Across the Great Divide


Across the Great Divide:

Findings and Possibilities for Action 
from the 2016 Summit Meeting 

of Academic Libraries and University Presses 
with Administrative Relationships

(P2L)

By
Mary Rose Muccie (Temple University Press) 

Joe Lucia (Temple University Libraries) 
Elliott Shore (ARL)
Clifford Lynch (CNI) 

Peter Berkery (AAUP)



2Across the Great Divide

Acknowledgments
Financial Support
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation

Summit Planning & Development
Julia Claire Blixrud, 1954–2014, deserves special recognition as the originator of the idea to 
convene this forum bringing presses and libraries together.

Rikk Mulligan, Visiting Program office at ARL for Scholarly Publishing July 2014–June 2016, for 
extensive work calling together the P2L Summit organizers & participants, helping to shape the 
program and agenda, and coordinating event logistics with ARL & Temple University staff.

Monica McCormick, Digital Scholarly Publishing Officer, New York University, for event 
facilitation and general guidance with respect to issues and challenges involved in Library / Press 
cooperation and collaboration.

P2L Summit Program Committee Members:
Lisa Bayer, University of Georgia Press
Jane Frances Bunker, Northwestern University Press
Joe Lucia, Dean of Libraries, Temple University
Peter Berkery, Executive Director, AAUP
Brenna McLaughlin, Director of Marketing & Communications, AAUP
Mary Rose Muccie, Temple University Press
Elliott Shore, Executive Director, Association of Research Libraries
Karen Williams, Dean of University Libraries, University of Arizona

Event Day Note-taking & Documentation
Sara Cohen, Editor, Temple University Press
Aaron Javsicas, Editor-in-Chief, Temple University Press
Annie Johnson, Scholarly Communications Specialist, Temple University
Elizabeth Waraksa, Program Director for Research and Strategic Initiatives, Association of 
Research Libraries

Event Administrative and Logistics Support
Amy Eshgh, Association of Research Libraries
Christine Jones, Temple University Libraries
Marianne Moll, Temple University Libraries

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


3Across the Great Divide

Across the Great Divide:
Findings and Possibilities for Action from the 2016 Summit Meeting

of Academic Libraries and University Presses with Administrative Relationships (P2L)

By
Mary Rose Muccie (Temple University Press)

Joe Lucia (Temple University Libraries)
Elliott Shore (ARL)
Clifford Lynch (CNI)

Peter Berkery (AAUP)

Context and Rationale

Partnerships and collaborations have become standard responses to the multiple challenges 
that both higher education and scholarly publishing face. Organizing the work of the academy, 
either on one campus or across institutions, around collaborative partnerships often enables 
cost reduction, increases efficiencies, and perhaps most usefully, builds connections between 
distinct domains to achieve greater strategic impact. In the area of scholarly communication, 
new or revived partnerships between the university press and the academic research library 
are an opportunity to re-imagine functions that have been separated from one another through 
custom, convenience, professional practices, or standard administrative operation.

In many of these re-imaginings, provosts and higher-education funders view the library as an 
appropriate host and sponsor for experiments, situated as it is at the center of many campuses, 
and in light of its role in the collection, preservation, and dissemination of information and 
scholarship. Instructional technology support, writing centers, digital scholarship centers, 
visualization labs, and carefully designed collaborative learning and research facilities are 
examples of the ways in which academic libraries have adapted to reaffirm their positions as 
centers for discovery, knowledge creation, and scholarship within a college or university.

At the same time, the university press occupies a complementary position on the outer 
boundaries of a university, attracting and disseminating the work of the global academy. As a 
public-facing unit that generally operates on a different (and often increasingly problematic) 
budgetary basis than the library or instructional units, university presses have been challenged 
to leverage linked information technologies that take a new vision of scholarly communications 
from imagination to reality, while maintaining standards of scholarly merit vis-à-vis consistently 
applied peer review and editorial best practices. Interest in partnership between press 
and library demonstrates an appreciation that the skills, roles, and capacities of these two 
institutional units can together support a common mission.

Increasingly these partnerships start with an administrative merger that subordinates one unit 
to the other at an organizational level, i.e., the press reporting to the library. In some cases the 
institution is trying to solve one or more of a set of issues that arise from the changing roles and 



4Across the Great Divide

operating environments of both the press and the library; in others, both units are operationally 
viable and are linked to increase reporting-line efficiency. Both institutions sit at a nexus of 
issues that have come into better view as the revolution in linked information technologies 
continues to change the way scholarly communications are produced and disseminated.

Scott Waugh, Provost at UCLA, in his plenary remarks opening the Presses Reporting to 
Libraries (P2L) Summit offers the following prescription:

We need to foster consortia of presses and libraries that aim to achieve a common view 
of and role in the dissemination and preservation of knowledge, data, and scholarship. 
The P2L movement is a step in that direction, and there are many individual projects 
confronting this need. We also need to encourage and foster collaborative efforts that 
are designed to support the dissemination and preservation of scholarship on a broad 
scale. Consortium arrangements, such as JSTOR or Hathi Trust, have been a major benefit 
to libraries and presses, helping them operate more efficiently while expanding their 
reach and increasing the services they offer. More can be done.

True collaboration will require libraries, presses, university administrators and faculty 
to reach decisions about complex issues: how to reduce redundancies and capitalize 
on specialties; how to work across institutional boundaries to achieve efficiencies and 
lower expenses; and how to recognize comparative advantages and give priority to 
other institutions. Universities, faculties, presses and libraries are all part of one large, 
endangered eco-system. Although competition is integral to higher education and has 
spurred important advances, we all inhabit the same system and need to cooperate and 
collaborate for the welfare of the system.

The complete text of Provost Waugh’s opening remarks is included as Appendix 1 to this 
white paper.

The P2L Summit

Convened jointly by the Association for Research Libraries (ARL), the Association of American 
University Presses (AAUP), and the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI), funded by the 
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and hosted by Temple University Libraries and Temple University 
Press, the P2L Summit was held in Philadelphia on May 9 and 10, 2016. In the first such meeting 
of members of this particular community, 23 teams of press directors and library deans/
directors with an administrative relationship (typically involving the press reporting into the 
library) discussed the benefits of, challenges in, and possibilities around this relationship. (See 
Appendix 2 for attendee list.)

P2L explored how these separate components of the scholarly communications ecosystem (e.g., 
libraries and publishers) might move beyond relationships often established for administrative 
convenience and think together, leveraging the skills and strengths of their distinctive 
enterprises to move toward a unified system of publication, dissemination, access, and 
preservation that better serves both the host institution and the wider world of scholarship. P2L 
was an important first step toward a shared action agenda for university presses and academic 



5Across the Great Divide

libraries that supports and updates traditional approaches to scholarly publishing, broader 
scholarly communication through established and emerging channels and practices, and digital 
scholarship services for faculty and students. This shared action agenda also must seek to adapt 
to the new challenges of the digital environment in commitments such as the preservation of 
the scholarly record.

