ABSTRACT
A few scholarly publishers have entered into international partnerships, which have introduced efficiencies in the acquisition, production, and distribution of a joint list while extending the global reach of their publications. This session featured editors instrumental in establishing two of these rare transatlantic publishing arrangements: that between the Medieval Institute Publications (MIP), a university press located at Western Michigan University, and De Gruyter, an independent publisher headquartered in Berlin; and that of Clemson University Press and Liverpool University Press. Case studies of each partnership explore the benefits of international collaboration, the challenges that arise from it, and, ultimately, how transatlantic partnerships impact scholarly publishing.
Introduction
In 1989, the University of Rochester and the British scholarly publisher Boydell & Brewer entered into an innovative, international partnership whereby editorial staff at Rochester would acquire books for which Boydell & Brewer would provide production, marketing, and worldwide distribution. Boydell & Brewer gained a foothold in the American market – still the largest in scholarly publishing; Rochester quickly earned a reputation for excellence in publishing across multiple scholarly fields, including musicology, African studies, and European and American history. The pioneering “Rochester model” has more recently inspired other scholarly publishers in Europe to invest similarly in the growth of smaller American university presses, namely the partnership between the Medieval Institute Publications at Western Michigan University and De Gruyter, an independent academic publisher headquartered in Berlin, and that between Clemson University Press and Liverpool University Press.
The whole enterprise of academic publishing relies on partnerships at all stages, from peer review to distribution; the business models and reporting structures of university presses accordingly reflect, to an increasing degree, their reliance on partnerships. Presses commonly partner with learned societies and organizations on book series and journals; typically, the society underwrites publishing costs while presses provide publishing expertise, distribution, and promotion. Facilitated by digital distribution, an increasing number of journals partnerships have been launched between American and British university presses and foreign universities, extending the reach of these institutions throughout the English-speaking world. The upward trend for university presses to migrate under the organizational umbrella of libraries has prompted innovative partnerships with scholarly communications and library publishing units, particularly on digital publications and Open Access programs. According to data compiled by the Association of University Presses in 2019, twenty-nine member presses report within libraries; in fact, the press/library model is now the second most common reporting structure among member presses.Footnote1 Several statewide university systems across the United States maintain publishing consortia: the University of California Press, the University Press of Mississippi, SUNY Press, the University Press of Florida, The University Press of Kentucky, to name a handful. Presses within the United States have entered into partnerships to increase efficiencies: for instance, as of 2018, Bucknell University Press books have been fully integrated within the publishing program of Rutgers University Press.Footnote2 A growing body of scholarly literature registers the impact of partnerships of these kinds, including model case studies.Footnote3 How are the international publishing partners that follow the “Rochester model” unique? What can we learn from them about the evolving nature of academic publishing?
This session featured case studies of these vanguard transatlantic collaborations and explored the mechanics of international partnerships, their benefits, and the challenges that arise from them. Each panelist offered some background and context for the two partnerships, explained how they work in practice, and discussed both the benefits gained from collaboration and the challenges faced. While grounded in the individual case studies, discussion of these partnerships constellated outward to suggest broader shifts in the increasingly globalized scholarly publishing industry.
Case study: Medieval Institute Publications and De Gruyter
Medieval Institute Publications (MIP) is part of Western Michigan University (WMU) in Kalamazoo, MI. The press was officially formed in 1978, and its first publications grew out of the International Congress on Medieval Studies – a large international conference that takes place on campus every May. From that first series, Studies in Medieval Culture, MIP grew and now publishes books across fourteen academic series, six classroom-oriented series, and also has a growing journals program. MIP’s material explores the late antique, medieval, and early modern periods, and employs innovative and interdisciplinary approaches to what is has meant to be human throughout these periods. They publish monographs and edited collections that discuss literature, history, archeology, art and art history, religion and spirituality, philosophy, theology, music, and drama, as well as the human experience, popular culture, materiality, and otherness. MIP joined the Association of University Presses in 2011.
