University of Minnesota Press
Good afternoon, and welcome to the third Association of Research Libraries/ Association of American University Presses Symposium on Scholarly Publishing on the Electronic Networks. I am delighted to be here to open today's sessions and to introduce the larger theme of this symposium: Gateways, Gatekeepers, and Roles in the Information Omniverse.
A number of people deserve special mention for their support of the symposium. In particular, I would like to thank Duane Webster, Executive Director of the ARL, for his ongoing commitment not only to these joint symposia, but to the larger effort to strengthen and expand cooperation between research libraries and university presses. I would also like to thank Peter Grenquist, Executive Director of the Association of American University Presses, for his role in facilitating a host of new activities in the larger arena of electronic publishing, including support of this symposium but also of the newly announced joint CNI-AAUP Initiative on University Presses in the Networked Electronic Environment. It is very much to the credit of both Duane and Peter that these symposia have been so successful. Their individual commitment to a model of scholarly publishing that joins presses and libraries, as well as their efforts to help strengthen this natural alliance, are truly visionary. I think it is fair to say that over the past two years, we have seen an unprecedented degree of cooperation and collaboration between presses and libraries, and Duane and Peter deserve much of the credit for it.
I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of Karen Marshall and Kendon Stubbs from the University of Virginia Libraries in organizing the Charlottesville portion of the symposium, and last but not least, my co-chair, Ann Okerson.
I am somewhat uncomfortable describing myself as co-chair when my contribution to this process has been so minimal in comparison with Ann's yeowoman efforts in coordinating speakers, hotels, travel plans, and all of the other minutiae that go into a successful conference. More important, I would like to take the opportunity to publicly thank Ann her for persistence in helping to persuade the university presses of the need to become involved in these issues. She deserves an enormous amount of credit not only for pulling off several successful symposia, but for fostering and facilitating the entrance of university presses onto the electronic publishing scene. Thanks, Ann.
In crediting Ann for her success with previous symposia, I am also acknowledging the extraordinary progress that has been made by the university presses themselves. At the first symposium, all of two years ago, there were a half dozen rather confused, and I daresay rather defensive, university press directors huddled in the front of the room each day, furiously writing down acronyms that made no sense and wondering what the hell we were going to do when we got home. I know, because I was one of those directors. This year, we have nearly fifty university press registrants.
As further indication of changes that are afoot, I would like to share some very encouraging news from the university press front. The electronic caucus of the Association of American University Presses recently conducted a survey to gauge the extent (or lack thereof) of computer use among its members. Being largely a bunch of humanists, our survey was of course largely unscientific. But the general results are informative.
Of the 63 presses surveyed (more than half of the AAUP membership), all reported the widespread use of computers: 35 (56%) reported that everyone had a computer on their desk, while another 27 (43%) indicated that at least half of the staff worked regularly on a computer. Fifty-nine presses (94%) indicated that they were using desktop publishing technology in some form. Forty-five presses (71%) have an Internet connection, and twenty-one presses (33%) have at least one "electronic book."
What these numbers do not reveal is the pace of change. I doubt whether many presses had an Internet connection as recently as two years ago, and I suspect based on anecdotal evidence that the number of presses with electronic books in the works exceeds the number who have already published one. University presses are, I think, ready to assume position -- and the responsibilities -- of full-fledged partners in the emerging electronic world.
As I have argued elsewhere, I believe that publishers generally, and university presses more specifically, have three major contributions to make to the publishing process in the networked environment, and these are the same contributions that presses make in the paper world: gatekeeping (not simply peer review but also the seeking out, developing, and encouraging of scholarly research and writing); readability enhancement (including copyediting, proofreading, and design); and marketing and promotion (that is, telling the right people about the right book). I am increasingly convinced that these three functions will become more, rather than less, important as the network grows.
Similarly, librarians continue to perform a number of crucial tasks in the electronic world, including gathering together work once it has been published; indexing, archiving, and preserving that work -- in some cases long after the original producer of that information has ceased to make it available; and generally facilitating access to a rapidly increasing number of information sources.
Recognizing what it is that we each uniquely contribute to the process is, I believe, an essential first step toward refining -- and note that I did not say re-defining -- our roles in the so-called information omniverse.
Having identified what I believe to be some of the most important aspects of our traditional roles that seem to me to remain crucial in the electronic world, I would like to suggest several areas in which we, as producers and distributors of scholarly knowledge, can and must bring this expertise to bear if the potential of the electronic world is to be fully realized.