Through a series of guided working sessions, attendees shared experiences and brainstormed 
about areas of common interest that, through partnership, can strengthen and expand their 
joint mission. They opened a dialogue and strategized about larger issues and challenges that 
cut across the domains of libraries and publishing, thus laying the groundwork for a follow-up 
summit (P2L2) dedicated to formalizing this list of areas, concretizing next steps, and drafting 
implementation plans.

Format

Meetings of the ARL, AAUP, and the American Library Association (ALA) include sessions 
dedicated to libraries and publishing, as do events such as the Library Publishing Forum, 
sponsored by the Library Publishing Coalition. What made P2L particularly important was the 
bringing together for the first time pairs of library and press directors from institutions where 
an established university press now reports to the library — a critical common ground that the 
conveners believed offered the participants the opportunity to work together effectively on 
new challenges.

Rather than attending and passively listening to speakers, summit participants were divided 
into small teams for a set of four working sessions organized around clarifying the benefits 
of partnership, identifying key challenges, and proposing experiments for overcoming those 
challenges to build on the strength of library and press collaboration. Working-session topics 
were developed from invitees’ detailed answers to a survey, with questions designed to ensure 
that each pair of attendees talked about these issues before their arrival to Philadelphia. (See 
Appendix 3, Survey Analysis.) The survey provided organizers with an understanding of the 
motivating factors that create a successful campus partnership, the different ways institutions 
manage and leverage this type of press-library relationship, and the areas of common interest 
for the future. (See Appendix 4, Agenda.)

Key Issues

There is no single model for the relationship between the library and the press, yet similar 
challenges exist across the spectrum of P2L institutions regardless of location, size, or public 
vs. private designation. Discussions at P2L backed up the frequently heard statement that 
presses and libraries want same thing, that is, widespread, cost-effective distribution of 
scholarly products. They have shared problems and a shared future. However, there is a 
need for bidirectional education on the challenges each side is facing as well as for frank 
conversations about opportunities for change. Overgeneralizing is not effective; even within the 
P2L participant group, there were significant differences of perspective among the libraries and 
presses represented.



6Across the Great Divide

Tensions can and do exist between the two units. Libraries want presses to put more effort into 
clear mission-oriented work. Presses want libraries to think in practical business terms.

University presses are typically run as cost-recovery operations with complex budgets whereas 
the library is a budgeted academic service operation. Added to this is the antithetical reality of 
a press running a business in an educational environment while at the same time operating a 
mission-based program within a publishing business.

It was clear that presses have work to do in terms of educating libraries on their missions and 
the reasons behind what they do. As one press director said, “I constantly have to evangelize 
among librarians, and tell them we’re mission driven. They are [at first] suspicious of my 
motives. They think it’s all about profit.”

Areas for Understanding

Libraries and publishers have long experienced the tensions inherent the traditional buyer- 
seller relationship. Those tensions change and grow when a member of the sales community 
has a reporting relationship to, and often a shared budget with, a member of the purchasing 
community. In acknowledgment of those tensions, when managing a shared budget, it is clear 
libraries and presses should approach the budgetary relationship as a partnership, not as 
patronage; at the same time there needs to be frank conversations about the extent to which 
the press is expected to be financially self-sustaining and the implications of this for other 
mission priorities.

When talking press finances within the library and with the university administration, the P2L 
group identified a need to develop a “script” to follow that frames the funding conversation as 
mission-based support, not as subvention. As part of this development, many presses pointed 
out the need to recognize how lean press staffing really is. With the majority of time spent 
meeting contractual obligations, presses can have little to no time for new initiatives. Launching 
a new initiative may mean a reduced annual publication portfolio unless new resources 
are available.

Developing a shared vocabulary and an understanding of the other’s skills is essential. A lack of 
knowledge of the publishing business is usually true of the institution itself, and is something 
that can be tackled first at the library-press level and from there, used in broader conversations 
on campus. The skills and expertise of publishing professionals are poorly understood in 
general, particularly in the areas of acquisitions; finance, including author royalties; contractual 
obligations and subsidiary rights; channel sales and marketing; and publicity beyond the local 
community. Presentations aimed at educating librarians on the varying structures of university 
presses, their approaches to the publishing process, and the skills embodied by the staffs at 
conferences such as the Library Publishing Forum, ARL, and the Charleston Conference offer 
opportunities to share information with the broader library community.

By the same token, press employees may have little knowledge of the role librarians play in 
discoverability through the creation and dissemination of metadata, or in historical preservation 



7Across the Great Divide

through the collection of primary sources. Something as simple as shared organizational charts 
can shed light into the workings of one’s partner.

The Press’ Role on Campus

While presses are developing more services in support of their host institutions’ direct priorities, 
many in partnership with the library, a press’s overall traditional validation in the United States 
comes from the world outside of its home university. They contribute to the public and local 
good, but do so primarily for the academy broadly at an international level. University presses 
play an important role in the development of scholarly disciplines as well as that of individual 
scholars, something poorly understood by libraries, and indeed by academics in disciplines 
dominated by journal publications. While university libraries also collaborate and contribute 
in support of the academy broadly, they tend to be more institutionally oriented and focus on 
research support and teaching and learning at a local level, interacting with faculty primarily 
as users whereas presses see them as authors and researchers. And although showing value to 
the university is essential for a press, equally important is maintaining editorial independence 
and quality.

It takes work on the part of both the press and library to change the way the university 
administration sees its press. A university press is a key component of the university’s academic 
reputation, a tool to support and advance the university mission. Titles with the press imprint 
market the university worldwide. The library leadership is positioned to advocate for the press, 
and the work of the press and library should reflect the way the university thinks of itself. Both 
need to be seen as strategic mission-driven advantages. And it’s key that their strategic goals be 
both integrated and complementary. It is perhaps more critical that press and library leadership 
develop a common vocabulary and messages that speak to the stressors in the current scholarly 
publishing ecosystem when engaging top administrators (presidents, provosts, and financial 
officers). A coherent presentation of the underlying financial, production, and consumption 
challenges for scholarly output is a necessary framework for these discussions. Posing the 
cost/value trade-offs in the academic enterprise is central to this framing. The ways in which 
press-library collaboration locally and at more global levels can work toward the twin goals of 
sustainability and transformation need to be at the center of the conversation.

Preliminary Recommendations

A tighter coupling of library initiatives and press intellectual capital can open up new ways of 
thinking about publishing as a core function of the academic environment. This link is integral to 
moving from shared one-off projects to scalable solutions. P2L participants identified a number 
of concrete opportunities for closer ties and strategic and tactical integration of libraries 
and presses.

• Integrate press and library staff as much as possible. Include the press director on the 
library management team, form working groups and committees that include staff 
from both organizations, and develop a joint strategic plan. This high-level integration 
supports broad strategic initiatives key to changing the local environment. On the 
operational side, presses and libraries often share services such as IT support for online 



8Across the Great Divide

journals, use of the repository environment as an ebook publishing platform, and 
backlist digitization projects or combined backlist/holdings digitization projects. HR 
support, joint fundraising and shared development staff, and shared events are common. 
Integrating salary lines to include the press director’s salary in the library budget makes 
a statement about shared commitment and frees up money the press can invest in new 
initiatives or in something as simple as increasing travel for the acquisitions editors.