MIP’s partnership with De Gruyter was partially a result of a very honest look at the state of the field, and partially due to personnel changes in the press and to administrative changes at Western Michigan University. Being a small publisher can be challenging, and in a time of ever-decreasing funding in public universities, the best way for MIP to expand its publishing program was to explore the potential of an external partnership. MIP had the benefit of being a niche press, with name recognition in the field of medieval studies. This happened to be attractive to De Gruyter, their eventual partner: they got both a foothold into the U.S. market and a ready-made boost to their medieval list. In return, MIP gained a portion of the international market as well as the opportunities of scale that a larger and older press was able to offer. MIP and De Gruyter have similar production standards and personal touches with authors, so in many ways the partnership was a natural fit – but it has definitely been a growth and learning opportunity on both sides.
Each partner has to balance the titles that they produce together with the ongoing projects each takes on independently. As publishing partners, MIP and De Gruyter aim for twenty contracted projects per year. De Gruyter is, of course, a major international publisher, with dozens of series and numerous publishing partners. MIP functions on a much smaller scale, but they publish academic journals and a collection of classroom texts independently of the partnership with De Gruyter. Moreover, as one arm of the Medieval Institute at WMU, MIP staff also help to run an annual conference that hosts between 2500 and 3000 medievalists.
Regular communication is absolutely key. Both partners are constantly aware of the difference in time zones, so most meetings are done in the morning for MIP and in the afternoon for De Gruyter, including monthly publisher meetings to discuss proposals. Everything is online: Zoom and Skype for virtual face-to-face meetings; a shared Google drive folder helps to track mutual production materials and multiple spreadsheets; respective metadata systems (that do not communicate!); and many, many emails every week. Operating online actually prepared MIP staff very well for working from home, and having a non-centralized office has had little impact on production.
One of the first things the partners had to iron out (beyond what was explained in their contract) were the practicalities of the division of labor throughout the production process and financial responsibilities. In reality, it is a natural split: the partner overseeing a specific part of the publication process is financially responsible for that step. For a few examples: MIP acquires the texts, so acquisitions editors are compensated by MIP. De Gruyter oversees the copyediting and typesetting, so those steps are funded by De Gruyter. Staff are paid by their home organization: the four MIP staff members are paid by Western Michigan University (the Director, who has other responsibilities on campus; the Editor-in-Chief, who works solely for MIP; the Financial and Editorial Assistant, who has other duties on campus; and the Administrative Assistant, who also works with another academic unit); De Gruyter staff members are compensated by De Gruyter (editorial, design, and production); and freelancers are paid by the unit that oversees them for the respective step in the publication process.
Getting more granular about the steps for an individual project, MIP acquires and oversees the project until it is ready for copyediting. De Gruyter coordinates the peer review and contracting processes, but MIP and its acquisitions editors and series boards make sure the manuscript gets the attention it needs in the revision process to make it publication ready. These preparations include running the manuscript through a gatekeeping process, which smooths out all the little inconsistencies in the punctuation, numbering style, etc., and vets the images and permissions. MIP produces project notes for the copyeditor as well as production and marketing information for De Gruyter’s team, and the project officially transitions to De Gruyter for the rest of production. De Gruyter arranges for copyediting, using a pool of freelance copyeditors with whom both presses have had good experiences; typesetting, using a firm with which they have a long-standing relationship; and then the marketing, design, printing, and distribution for each text. MIP has a couple of quality-control checkpoints for each project, and the last occurs during the proof stage: MIP staff review the typeset proof while the author does. All parties also look over the final cover design.
Both MIP and De Gruyter have a financial stake in each book, so they collaborate on a bespoke marketing strategy for each book, including but not limited to conference exhibits, promotion on social media, advertising in subject-matter newsletters, and appropriate venues for review copies. Promotion is where the partnership is especially helpful, as the partners rely on each other’s strengths: MIP has the knowledge of and visibility in the medieval section of academia, and De Gruyter has world-wide reach.