There is much to be excited about when contemplating the future of publishers and libraries in the networked world of the future. Equally, there is much about this emerging future that concerns me. As a relative neophyte in matters pertaining to cyberspace, I find myself swinging wildly at times between these two extremes: thrilled by the possibilities of new technologies, and terrified by the potential threats to the democratic order that such capabilities present. There must be a middle ground on which technology can be put to good use without contributing to the ever-widening gap between the information-rich and the information-poor or exacerbating the general trend toward increased surveillance and monitoring of both our public and private lives.
When we speak of roles, then, I think one of the most important that we in the non-profit research and education sector can play is that of leader. The views of those in the so-called knowledge industries are increasingly important as public debate about the National Information Infrastructure heats up. Libraries have been out front on these issues for some time; university presses are just beginning to participate; and scholars are, I fear, still lagging somewhat behind. It is the traditional role of publishers and librarians to foster and contribute to discussion about important social issues. The shape of the information omniverse is one that deserves -- indeed demands -- our attention, even beyond consideration of our own specific roles in it.
There are, I think, four areas in particular where we can and must exert a stronger influence.
First, leaving aside for the moment the entertainment potential of the networks, much, in fact virtually all, of the discussion that has taken place about publishing in the networked environment has focused on the production and dissemination of technical information, whether it be the conversion of STM journals from print to electronic formats or the increasing opportunities for database publishing. Much of this discussion is about facilitating the exchange of data or facts or information among researchers whose highly specialized interests often make them a very small, very cohesive, and easily identifiable group of both producers and consumers.
The ways in which the gateway and gatekeeping functions evolve in order to serve these audiences may be very different from how they would develop in service of the humanities and social sciences. The artifact of intellectual work that we know as the book or journal is not the same as a data set, and the technologies, policies, and modes of access developed to consume this unique creature probably ought to be different as well. Scientists and humanists simply do not conduct their research in the same ways.
Although there are an increasing number of groups and initiatives that represent the interests and concerns of those who work in the human and so-called soft social sciences, university presses and research libraries may be among the most visible and therefore potentially the most effective advocates of this often-overlooked group's concerns.
Second, all too frequently, discussions about electronic publishing begin with an assumption about access that is simply not accurate if you move outside of the scientific and technical communities. When we talk about making a conversion to publishing in a networked environment, we must again keep in mind who we are publishing for. At Minnesota, for example, the humanities faculty still have rotary phones in their offices. If one of our primary roles is to ensure the widest possible distribution of scholarship, doing so electronically may in some cases be in direct contradiction to achieving this goal. Information for whom, we must ask.
Third, good scholarship is heavily dependent upon an assurance of academic freedom, that is, the ability to pursue one's own ideas within certain ethical constraints free of any kind of intellectual restriction. The inevitable commercialization of the networks, the centralization of the service provider function, the information storage and retrieval capabilities of the network -- all of these trends point to an enormous increase in both the likelihood and the extent of surveillance. Gateways and gatekeepers are logical points at which to exert -- or resist -- surveillance. We must be alert from the start to our potential roles as unwitting accomplices via complacency or sheer ignorance. More importantly, we must take a proactive stance in insisting that adequate guarantees of privacy and security are built in to whatever system of electronic communication eventually emerges.
Finally, we should remember that at the most basic level, we are in the business of scholarly communication because we believe in the fundamental importance of research and education. We purport to foster and encourage new ideas, and to provide quality outlets and avenues for the dissemination of those ideas. We are, first and foremost, facilitators in the crucial process of scholarly communication.
Our primary audiences -- researchers, teachers, and students -- the people who we in theory serve, are in many respects the least well informed about the implications of the shift to electronic publishing. It is in our best interests, not to mention the interests of society at large, to assist the creators of scholarly works in making this transition and to encourage their participation in the debate. Without the involvement of our authors and readers, we run the very real risk of devising a system of scholarly communication on the networks that no one wants to use.
What I am suggesting, then, is that leadership may at this juncture be the single most important function that we can perform. Decisions are being made daily about the shape of the future National Information Infrastructure. We have much to contribute to the discussion, even those of us who may feel that we don't know enough about the technology to participate in any concrete way.
Many of you in the audience today are, I suspect, uncomfortable with the notion that you can constructively participate in, and influence, the shape of things to come. To the contrary, I would argue that scholarly publishers, librarians, and others involved in the dissemination of scholarly research and information are among the most qualified to speak about these matters. Our experience, our professional expertise in matters pertaining to the production of knowledge, is perhaps more important than any of us realizes. And our potential contribution reaches far beyond the world of scholarly research and writing per se. We owe it to ourselves, and to the ideals that underlie our basic understanding of what it means to live in a free democratic society, to involve ourselves in these debates. I hope that you will bear this in mind as we spend the next two days exploring the truly revolutionary potential of the networked world. Thank you.