• Partner on developing publishing expertise as an educational asset. Create and host an 
undergraduate research journal or develop a program to educate graduate students 
on open access, authors’ rights, copyright and permissions, and publishing in a socially 
responsible way, and even in finding the right publishers for their work.

• Leverage the strengths of both the library and press to create open educational 
resources. Open educational resources (OER) are a hot topic on many campuses and 
are an underused route for library-press collaboration. Libraries have a window into 
the university’s pedagogy and the opportunity to start conversations with faculty about 
textbook affordability. Beyond managing print-on-demand editions, press expertise can 
be used to work with faculty to develop a project, have it fully peer reviewed, add the 
press imprint, publicize it beyond the author’s home university, and create standards 
for authors so the process is replicable. Many OER titles are not adopted in research 
institutions; adding the imprimatur of a press as well as the addition of formal peer 
review could encourage broader use.

• Develop a shared approach to digital scholarship. Digital scholarship and digital 
humanities projects are both challenges and opportunities for libraries and presses. 
They provide a chance to develop policies and standards for the university but also raise 
questions. How are the roles and responsibilities of the library and press defined? What 
is the response when a faculty member brings a project? That is, is it automatically 
supported or first evaluated for value and impact? Is it a one-off project, a prototype, 
or part of a broader infrastructure? Can the options of both the library as a partner for 
press projects and the press as an advisor for library projects be supported? Who owns 
the resulting work? What is “publishing” in these cases? Many digital humanities/digital 
scholarship projects would benefit from editorial vision and review; how and when is 
this input gathered? And how do we do this at scale? Defining the skill sets is essential 
so that each unit can be drawn on effectively.

The European Perspective

The summit ended with a presentation by Wolfram Horstmann, Director of Göttingen State and 
University Library at Georg August University, Göttingen, Germany. His talk allowed participants 
to compare and contrast experiences in the United States and Canada with those in Germany.

Of the 25 university presses in Germany, 15 are run by their libraries and 12 are fully open- 
access publishers. The connection between a university press and its home institution is much 
more overt than in North America. That is, universities are expected to develop the capacity 



9Across the Great Divide

to distribute their own faculty’s research, and thus a German press reflects the profile of its 
founding university. Although some cost-recovery tools exist, typically presses are supported 
by the university. In addition, the German political climate strongly favors free and open 
dissemination of research across all disciplines, and German libraries have created services in 
support of creation and distribution of scholarship.

German libraries are building support for the increasingly data-intensive research methods used 
by faculty. As Wolfram noted, this is a new area for presses and one in which working together 
can produce robust frameworks for support. In addition, he sees value in libraries helping 
presses leverage institutional repositories, digital collections, text corpora, tools for digital 
editing, and research-data publication workflows.

Wolfram concluded his talk with a number of observations on German university press 
publishing and library publishing support that apply equally to P2L participants. To summarize, 
libraries there and here are moving beyond consumption toward assistance with production of 
content and a new generation of university presses focusing on electronic publishing and open 
access has formed.

Conclusion and Next Steps
The library-press relationship explored in P2L allows for transformative approaches in support 
and dissemination of scholarship. Effective exploitation of these partnerships is in the early 
stages and there is an opportunity to influence the outcomes to ensure they are as broadly 
applicable and scalable as possible. As Cliff Lynch (CNI) noted in his summary of the day’s 
conversation, we must do more exploration of both intra-institutional (library and press) and 
cross-institutional collaborations. He provided several compelling suggestions for partnerships, 
including new ways to promote and leverage library special collections as well as ideas for 
increasing discoverability of press content. (See Appendix 5 for the full text of his remarks.)

Addressing the challenges around implementing the ideas and recommendations resulting from 
P2L and moving toward the library and press futures that participants and speakers envision 
requires broader and deeper investigation. Building on the success of P2L, a subsequent summit 
(P2L2) will continue the collaborative conversation, tackle the issues raised as well as others 
facing library-press partnerships, and delve deeply into the recommendations from this meeting 
as well as those proposed in other contexts.

Open to a wider audience, P2L2 will be structured to allow more time for moderated discussion. 
Sessions focused on collaboration, both intra- and inter-institutional, would be paramount. 
Examples could include creating and leveraging shared skills, sharing support for data within the 
university and in the press author pool, and partnering on scalable scholarly communication 
and library publishing programs. P2L2 would focus on strategies to reinforce the library and 
press joint mission and advance the shared goal of promulgating scholarship.



10Across the Great Divide

Appendix 1:
The Role of Libraries and University Presses in the Scholarly Eco-system: 

A Provost’s Perspective
Scott Waugh, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost, UCLA

In recent years, North American libraries and university presses have been jolted by a series of 
shocks that jeopardize their mission and, in the case of some presses, their very existence.

Indeed, these tremors have upset what might be called the scholarly eco-system, of which 
presses and libraries are constituent elements, prompting worries about the stability of the 
entire system. Solutions to the problems of presses and libraries, of scholarly communication in 
general, therefore, will require large-scale cooperation and collaboration among all elements of 
the eco-system to find ways of meeting the risks and promises of the digital age and ensuring 
the survival of the system as a whole.

In the second half of the 20th
 

century, the scholarly eco-system that developed in the US and 
Canada for the production and dissemination of important research proved to be brilliantly 
successful. Based on the network of research universities that expanded from the later 1940s 
onward, this eco-system consisted of four, interlocking elements:

• Discovery – Research has flourished across the disciplines, with unbounded reach in 
space, time, and subject.

• Dissemination – It is necessary not only to compile data, but to disseminate it as broadly 
as possible to stimulate and inform further research as well as educate students. 
University presses perform this role and add value to the scholarship by shaping and 
refining it.

• Preservation and Archiving – The products of research have to be readily available to 
scholars. University libraries set about gathering, collecting, cataloguing, and archiving 
research products that could be widely and easily accessed. To this end, they purchase 
monographs published by the university presses, providing a stable market for 
their product.

• Validation and authentication – The entire system depends on faculty, and most 
importantly, on peer review: faculty acting as the reviewers, assessors, and validators of 
research, proposals, publications, the appointment and promotion of faculty, and the 
admissions and certification of students (especially graduate students).

This eco-system flourished and expanded, producing a vast array of research and scholarship 
that was disseminated around the world and making North America the leader in higher 
education and scholarly research of all kinds.

The scholarly eco-system was based in research universities and was nourished and sustained 
by the revenue model that supported the universities. The model consists of five elements: 
(1) state funding, (2) tuition and student fees, (3) federal funding and foundation support, (4) 
private giving and endowments, and (5) self-supporting sales and service functions. This pool of 
revenues provided for the compensation of faculty, the support of research facilities, the growth 



11Across the Great Divide

in graduate education, the support of scholarly societies and organizations, the expansion of 
libraries, and the growth of journals and scholarly publications of all kinds.

Although reductionist the model makes the point that every part of the scholarly eco-system is 
fueled by the same sources of revenue flowing into the universities.