With any partnership comes challenges, and MIP and De Gruyter’s biggest is the very different sizes of the respective organizations. MIP is small, and each person has to wear many different departmental hats; De Gruyter is very large and siloed, and it is surprisingly hard to get information from some departments – for example, sales. MIP often does not know exactly how our books are faring, which is an understandable challenge. Another very large hurdle is metadata systems – the systems used by each publisher simply do not speak the same language. It is far easier for De Gruyter to get access to MIP’s metadata than the reverse, and MIP cannot simply add their data to De Gruyter’s system. Every project must be entered into each system separately. Additionally, authors sometimes forget who they were speaking to most recently about updates, so the partners have many spreadsheets to track the progress of each project and check in with each other regularly. Branding is interesting, as authors can get confused about how to cite their text properly or with whom they should correspond about a particular step in the book’s publication. Marketing is both a challenge and a positive: MIP has a broader social media presence among medievalists and a more regular presence at medieval conferences in the United States, but getting additional copies of books to display or sell at conferences is at times a challenge because De Gruyter handles distribution; on the other hand, MIP’s conference presence is funded and organized by De Gruyter. It is sometimes complicated to work out all of the practical details, but, ultimately, all books benefit from the strengths of each partner.
Is it evident that MIP texts are of growing importance to De Gruyter, and they have had to hire additional staff to keep up with MIP projects. Work is done incredibly efficiently, and in a very similar manner to what MIP was doing pre-partnership, so it has been a natural transition to work together. Authors are happy with the personal touch their books continue to receive, and production has been going quite smoothly. The strength of MIP’s publication program is definitely growing, and both partners continue to learn from each other and benefit from a consistent increase in visibility, so both partners reach new authors and consider projects that they may not have considered otherwise. The partners are a mutual sounding board for more experimental or challenging projects, which makes the publications of each stronger. Both parties look forward to continuing their partnership and to seeing where it takes them.
Case study: Clemson University Press and Liverpool University Press
Liverpool University Press, the third oldest in the United Kingdom, recently celebrated 120 years of excellence in publishing. Following a precarious period during which the press was at risk of closure in the early 2000s, it relaunched with a new administrative structure, a clear editorial strategy, and the ambition to grow its publishing program sustainably. In 2004, the press had four staff members, who published seven books and three journals; it now has a staff of twenty-five who publish 150 books and thirty-five journals per annum. Throughout its expansion the press has retained an ability to adapt and a drive to innovate, positioning itself, in the words of Anthony Cond, the press’s Managing Director, as “a hundred and twenty-year-old startup.” Having transformed itself from a small into a midsize university press over a relatively short period of time, Liverpool University Press sought to extend its international footprint beyond the traditional reach of presses that distribute their books globally and publish authors from around the world. After studying the Rochester model, Cond envisioned a similar, transatlantic partnership with a small American university press whose potential Liverpool could amplify with the efficiencies it had discovered over the previous decade in production, distribution, and marketing. In 2014, Liverpool University Press established a transatlantic publishing partnership with Clemson University in the image of Boydell & Brewer’s agreement with the University of Rochester.
Founded in 2000 as a pedagogical center publishing three to five books per annum, Clemson University Press has expanded in recent years owing to the transformative partnership with Liverpool. In 2021, Clemson expects to publish twenty-five books across eleven book series predominantly in nineteenth- and twentieth-century literature and the arts as well as a growing journals portfolio. Since entering into partnership with Liverpool, Clemson has developed a strong list in modernist studies, African American literature, and musicology – areas that complement Liverpool’s strengths without duplicating them, creating synergy without competition between the two presses. In 2019, Clemson University Press outgrew its original administrative structure as a teaching center within a single academic department and joined the Libraries organization, where it is now situated among a broader team of information specialists. Clemson will apply for membership in the Association of University Presses in 2021, a milestone made possible by the expansion of its staff and publishing program under the auspices of its partnership with Liverpool.
