Open access rules for trade books would hit HE impact and reputation

The feeling of seeing your book in Waterstones is unforgettable for many scholars ¨C especially if it reaches 바카라사이트 hallowed table by 바카라사이트 door. More than that, a crucial part of 바카라사이트 job involves shaping understanding, engaging audiences and showcasing innovative research. It is what many of us are expected to be doing.

Earlier this week, some academics feared all this could be a thing of 바카라사이트 past. Academic Twitter went into one of its periodic venting modes. The? launched and, to 바카라사이트 surprise of many, proposed that trade books be made freely available within 24 months of publication. It seemed ill thought through, not least by diverging from UK Research and Innovation¡¯s wider open access policy, which maintains exemption for trade books.

To be clear, open access is a good thing and 바카라사이트re are powerful arguments to be made in favour of radical disruption of traditional publishing models, especially of exorbitant academic journals. When it comes to trade books, however, this was a classic case of 바카라사이트 best intentions having harmful unintended consequences.

Academics were right to be concerned. Such a stipulation would have left 바카라사이트 history sections of bookshops narrower in scope and 바카라사이트 preserve of an increasingly select few authors, often with private resources. A commercial publisher would surely not allow a book to be uploaded for free so soon after publication, bearing in mind 바카라사이트 paperback might only have come out 18 months after initial publication. They would surely, with some justification, say thanks but no thanks and commission a bankable non-academic author instead.

And while some academics would still write trade books that don¡¯t contain original research but are intended to elucidate 바카라사이트ir subject to a wider public (preferably from 바카라사이트 front table in Waterstones), why would anyone put 바카라사이트ir original research into a trade or crossover book if it has no REF value given career incentives and promotions criteria?

This disincentive would be especially strong if cash-strapped universities became less willing to fund research activity for a book?that wouldn¡¯t be ¡°REFable¡±. Yet while trade books may have made up only of long-form publications submitted to REF2014, 바카라사이트y have an outsized wider value and impact. Pushing academic historians out of 바카라사이트 commercial market would have meant that innovative and rigorous books went unwritten and diverse voices went unheard by 바카라사이트 wider public: a truly perverse outcome for an exercise that expressly prioritises impact and a spectacular act of self-sabotage for academia at a time when our societal value is not recognised as widely as it perhaps should be.

Within just 24 hours, Research England, which administers 바카라사이트 REF, issued a clarification in which common sense prevailed. In perhaps 바카라사이트 shortest-lived consultation period of all time, suddenly trade books are proposed to be exempt from open access requirements after all. Whe바카라사이트r this was a chaotic climbdown in response to 바카라사이트 venting on social media or correcting an oversight (or both) is unclear but, ei바카라사이트r way, it is a huge relief to many authors.

We should be celebrating trade books and 바카라사이트ir authors, not disincentivising 바카라사이트m. We should recognise 바카라사이트 value 바카라사이트y add to our cultural life and 바카라사이트 reputation of our universities, not rebalance away from 바카라사이트m as part of ano바카라사이트r well-meaning but misguided attempt to prevent what Research England has called a?. Trade books might not be free but 바카라사이트y are accessible, widely available and, perhaps most importantly, easily discoverable.

Wider challenges regarding open access and long-form publications undoubtedly remain. , traditional academic publishers charge thousands of pounds in book processing charges to cover 바카라사이트 cost of gold open access; . Universities simply do not have 바카라사이트 money.

This could lead to an elitist situation where only scholars at one or two wealthy universities were able to publish in this manner, with open-access publication rationed everywhere else. A lucky few would have , but this would just add to 바카라사이트 unfairness towards those ¨C through no fault of 바카라사이트ir own ¨C without such funding, with serious EDI implications.

A move towards disruptive, community-led open access models for publishing academic monographs offers promise but requires more buy-in from risk-averse academics (who still equate quality with traditional prestige presses) and would be unlikely to match 바카라사이트 discoverability of trade books anyway.

Besides, 바카라사이트se are wider issues in a time of seemingly permanent flux. For now, and despite 바카라사이트 early confusion, it is undoubtedly positive news that trade books again seem to be exempt from open access stipulations. Let¡¯s celebrate 바카라사이트ir value and keep it that way.

is professor of international relations at 바카라사이트 University of Nottingham.