This scholarly eco-system thrived and expanded as long as the revenues and costs remained 
roughly in equilibrium. In the last two decades, however, the equilibrium has been upset by 
uncertainties in the revenue streams and an inexorable growth of expenses:

• State funding has declined almost everywhere and is increasingly uncertain.
• Tuition growth has slowed or stalled in the face of mounting student debt and concerns 

about affordability.
• Federal funding and foundation expenditures have been nearly flat, while more 

institutions and faculty are competing for grants.
• Endowment growth and payout have fluctuated, and wealth is unevenly distributed 

among institutions.
• Although many universities have successfully pursued new revenues, these additional 

funds tend to be restricted to specific purposes.
• The costs of running a university have sharply increased, leading to competing pressure 

for every dollar.
These factors, along with competition for reputational prestige, have created dysfunctional 
relationships in the dissemination of scholarship, driving university presses and libraries apart. It 
is a familiar picture: the costs of some prestigious journals have skyrocketed, limiting the ability 
of libraries, once the reliable partner of university presses in purchasing their scholarly output, 
to acquire new materials. At the same time presses have experienced declining revenues, while 
the costs of producing a book or monograph have risen. As a result, university presses struggle 
to make money on scholarly publications: it is estimated that 70% of new books lose money, 
20% break even, and only 10% generate profit. In short, presses and libraries, which previously 
were partners in the scholarly eco-system, have become rivals for university subsidies in an age 
when university budgets everywhere are strained. Pitting one against the other endangers the 
entire eco-system.

Information technology and digitization have complicated the picture. They have held out the 
promise of seamless and limitless access to all knowledge of all time, all of the time, and all 
“free.” They have also made possible a radical diversification of scholarly communication and 
modes of publication, enhancing the dissemination of scholarship, a critical feature of the 
scholarly eco-system. The open access imperative of the federal government – demanding that 
all research data and materials produced under federal grants be publicly available, as well as 
the final products whether books or articles – has dovetailed with and accelerated this vision 
of an electronic cornucopia of knowledge, fundamentally altering the nature of the scholarly 
eco- system. Digitization has blurred the bright line between dissemination and archiving, and 
the open access movement has underscored the need for universities to figure out how to do 
both well.



12Across the Great Divide

Both libraries and university presses are central to the open access movement and should be 
partners and leaders in that effort, drawing on their combined expertise. Yet, thus far it has only 
increased pressure on their budgets and, hence, on universities generally. Aside from journals, 
technology is the fastest rising expense for libraries, and it has been equally challenging for 
presses. Digitization raises a host of difficult decisions how to organize, store, and provide 
access to digital materials. The technical requirements of open access are daunting and 
expensive. Individual institutions have developed their own projects using their own protocols 
and platforms, leaving a plethora of projects and data scattered across the web.

Bringing them together or developing a common platform has proved to be enormously 
challenging. While such efforts as the Committee on Coherence at Scale for Higher Education 
and the SHARE project are addressing these challenges, they only scratch the surface of 
the problem.

We need to foster consortia of presses and libraries that aim to achieve a common view of 
and role in the dissemination and preservation of knowledge, data, and scholarship. The P2L 
movement is a step in that direction, and there are many individual projects confronting this 
need. We also need to encourage and foster collaborative efforts that are designed to support 
the dissemination and preservation of scholarship on a broad scale. Consortium arrangements, 
such as JSTOR or Hathi Trust, have been a major benefit to libraries and presses, helping them 
operate more efficiently while expanding their reach and increasing the services they offer.

More can be done.

True collaboration will require libraries, presses, university administrators and faculty to reach 
decisions about complex issues: how to reduce redundancies and capitalize on specialties; how 
to work across institutional boundaries to achieve efficiencies and lower expenses; and how to 
recognize comparative advantages and give priority to other institutions. Universities, faculties, 
presses and libraries are all part of one large, endangered eco-system. Although competition 
isintegral to higher education and has spurred important advances, we all inhabit the same 
system and need to cooperate and collaborate for the welfare of the system.

A basic obstacle to modernizing the scholarly eco-system is that all these efforts depend on 
the original funding model, which is increasingly rickety. It is critical, therefore, for presses and 
libraries to engage provosts and demonstrate the importance of the issues they are grappling 
with. Second, they must encourage provosts to engage the faculty. The eco-system today 
is no less dependent on faculty as at its inception, not only as producers and consumers of 
scholarship, but also as reviewers and validators. Faculty must become aware of the fragility of 
the system and their role in it. They must recognize the many trade-offs involved in budgeting 
for academic activities. They must acknowledge that the thrill and prestige of publishing in some 
journals can crowd out the ability of the library to purchase other publications or perform other 
services. Faculty need to consider ways of vetting scholarly products that are less costly than at 
present and find other ways of determining and ascribing quality and prestige. The faculty is at 
the heart of these issues and integral to the survival of the eco-system.



13Across the Great Divide

Appendix 2: Participants

Attendees

First Last Title Institution Email
John Weaver Dean of Library Services and 

Educational Technology
Abilene Christian University 
Library

john.weaver@acu.edu

Jason Fikes Director Abilene Christian University Press jason.fikes@acu.edu

Bryn Geffert Librarian of the College Amherst College Library bgeffert@amherst.edu

Mark Edington Director Amherst College Press medington@amherst.edu

John Unsworth Vice Provost, University Librarian 
and Chief Information Officer

Brandeis University Library unsworth@brandeis.edu 

Sylvia Fuks Fried Director Brandeis University Press fuksfried@brandeis.edu

Guylaine Beaudry University Librarian Concordia University Library Guylaine.Beaudry@concordia.ca

Geoffrey Little Editor-in-Chief Concordia University Press geoffrey.little@concordia.ca

Elizabeth Kirk Assoc. Librarian for Information 
Services

Dartmouth University Library elizabeth.e.kirk@dartmouth.edu

John Zenelis Dean of Libraries and University 
Librarian

George Mason University Library jzenelis@gmu.edu

John Warren Head, Mason Publishing/George 
Mason University Press

George Mason University Press jwarre13@gmu.edu

Chris Bourg Director MIT Library cbourg@mit.edu

Amy Brand Director MIT Press amybrand@mit.edu

Carol Mandel Dean, Division of Libraries New York University Library carol.mandel@nyu.edu

Ellen Chodosh Director New York University Press ellen.chodosh@nyu.edu

Sarah Pritchard Dean of Libraries Northwestern University Library spritchard@northwestern.edu

Jane Bunker Director Northwestern University Press j-bunker@northwestern.edu

Faye Chadwell University Librarian and Press 
Director

Oregon State University Library 
and Press

Faye.Chadwell@oregonstate.edu

Tom Booth Associate Director Oregon State University Press thomas.booth@oregonstate.edu

