What will the future hold for Humanities journals?
Sep 15th, 2009 by Bryan
I heard about this study on the future of humanities journals in the new episode of the Digital Humanities podcast.
I am still working my way through the 55 page report, but the study concludes that the current journal ecosystem cannot be maintained through a move to exclusive online or open access distribution. As Robert Townsend writes,
The report also highlights an important challenge for sustaining journals such as the AHR, particularly as they are called upon to use their resources to do more interesting and creative things in the digital medium. The report indicates that while almost a third of the production costs of HSS journals could be saved by eliminating print, they would lose that much (and in some cases more) revenue from lost print subscriptions and advertising.
The losses would be quite high for the Review. Currently, more than half of our institutional subscribers have opted for print-only subscriptions (even though e-only subscriptions cost slightly less). And our individual members have shown a strong preference for print as well. A survey of Perspectives on History readers conducted in 2008 found that 63 percent read only the print copies of our serial publications (a number that is, if anything, skewed lower than the reality since the survey was conducted online). So for the moment, the AHR has far more to lose than gain in dispensing with print.
I have two immediate responses. First, there is no guarantee that the journals that have been important up to now will continue to be important in the future. Particular journals may be unable to maintain their level of circulation or prestige as scholarly communication moves to the digital realm. This points to an important fact that one should not forget: the shift in medium at the same time reflects a shift in content, priorities, and form. Many people read Perspectives on History in print form. That is because it is a well known history journal with a healthy following among senior and younger scholars. As history scholarship incorporates visual forms and other media, as well as different forms of presentation such as interactive exhibits, the important “journals,” whatever they look like, may be different. We cannot shy away from the future of the field based on what those changes may mean for the current journals.
Second, Townsend says that their subscribers have a strong preference for printed material. Heavens be! Why would this be true? A bound journal, printed and mailed in physical form, is inferior in almost every way to electronic distribution, except perhaps in aesthetic appeal. Even there, however, who really likes those bland rows of old journals on their office shelves? If I want to read an article in the bath for some reason, I will print it out and mark it with a pen. But I still love having the electronic version for storage, searching, and pasting quotes into my research notes. Who are these hoards of paper-loving, luddite scholars?
I think to some extent those of us who prefer paper prefer it because A) paper doesn’t have DRM of any kind, whereas some journals are mistakenly attempting to implement it. B) It’s more mobile than a desktop, or even a laptop. C) For some it is easier to read than a screen.
Now, I think that B and C are being dealt with via the introduction of products such as the iPhone, iPod Touch, and especially the Kindle. However, DRM is still an issue. I personally only prefer paper if the electronic version of said journal or book as DRM associated with it. If I can get the content in a plain PDF (better still if the PDF is actually searchable, as opposed to merely scanned) I’m very happy.
Not me, I hate having to go to the library to find some journal that is crusty enough it fails to make itself available easily where I am. BUT I have several colleagues who much prefer reading print, when they want to actually read the article instead of just grabbing a few quick quotes
It would be really interesting to know the age breakdown of the preference, is this a temporary trend or might it continue for more than a decade? The real issue though is costs, journals have costs, these are usually met currently by subscriptions, once a journal is available easily to non-subscribers this funding withers, and EBSCO and their ilk do not pay well 
Academic journals face the same problem as all other would be publishers of content, content tends to be free, but free pays no bills. Unless like Google you can generate so much content and traffic that the advertising pays the bills.
But suppose instead of a “book allowance” institutions gave scholars a “publication allowance” which could be used to publish one’s ideas, that way journals could charge authors, just like in the sciences.
I’ll bet that many fewer of those paper-preferrers would maintain that preference after a relocation or two (especially an intercontinental relocation). Indeed, even accumulating a few journals for twenty years requires vast amounts of shelf real estate.
DRM is a problem, readability is a problem, and persistence of format is a problem. But material survival is a problem too (as Tim points out), storage and transportation are problems, and rapid access (and indexing) is a problem. We need to reorient the industry such that some publications can stick with print runs, and others can make a smooth transition to digital publication, and we can get on with scholarship. That’ll take a corps of foresighted editors, but sooner or later it will happen.
Thanks for the comment, Calvin. I agree with you that DRM is a pain, and I avoid it whenever I can. Many of the so-called online journals use DRM as part of a terribly expensive and restrictive access policy that makes their journal articles almost unusable anyway. I can get access through the school’s library, but for the most of the world, electronic access to Sage journals and the like is a joke.
The other joke is that if something can be displayed on a screen it can be copied. They spend so much money and energy to thwart copying that cannot be stopped, and in the meantime only succeed in annoying their customers.
Tim and AKMA, thanks for the comments! I do think it is only a matter of time before print journals give way almost completely to electronic distribution. Some of this will be due to changing demographics and the preference of younger scholars for online media. But we should not overlook how the economic situation will affect things. The cost of real goods (paper, ink, fuel, etc.) will continue to go up while the cost of electronic storage and bandwidth will continue to fall. (This is the lesson being absorbed by the newspaper industry now, to their distress.) The economic trend is heightened when you take issues of sustainability and carbon footprint into consideration.
Tim, I like your idea of schools providing money for scholars to help pay for open access journal articles. Something like this already happens in scientific publishing, and also with subventions for the publication of expensive academic monographs. Schools could also offer a home for the journals themselves, providing bandwidth and drive space for the website. If the editorial work were on a volunteer basis, the main cost would be in the production editing process. I would like to see budget numbers for a group of top print and online journals to get a sense of how much money is actually required to run a publication.