Under the terms of the partnership, Clemson operates essentially as an editorial shop, acquiring books and coordinating with authors throughout the production process while Liverpool oversees the manufacturing, distribution, marketing, sales, and rights management for the joint list. In practice, every stage of the book’s publication necessitates some level of collaboration between the partners. For instance, Clemson’s editorial advisory committee (the body that authorizes book contracts) includes three representatives from Liverpool University; by design, Clemson maintains a majority on the board, but all publication decisions for books on the joint list require consensus between the partners. As a result, Clemson has the liberty to build a list that reflects its own priorities and institutional strengths and throughout the acquisitions process benefits from the counsel of a press with more than a century of experience in scholarly publishing. Clemson uses the same production company that Liverpool trusts with its complete list; staff at Clemson liaise with authors throughout the manuscript-to-bound-book process, working directly with staff at the production company and in conversation with a production manager at Liverpool. Marketing, too, involves collaboration: Clemson publishes its own seasonal catalogs, maintains its own website, develops its own conference exhibition schedule, runs its own social media accounts – all in regular consultation with a marketing executive at Liverpool who develops promotional materials, arranges for review copies and author interviews, represents the joint list at the London and Frankfurt book fairs, and promotes books published in partnership on Liverpool’s website, social media accounts, and at appropriate conferences. Liverpool generally handles sales, but Clemson runs promotions. Authors benefit from the personal touch of a small editorial team at Clemson without sacrificing the visibility, distribution, or prestige of publishing with a larger university press with a distinguished history and firmly established reputation.
Both Clemson and Liverpool have a financial stake in the publication of their joint list. Liverpool contributes to the annual salary of Clemson’s Managing Editor, the primary liaison between the presses, who oversees the production of books on the joint list, enters metadata into Liverpool’s system, and coordinates publishing schedules among other duties essential to operations. Liverpool also underwrites the production costs of most books on the joint list: they settle accounts with the third-party production company. Clemson funds the remainder of its staff positions and operations costs, including acquisitions expenses (such as peer review) and, occasionally, undertakes production (copyediting and typesetting). Both partners share in the sales revenue from the joint list, which, in practice, has been reinvested into the partnership in order to grow it sustainably.
While the partnership has strengthened each year, no partnership is without challenges. For instance, it took longer than initially anticipated to reach the target number of joint publications per annum: Clemson had to build a brand as well as further establish its identity as a scholarly publisher before it could attract a steady stream of suitably strong proposals. In the first years of the partnership, Clemson traded heavily on the reputation of its partner, which assisted in acquisitions in the short term but also hindered the elevation of its own brand. It also took time to systematize protocols through trial and error, though a workflow eventually emerged that plays to the strengths of each partner. Far outweighing these initial growing pains, the partnership has yielded tremendous results: Clemson’s output has increased five-fold since 2014; the partnership has diversified Liverpool’s publishing program across currencies and markets; and the partnership has notably increased the reach and impact of both presses, on both sides of the Atlantic.
Conclusion
In a moment of extraordinary change for scholarly publishing, transatlantic partnerships are emerging as a means for growing the reach and output of small to midsize presses. These presses and their partners, already accustomed to innovation, are well positioned to confront together the shift toward open scholarship, the digital turn in publishing, and the increasingly globalized nature of scholarly communication.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Anthony Cond, Managing Director of Liverpool University Press, who contributed the perspective of the larger transatlantic partner during the session.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
John D. Morgenstern
John D. Morgenstern is Director, Clemson University Press, Clemson, SC, USA.
Theresa Whitaker
Theresa Whitaker is Editor-in-Chief, Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo MI, USA.
Notes
1 For a visualization of this trend, drawn from the Association of University Press’s report, see Charles Watkinson, “Why Marriage Matters: A North American Perspective on Press/Library Partnerships,” Learned Publishing 29, no. S1 (October 2016): 342-7. doi:10.1002/leap.1044.
2 “Announcing a New University Press Partnership,” The Rutgers University Press Blog, June 10, 2017, https://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/blog/1140/ (accessed June 1, 2020).
3 See, for instance, Nancy Eaton, Bonnie MacEwan, and Peter Potter, “Learning to Work Together: The Libraries and the University Press at Penn State,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 35, no. 4 (July 2004): 215–20; and see, more recently, Lisa Quinn and Charlotte Innerd, “The Evolution(s) of Wilfrid Laurier University Press: Toward Library–University Press Integration,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 49, no. 2 (January 2018): 153–65.