Barbara I. Dewey Dean of University Libraries and 
Scholarly Communications

Penn State Library bdewey@psu.edu

Patrick Alexander Director Penn State University Press pha3@psu.edu

Peter Froehlich Director Purdue University Press pfroehli@purdue.edu

Barb Martin Director Southern Illinois University Press bbmartin@siu.edu

Pamela Hackbart-
Dean

Interim Co-Dean, Library Affairs Southern Illinois University 
Carbondale Library

phdean@lib.siu.edu

David Seaman Dean of Libraries and University 
Librarian

Syracuse University Library dseaman@syr.edu

Alice Pfeiffer Director Syracuse University Press arpfeiff@syr.edu

Joe Lucia Dean of Libraries Temple University Library joseph.lucia@temple.edu

Mary 
Rose

Muccie Director, Temple University Press 
and Scholarly Communications 
Officer, Temple University Library

Temple University Press maryrose.muccie@temple.edu

June Koelker Dean Texas Christian University Library j.koelker@tcu.edu

Dan Williams Director Texas Christian University Press d.e.williams@tcu.edu

Bella Gerlich Professor and Dean of Libraries Texas Tech University Library bella.k.gerlich@ttu.edu

Courtney Burkholder Managing Director Texas Tech University Press courtney.burkholder@ttu.edu

Jon Miller Director University of Akron Press mjon@uakron.edu

mailto:john.weaver@acu.edu
mailto:jason.fikes@acu.edu
mailto:bgeffert@amherst.edu
mailto:medington@amherst.edu
mailto:unsworth@brandeis.edu
mailto:fuksfried@brandeis.edu
mailto:Guylaine.Beaudry@concordia.ca
mailto:geoffrey.little@concordia.ca
mailto:elizabeth.e.kirk@dartmouth.edu
mailto:jzenelis@gmu.edu
mailto:jwarre13@gmu.edu
mailto:cbourg@mit.edu
mailto:amybrand@mit.edu
mailto:carol.mandel@nyu.edu
mailto:ellen.chodosh@nyu.edu
mailto:spritchard@northwestern.edu
mailto:j-bunker@northwestern.edu
mailto:Faye.Chadwell@oregonstate.edu
mailto:thomas.booth@oregonstate.edu
mailto:bdewey@psu.edu
mailto:pha3@psu.edu
mailto:pfroehli@purdue.edu
mailto:bbmartin@siu.edu
mailto:phdean@lib.siu.edu
mailto:dseaman@syr.edu
mailto:arpfeiff@syr.edu
mailto:joseph.lucia@temple.edu
mailto:maryrose.muccie@temple.edu
mailto:j.koelker@tcu.edu
mailto:d.e.williams@tcu.edu
mailto:bella.k.gerlich@ttu.edu
mailto:courtney.burkholder@ttu.edu
mailto:mjon@uakron.edu


14Across the Great Divide

First Last Title Institution Email
Linda Cameron Director University of Alberta Press cameronl@ualberta.ca

Karen Williams Dean University of Arizona Library karenwilliams@email.arizona.edu

Kathryn Conrad Director University of Arizona Press KConrad@uapress.arizona.edu

Tom Hickerson Vice Provost and University 
Librarian

University of Calgary Library tom.hickerson@ucalgary.ca

Brian Scrivener Director University of Calgary Press brian.scrivener@ucalgary.ca

Julia Oestreich Senior Editor University of Delaware Press joestrei@udel.edu

Toby Graham University Librarian and Associate 
Provost

University of Georgia Library tgraham@uga.edu

Lisa Bayer Director University of Georgia Press lbayer@uga.edu

Mary Beth Thomson Senior Associate Dean University of Kentucky Library mbthomson@uky.edu

Jonathan Allison Interim Director University Press of Kentucky jonathan.allison@uky.edu

James Hilton University Librarian and Dean of 
Libraries; Vice Provost for Digital 
Education and Innovation

University of Michigan Library hilton@umich.edu

Charles Watkinson Director, University of Michigan 
Press / AUL, Publishing

University of Michigan Press watkinc@umich.edu

Gregory C. Thompson Associate Dean for Special 
Collections

University of Utah Library greg.c.thompson@utah.edu

John Alley Editor in Chief University of Utah Press john.alley@utah.edu

Michael Burton Director University Press of New England Michael.P.Burton@dartmouth.edu

Jon Cawthorne Dean, University Libraries West Virginia University Library jon.cawthorne@mail.wvu.edu

Lisa Quinn Associate Director Wifrid Laurier University Press lquinn@wlu.ca

Gohar Ashoughian University Librarian Wilfrid Laurier University Library gashoughian@wlu.ca

Observers

First Last Title Institution Email
Alex Holzman President Alex Publishing Solutions aholzman@temple.edu

Harriette Hemmasi University Librarian Brown University Library Harriette_Hemmasi@brown.edu

Becky Brasington 
Clark

Director of Publishing Library of Congress recl@loc.gov

Blane Dessy Director, National Enterprises Library of Congress bdes@loc.gov

Sarah Lippincott Program Director Library Publishing Coalition sarah@educopia.org

Jill ONeill Educational Programs Manager NISO jilloneill@nfais.org

Xuemao Wang Dean and University Librarian University of Cincinnati Library wang2xm@ucmail.uc.edu

Mary Case University Librarian and Dean of 
Libraries

University of Illinois at Chicago 
Library

marycase@uic.edu

Meredith Babb President, AAUP and Director, 
University Press of Florida

University Press of Florida and 
AAUP

mp@upf.com

Peter Potter Director, Publishing Strategy Virginia Tech Library pjp33@vt.edu

Don Waters Program Officer, Scholarly 
Communications

Andrew W Mellon Foundation djw@mellon.org

Kathleen Fitzpatrick Associate Executive Director 
and Director of Scholarly 
Communication

MLA kfitzpatrick@mla.org

Chuck Henry President Council on Library and Information 
Resources

chenry@clir.org

mailto:cameronl@ualberta.ca
mailto:karenwilliams@email.arizona.edu
mailto:KConrad@uapress.arizona.edu
mailto:tom.hickerson@ucalgary.ca
mailto:brian.scrivener@ucalgary.ca
mailto:joestrei@udel.edu
mailto:tgraham@uga.edu
mailto:lbayer@uga.edu
mailto:mbthomson@uky.edu
mailto:jonathan.allison@uky.edu
mailto:hilton@umich.edu
mailto:watkinc@umich.edu
mailto:greg.c.thompson@utah.edu
mailto:john.alley@utah.edu
mailto:Michael.P.Burton@dartmouth.edu
mailto:jon.cawthorne@mail.wvu.edu
mailto:lquinn@wlu.ca
mailto:gashoughian@wlu.ca
mailto:aholzman@temple.edu
mailto:Harriette_Hemmasi@brown.edu
mailto:recl@loc.gov
mailto:bdes@loc.gov
mailto:sarah@educopia.org
mailto:jilloneill@nfais.org
mailto:wang2xm@ucmail.uc.edu
mailto:marycase@uic.edu
mailto:mp@upf.com
mailto:pjp33@vt.edu
mailto:djw@mellon.org
mailto:kfitzpatrick@mla.org
mailto:chenry@clir.org


15Across the Great Divide

Speakers

First Last Title Institution Email
Wolfram Horstmann Director of the Göttingen State and 

