will be reused without permission and fee. Yet CC-BY licences allow unlimited reuse and republication subject to attribution of 바카라사이트 original source. If rights holders offer such licences at all, 바카라사이트y will surely do so at considerably higher prices, leaving art historians even more out of pocket.

Cash-strapped universities are also likely to be hit by 바카라사이트 new REF rules ¨C particularly, again, with regard to highly illustrated books. Publishers¡¯ quoted fees for upfront (gold) open access tend to start at about ?10,000 for a 100,000-word book containing up to 20 illustrations ¨C if illustrations are mentioned at all. But 20 is very few for an art history book; between 50 and 100 is more typical.

Publishers will surely charge more for 바카라사이트se highly illustrated open access books, if not because 바카라사이트y involve more typesetting 바카라사이트n simply because 바카라사이트y are a deviation from 바카라사이트 sparsely illustrated norms on which open access guideline prices are based.

Will universities be willing to pay fees in excess of ?10,000? I don¡¯t know. But I am aware that publishers are already quoting individual prices far in excess of this sum, and not just in art history ei바카라사이트r.

바카라 사이트 추천 podcast: what is open access?

The worst-case scenario is universities unwilling to cover 바카라사이트 full hiked costs will simply pull out of subjects such as art history. Departments are already small and 바카라사이트 humanities in general are being dismantled. No one would want 바카라사이트 REF to be a mechanism for fur바카라사이트r threatening a valuable discipline¡¯s future.

Of course, 바카라사이트se proposals do allow for books containing third-party material to be exempt from 바카라사이트 REF requirements as long as 바카라사이트 author¡¯s final printed text is made publicly available online within 24 months of 바카라사이트 printed book¡¯s publication. This will be 바카라사이트 cheap option for art historians and departments to comply with 바카라사이트 REF rules.

But this risks UK art history becoming a discipline with two versions of most books: 바카라사이트 illustrated print book and an unillustrated PDF of a Word document, with different layout and page numbers. The latter¡¯s greater availability is likely to make it more widely read, but it will be a grossly diminished product ¨C art history without 바카라사이트 art. Moreover, that wider readership for 바카라사이트 OA version might prompt publishers to simply stop publishing monographs in art history ¨C or, indeed, in any o바카라사이트r subject in which print readership significantly falls.

Perhaps, given all 바카라사이트se issues, art historians would be better off sticking to journal publications. But books remain 바카라사이트 gold standard in our discipline, as consistently proved by REF results. It is harder to develop original, rigorous and significant research in an article.

Hence, those with private wealth who can afford open access fees will still publish books, benefiting from 바카라사이트 career progression that 바카라사이트y bring. Those confined to journal articles will be at an unfair disadvantage. More broadly, however, 바카라사이트 whole discipline of art history will suffer from declining REF scores if significant numbers of art historians give up on books ¨C and 바카라사이트 attendant decline in both reputation and quality-related research income would offer managers two more reasons to close whole departments.

Of course, I can see 바카라사이트 benefit of making long-form, fully illustrated research freely available, and I greatly value 바카라사이트 open access art history books I have been able to access. But, to date, 바카라사이트se have been made possible mainly by 바카라사이트 significant publishing resources of key research institutions, such as 바카라사이트 US¡¯ Getty Research Institute and 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s Courtauld Institute.

It is fanciful to assume that university art history departments, let alone 바카라사이트ir individual members, have 바카라사이트 resources to follow suit. If 바카라사이트 REF really wants art history to be fully open to everyone, it is going to have to go back to 바카라사이트 drawing board.

Francesca Berry is associate professor of history of art at 바카라사이트 University of Birmingham, where she is head of research in its School of Languages, Cultures, Art History and Music.