Back in time

by Greg Britton

For University Press Week, JHUP’s editorial director considers the future of scholarly publishing.

Most attempts to imagine the future fall short. This becomes more true the more specific our guess is. In Back to the Future II, Doc Brown sets the clock on his time machine ahead precisely to October 21, 2015. Of course, the filmmakers got most details of what life would be like in 2015 wrong. Over breakfast that actual morning, my daughter asked why we didn’t have hoverboards. The only thing I could think to say was, “because we don’t have a flux capacitor strong enough.”

Greg B post Back-to-the-FutureWhat did Stanley Kubrick get right in 2001: A Space Odyssey? Those teaching the novel 1984 know they have to remind students that George Orwell was writing about the future he saw, one that now predates their own birth. In his 1895 novella The Time Machine, H. G. Wells had the good sense to set the future far enough away—802,701 AD, to be precise—thus avoiding such disappointments. As humans we have a primal desire to predict the future, which is remarkable because we are so bad at it. It’s easy to guess, hope, or even dread what’s around the chronological corner, but it is almost impossible to get it right.

So it is with questions about the future of the scholarly publishing. I was first asked to speak about the “Future of the Book” in the early 1990s back when symposia like this were happening everywhere. Guessing what would happen wasn’t particularly hard, but looking back at what I said now makes me cringe. I got almost nothing right: books didn’t go away, nor did independent bookstores. The codex wasn’t supplanted by files delivered on floppy disk or CD-ROM. Although we did see a dramatic consolidation in trade publishing, it left remarkable opportunities for upstart independent and scholarly publishers. The Internet was only a hint of what it is today. It was a world before Amazon and a sole surviving bookstore chain. We had not yet heard of Kindles, apps, or smartphones. Still, we feared that the book, a five-hundred-year-old technology, was on its deathbed.

In thinking back to those early conversations, it seems that any predictions about format were wrong. The book didn’t go away, but it morphed into a fascinating array of other delivery systems. We can read books on our laptops, our phones, our televisions, and, well, on paper. In the future, we can anticipate that formats won’t really matter—readers will chose how they want the content when and where they want it. Content will leapfrog from technology to technology.

Second, we might anticipate that content will be infinitely more interactive than it is now. We see hints of this with adaptive learning systems that tailor content to a students’ needs. I imagine a time when books will communicate with each other, forming a true network of information that links content across time and space. Readers, too, will communicate with each other through annotations; entire conversations will happen alongside the text itself.

To do this, it will be essential for publishers to become hyper-cooperative not just with each other (around common technologies, copyrights, and standards), but with librarians, technologists, scholarly societies, and the scholars themselves. It is utopian to imagine a library of the world’s knowledge, but who would have predicted the improbable success of Wikipedia two decades ago? Scholarly publishing has always been a group effort. Collaboration will be essential in the future.

So, what is the future of scholarly publishing? I will hazard a guess. I think it will be innovative, interactive, and multimodal. It will be collaborative, interdisciplinary, and global. It will be essential. I can say this with even greater confidence: it will be really, really cool. And, of course, I will come to work on a hoverboard if we can build a flux capacitor strong enough.

Greg Britton is the editorial director in the books division at Johns Hopkins University Press. Follow him on Twitter at @gmbritton

 

5 Comments

Filed under AAUP, Academia, Publishing News, University Press Week, University Presses

5 responses to “Back in time

  1. Pingback: It’s University Press Week!! | Project MUSE Commons

  2. Sayeed Choudhury

    Thanks very much to Greg Britton for writing this thoughtful and even entertaining viewpoint about scholarly publishing. People often fall short in predicting the future. However, I think the people building new technology or infrastructure often have an amazing viewpoint on the future. As early as the 1970s, the creators of the internet were discussing how email would transform communication and disrupt the US postal service. The creators of hypertext recognized its potential to emulate Vannevar Bush’s memex. Tim Berners-Lee recognized that one-direction linking and the use of images would transform research. Berners-Lee has been advocating the semantic web for at least a decade and, arguably, it has finally matured to the point of becoming tangibly useful. So I would submit that creators of transformative technology have a better track record with predicting the future or at least the impact of the technology in the future.

    In the late 1970s, President Carter offered the US postal service a chance to manage a national email service but they eventually chose not to do so. One of the reasons for their choice related to their idea of eventually printing out email messages and delivering them using their existing infrastructure (a choice that would have been more expensive than even regular print mail). While we still see our daily mail delivered on foot, I think everyone would agree that US Postal Service would not survive without significant support from the federal government. The GAO’s website offers this sobering picture:

    http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/us_postal_service_financial_viability/issue_summary

    Far from managing email, the postal service faces competition from the private sector for delivery of print business documents and packages (which are arguably the most profitable aspects of their business). It is worth noting that there are business cases that even Fedex or UPS wish to avoid — they don’t want to deliver paper postcards during the holidays because it’s a money losing proposition. But one has to wonder how much longer this demand will exist in its current form. It took decades for the internet and web to become a part of everyday life. Contrast this to the rate at which mobile devices have become ubiquitous, even in the developing world. I suspect changes in behavior and expectations will happen more quickly.

    Much of what I mention in this reply may apply to the US postal service, presses or libraries. It is worth interacting more directly with those building new technology or infrastructure. If organizations have an opportunity to adopt new technology, it’s worth considering the choice unconstrained by current workflows or business models. And even predictions about disruption that are correct might take decades to come to fruition, but that might mean just delaying the inevitable if we don’t make wise choices now.

  3. Pingback: University Press Week 2015: The Future of Scholarly Publishing | University of Nebraska Press blog

  4. Pingback: University Press Week blog tour round-up (Tuesday) | OUPblog

  5. Maggie Britton

    you would think that Back to the future would be innovative.. But you’d be wrong 🙂