University Library
University of Geottingen horstmann@sub.uni-goettingen.de

Scott Waugh Provost UCLA swaugh@conet.ucla.edu

Facilitator

First Last Title Institution Email
Monica McCormick Program Officer for Digital 

Publishing
NYU Libraries & NYU Press monica.mccormick@nyu.edu

Others

First Last Title Institution Email
Peter Berkery Executive Director AAUP pberkery@aaupnet.org

Brenna McLaughlin Director of Marketing and 
Communications

AAUP bmclaughlin@aaupnet.org

Rikk Mulligan Program Officer for Scholarly 
Publishing

Association of Research Libraries rikk@arl.org

Elliott Shore Executive Director Association of Research Libraries elliott@arl.org

Elizabeth Waraksa Program Director for Research & 
Strategic Initiatives

Association of Research Libraries elizabeth@arl.org

Clifford Lynch Director CNI cliff@cni.org

Sara Jo Cohen Editor Temple sara.cohen@temple.edu

Annie Johnson Library Publishing and Scholalry 
Communications Specialist

Temple annie.johnson@temple.edu

Aaron Javsicas Editor-in-Chief Temple aaron.javsicas@temple.edu

mailto:horstmann@sub.uni-goettingen.de
mailto:swaugh@conet.ucla.edu
mailto:monica.mccormick@nyu.edu
mailto:pberkery@aaupnet.org
mailto:bmclaughlin@aaupnet.org
mailto:rikk@arl.org
mailto:elliott@arl.org
mailto:elizabeth@arl.org
mailto:cliff@cni.org
mailto:sara.cohen@temple.edu
mailto:annie.johnson@temple.edu
mailto:aaron.javsicas@temple.edu


16Across the Great Divide

Appendix 3: P2L Survey Analysis

Executive Summary

Participants: This report considers the submissions of 25 teams of press and library deans/
directors. The P2L Survey received 32 submissions, including those from three observers (the 
Library of Congress, Brown University, and Virginia Tech), both teammates from two institutions 
(Southern Illinois University and Wilfrid Laurier University), and three of four participants for 
the University Press of New England (two from Brandeis University and one from the librarian of 
Dartmouth College). Four of the expected 29 participating partners did not complete the survey. 
The full text answers are available in the attached tabbed Excel workbook file.

The strategic plans of the majority of these press-library relationships are aligned or coming into 
alignment, although a few are not in synch because of institutional issues explained in individual 
responses. The challenges for most remain financial (budgetary) with a particular focus on both 
sustainable operations and a growing need to produce open access (OA) scholarship. Some are 
looking to use this alignment of press and library or expansion of the library’s mission to also 
operate as a press to move toward a new model for scholarly publishing that privileges OA.

The budgetary and operational relationships of these libraries and presses are aligned but not 
necessarily integrated. Several presses either share budgets with the library or come under their 
library’s budget. Most of the presses receive technical support from the library and share its 
infrastructure, although several continue to require specific platforms and software packages 
to publish. Governance for the majority of these partnerships is integrated or in the process of 
becoming so, as is operational alignment. There are very few shared staff between press and 
library—comments suggest these are technical positions and functions including IT, institutional 
repositories, and web content. Some of these partnerships are cross-training staff in the 
libraries and presses to support one another and to possibly integrate functions in the future.

The support for digital scholarship broadly is relatively new and in its earliest stages in many 
of these partnerships. Several presses also produce digital supplements to traditional print 
publications, although the sophistication of these products varies widely. Many of these presses 
are involved in producing digital formats beyond books and articles, but most of these efforts 
are in their initial stages. The majority of these libraries offer some form of digital publishing 
service, although what this entails differs widely in the comments. In some instances, when the 
press has been “grown” within the library, its peer-review and editorial processes are meant to 
be integrated into the digital research production process, not as a later stage after the project 
has been created. Other institutions are adding digital components or are offering print-outputs 
to digital projects.

Strategic Alignment



17Across the Great Divide

Are the strategic plans of the library and press created in partnership?
Yes: 18 (72% of 25 responding teams) | No: 4 (16%) | Unclear: 3 (12%)

Southern Illinois University answered both yes and no. Both Wilfrid Laurier partners answered 
that at this stage in the process it remains unclear.

Is the strategy aligned with the strategic planning of the parent institution?
Yes: 25 (100%)

All 25 institutions answered “yes,” although 2 answers were qualified by stating plans are 
in development.

Is there a shared vision of the future of scholarly communications and academic publishing? 
Please explain.
Yes: 12 (48%) | No: 4 (16%) | In Process: 8 (32%) | Unclear: 1 (4%)

Most of these press and library partnerships operate under a shared vision or are coming 
to operate under such a vision, although for some this is more of a spectrum rather than an 
absolute alignment. Several of those who said “no” or that it was complicated point out the 
tension or conflict between the library’s support for open access and the mission of the press to 
sustainably disseminate research.

What are the challenges in planning future endeavors?
The foremost challenges are financial: limited and reduced library budgets, presses operating 
at a loss, the need for a sustainable OA (and digital publishing) business model, and the cost of 
software platforms and digital publishing infrastructure. Staff, personnel, and skills development 
are issues linked to budgets and support. Beyond the immediate financial challenge is a lack of 
buy-in or support from faculty and administration for the traditional mission to publish peer-
reviewed work. Amherst College in particular notes the need to define and promote a new 
model for scholarly publishing that fulfills the mission of higher education and is also more 
efficient and effective. See comments from Amherst College Press, George Mason, Temple, and 
Wilfrid Laurier for the best detail and range.

Budgetary and Operational Relationship

Budgets:
The press and library operate under:
Shared Budget: 10 (40%) | Separate Budget: 10 (40%) | Other: 5 (20%)

The majority of those with separate budgets (8 / 66%) say it is the policy of the parent 
institution, with one stating that it is more of a partnership and another that it is their dean’s 
choice. Three of those who selected “other” explain that the library is responsible for the press 
budget in one form or another, from the press being a library line-item or having its budget 
monitored by the library business office.



18Across the Great Divide

Shared Technical Infrastructure:

Shared Desktop Support: 20 (80%)
Shared Software Licenses: 15 (60%)
Shared Technical Staff: 18 (72%)
Shared Application Environment (Web servers, CMS, OJS, etc.): 16 (64%) Shared Hardware 
Budget: 11 (44%)
Other: 10 (40%)

Where services and support are not provided by university/central IT, the presses either rely on 
the library’s IT staff or contract work out. Desktop support comes from library IT in most cases, 
followed by campus IT. The university or library provides licenses for most common or standard 
software such as MS Office, sometimes Adobe Creative Suite and InDesign, although Adobe 
packages are through the press in other instances. Some libraries provide the Open Journal 
Systems (OJS) platform and a repository platform to the press as well. Some institutions, such 
as Temple University, also host a digital scholarship center within their library, offering another 
source for specific support to the library and press

Governance:
Fifteen (60%) press and library partnerships share internal governance while ten (40%) do not. 
Sixteen (64%) library directors sit on press boards and seven (28%) sit on press committees; this 
includes three (12%) library directors who sit on both press boards and press committees.

Fewer press directors sit on library boards (6, 24%), but a large majority sit on library 
committees (20, 80%), with five (20%) press directors sitting on both library boards and 
library committees.

Operational Alignment:
Are the press and library aligned operationally? 
Yes: 11 (44%) | No: 6 (24%) | Other: 8 (32%)

For those who answered “other” there is a lack of clarity regarding what “operational 
alignment” means.



19Across the Great Divide

• Arizona: Facilities, Human Resources support, and payroll are managed by the 
Libraries. Press staff are engaged in a wide variety of ways, including service on 
committees, cross-training in the finance area, etc. Press staff participate in Libraries’ 
shared governance associations, the Libraries’ social committee, etc. Other functions 
operation independently.

• Dartmouth: Both Library and Press report to the Provost, with the Dean of Libraries 
acting as Press Governor.

• Kentucky: Moving in that direction. The press director reports to the Dean of Libraries 
and serves on the organization’s Executive Committee along with Associate Deans. 
There has been good collaboration between the press and the library’s scholarly 
communications area. We continue to merge IT, business, and HR operations to create 
efficiencies. Libraries Director of Philanthropy now providing support to press.

• New York: These questions do not make any sense. The Press is part of the 
Division of Libraries. I have no idea what you mean by “internal governance” or 
“aligned operationally.”

• Northwestern: Not sure what is meant by this question.
• Temple: We’re not sure what “operational alignment” means. We share a vision for 

scholarly communications and work together on implementation. We share a staff 
person who is tasked with creating and supporting a library publishing and scholarly 
communications program.

• Wilfrid Laurier: We are working on identifying the degree of operational alignment

For those who answered “yes” the details of their alignment vary. Most appear to be aligned 
in terms of administrative infrastructure: HR, accounting/financial systems, and some other 
services, but many presses continue to have specific needs outside these alignments.

• Abilene Christian U: The press director is part of the library leadership.
• Alberta: UAlberta Press’s reputation for quality and impact of its scholarly publications 

by supporting changes in research directions and dissemination needs in the humanities 
and social sciences and a strategy in that regard is to collaborate with the Libraries on 
alternate, library-based research dissemination channels and initiatives.

• Amherst College: It’s not entirely clear what this question has in view. The library 
and the press are, on our campus, a single, integrated entity. The Press exists to 
advance the research and scholarly communications objectives of the Amherst 
College Library, and by extension those of Amherst College. The press director holds 
two distinct roles: That of director of the Amherst College Press (in which he reports 
to the Librarian of the College), and that of publisher of the Lever Press, a parallel 
initiative encompassing the support of a coalition of 43 liberal arts college libraries (in 
which he reports to the “Oversight Committee,” a governing board established by the 
consortium). The operations of both of these presses take place within the framework 
of Amherst College’s personnel and management policies, financial systems, and 
technological infrastructure.



20Across the Great Divide

• Calgary: The Press is a unit of the university’s Libraries and Cultural Resources division. 
We share services and staff.

• George Mason: Mason Publishing (including Press) reports to Digital Programs and 
Services, which is one of three operational divisions within the university libraries.

• Georgia: In areas including HR and Development, they are aligned. In others, including 
the basic business functions of the Press, it is relatively distinct.

• Michigan: Cemented in the structure since Director of Press is also AUL for Publishing 
and the Press is treated as a Designated not Auxiliary unit. We continue to find ways of 
bringing the operational activities of Publishing into the rest of the Library.

• Oregon State: I answered yes, but this alignment is ongoing. We do share the same 
central HR and financial/accounting personnel in the business center that works for 
OSULP. All employees are evaluated on their contributions to the overall plan. We have 
also sought to assess performance based on how employees’ work reflects our core 
values. However, there are times when the Press is still outside some activities of the 
organization. Obviously some of the financial and accounting issues of the Press are 
different. The Press staff do not regularly attend administrative briefings. The Associate 
Director is a part of the OSULP management team and is on the listserv but he doesn’t 
attend the meetings on a regular basis.

• Penn State: Press director is on the Dean’s Library Council with other department heads 
and participates in discussions and policy making.

• Purdue: The Press is a unit of the Library.

Staffing:
Only six institutions (24%) share personnel between their library and press. These tend to 
include technology-related jobs and functions or professional administrative and scholarly 
communications work.

• Amherst College: All personnel within the press are employees of the library.
• Calgary: design: 1 FTE 0.7Press/0.3Library; admin staff: combined 2.5 FTEs of Library 

staff shared by Press
• Georgia: We have shared cost of a marketing/design position and, until FY17, shared an 

IT person.
• Michigan: A number of positions are funded from the materials budget, but these tend 

to focus on Open Access/pub services initiatives

• Purdue: IT, HR, Scanning, IP/Legal Counsel, and Digital Humanities
• Syracuse: One position at present

Job Functions:
Have you (or are there plans to) reduced duplication among staff by retooling, educating, or 
retraining? Please explain.



21Across the Great Divide

Four (16%) institutions affirmed they had eliminated duplication through layoffs, retirements, or 
retraining and repurposing. Most expressed that there were few redundancies and duplications; 
however, IT, HR, financial services, fundraising, and grant writing are noted as functions to 
integrate and retrain. Future-looking training includes shifts in scholarly communications, digital 
publication and curation, cross-training to support institutional repository document processing 
and digital humanities production.

• Abilene Christian: digital publication and curation.
• Kentucky: IT, business and HR staff.
• MIT: Fundraising and grant writing staff; possibly shared HR.
• Northwestern: Scholarly Communications.
• Purdue: IT, HR, fundraising. Cross-training libraries staff in publishing workflow support— 

repository document processing. Also cross-training copy-editors, sales in DH production 
and communication.

• Temple: possibly scholarly communications and digital scholarship.
• Wilfrid Laurier: integrating IT and financial services.

Digital Scholarship

Does the library have a support center or formal program to facilitate digital humanities/
digital scholarship activities?
Yes: 18 (72%) | No:7 (28%)

Many of these centers and programs are quite new and still developing, most having been 
established in 2014 or more recently. New York University has a digital scholarly publishing 
program officer who works with both the library and digital scholarship services group. 
Several institutions are beginning to align some aspects of open educational resources, digital 
scholarship, and digital publishing.

Is the press currently involved in any publishing ventures that involve digital supplements 
(data, software, apps, etc.) to traditional book or journal publications?
Yes: 15 (60%) | No: 10 (40%)

Is the press currently engaged in any projects that involve publication of scholarly materials in 
“non- traditional” digital formats (e.g., not books or articles)?
Yes: 15 (60%) | No: 10 (40%)

Does the library have a digital publishing service?
Yes: 15 (60%) | No: 10 (40%)

The details offered suggest a very broad range of understandings regarding what a digital 
publishing service means. Some equate it to the institutional repository, others to separate 
products, blogs, or file preparation services.



22Across the Great Divide

Are research products from the digital scholarship enterprise being considered for potential 
press publication in any format?
Yes: 13 (52%) | No: 2 (8%) | Not Yet: 10 (40%)

Examples include print-versions or variants of digital scholarship; print-on-demand and PDF 
versions; and an open access journal. Many presses would like to be doing work like this but 
projects have yet to reach this stage or have yet to be proposed. The two best exemplars 
submitted are:

• Amherst College: We speak of ourselves as an open access, “digitally native” publisher. 
This means we work to explore with authors how their scholarship, which increasingly 
begins within digital infrastructures and is authored using digital tools, can more 
effectively communicate its ideas through the use of digital tools. In exploring these 
possibilities we bring as well the perspective of our library colleagues who look to the 
long-term sustainability of digital artifacts of scholarship.

• Georgia: Our stated goal with regard to the digital humanities lab is that the Press 
will provide peer review and marketing of its scholarly projects. We also have a 
series, New Perspectives on the Civil War, that was purposefully designed to include a 
digital component.

What didn’t we ask that you think we should know?

• Abilene Christian University: We seek strategies for promoting the press as a vital part 
of the university, and for realizing new efficiency. E.g., We are cross- training librarians as 
copy-editors for the press.

• Dartmouth (UPNE): We believe that a closer reporting relationship will be made in the 
future, with the Press reporting directly to the Library.

• George Mason University/University Libraries: It would be helpful to know what other 
small library publishing/university press groups are using for publishing platforms. For 
example, what good (and low cost) platforms are being used to publish (OA) journals? 
Are there alternatives to OJS? What book production/publishing management/
marketing software is available that is low cost but productive? What approaches are 
new library publishing/press ventures to engage and entice the university community to 
opt for their services? What metrics are they using to show their value to the university.

• MIT: The libraries and the press have recently launched some joint fundraising 
initiatives–including 2 new funds that are explicitly designated as joint Library/Press 
funds (for digitization and for OA).

• New York University: This survey assumes a certain outlook that just makes no sense 
to respond to in our environment. From our perspective it sets up a mental model of 
Press vs. Library that does not exist here. We certainly have a library and a press, but the 
questions imply a nature of interaction that does not reflect our deeper coordination 
and collaboration.



23Across the Great Divide

• Northwestern University: Do the faculty understand, and/or take advantage of, the 
Library/Press relationship? (In our case the answer is probably no.) This P2L summit 
as currently configured has struck some as too narrowly defining “partnerships,” a la 
scholarly communication and publishing, as opposed to broader service collaborations. 
Where is the reader/researcher in all this? Are we paying attention to what they want 
and need?

• Oregon State University Libraries: We continue to see benefits from the organizational 
alignment of the Press and the Libraries. Obstacles and even resistance remain but 
there is much more openness to change and experimentation on both sides. One of 
the biggest benefits for the Press has been heightened visibility across the University. 
Another huge benefit has been increased awareness of university press publishing 
challenges and issues within the library.

• Purdue: Do all players share a similar definition of what publishing is and might become 
or of what scholarly communications is and might become? In a post-open- or post-
public-access world, who are we working for?

• Syracuse University: The formal relationship between the Library and the University 
Press is still rather new, and evolving. We also collaborate on design of library 
promotional materials, and on the development of donors through the Library’s 
Assistant Dean of Advancement. We engage in regular cross promotion of services and 
publications. This survey was completed jointly by David Seaman and Alice Pfeiffer, 
Director of the Press.

• TCU: issues of open access, shared initiatives
• Texas Tech University Press: The new Dean of Libraries is very event-oriented, and the 

Library building is well set up for events. The Library is taking advantage of Press authors 
to give presentations as part of their Library event series. Also, the Library will be selling 
Press titles at the front circulation desk.

• University of Arizona Libraries: There is a shared development program between the 
Libraries and Press.

• University of Delaware: How the press-library relationship is channeled/presented to 
university administration. Is the partnership between the two clear to administrators, 
or does at least one of the parties need to do more to advocate for the other to 
administration? Do administrators understand the shared values of presses and libraries 
and why those values are critical for institutions of higher ed?

• University of Georgia: The Press has reported to the Libraries for approximately nine 
years. Unlike other similar arrangements, the Press was (and remains) financially strong 
prior to the move. While the reporting relationship has afforded many unforeseen 
benefits detailed above, the original decision to move the Press to the Libraries was 
motivated by a new Provost’s desire to have fewer reporting lines. The arrangement has 
worked out splendidly at Georgia.

• University of Michigan: The Press is seen as an approach to publishing defined by its 
editorial board and functions but it is integrated into the Library at Michigan, a type of 



24Across the Great Divide

organization that is not recognized by many of the questions about. There are interesting 
cultural issues that we have encountered that are not recognized above, especially 
around the integration of staff from a library and publishing background.



25Across the Great Divide

Appendix 4: AAUP/ARL/CNI P2L Summit Agenda

Monday, May 9th

 3:30 – 5:45 PM Registration Desk Open
   Doubletree by Hilton

   237 S Broad St, Philadelphia, PA 19107

 6:00 – 9:00 PM Reception and Dinner
  Estia, a Greek Mediterranean Restaurant
  1405–07 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102
  http://estiataverna.com/

Reception: 6–6:30 non-alcoholic beverages (coffee, tea, iced tea, soft drinks, 
juice) will be available as well as a cash bar for those wishing to purchase drinks.

7 PM Welcome: Joe Lucia and Mary Rose Muccie

Tuesday, May 10th

7:00 – 8:00 AM Registration and Continental Breakfast

8:15 – 8:30 AM Summit Introduction: Monica McCormick, NYU

8:30 – 9:15 AM Keynote: Scott Waugh, UCLA

9:15 – 10:15 AM Working Session 1 — Challenges and Barriers

We’re separating publishers from librarians for this session, to encourage candor about 
the challenges of working together. There are many visions for press/library missions 
and collaboration: what are the obstacles in your institution, from your position 
in either the press or library? What do you wish people in the other organization 
understood? What are some structural, financial, administrative, technical, or 
social barriers?

10:15 – 10: 30 AM Break

10: 30 – 11:30 AM Working Session 2 — Alignment (Mission and Identity)

In thinking about the evolving mission of both entities, what are some ways in which 
they can come together? Traditionally, publishers have focused on the production of 
scholarship and libraries on consumption—in the 21st century people don’t necessarily 
consider these as widely separated anymore. Is there an evolution in what people 
expect from content and how they may get it? Is greater mission alignment both 
desirable and possible as these expectations shift? Can an alignment of goals offer 
strategic advantages in planning shared innovation and processes? How can an aligned 
press and library further the greater institutional mission in ways not possible before?

http://estiataverna.com/


26Across the Great Divide

11:30 AM – 12:30 PM Lunch

12:30 – 1:30 PM  Working session 3 — Financial (Budget and Staffing)

Will closer collaboration and partnership between the library and press help manage 
the total cost of the scholarly publishing system? How? Framing the discussion in terms 
of production and consumption, how can sustainable financial models for university-
based scholarly publishing be developed that combine the strengths of each unit and 
move toward shared skills and infrastructure? The pre-summit survey revealed that 
10 institutions have strategically aligned the budgets of press and library; ten reported 
that budgets are still entirely separate: what are the advantages of these different 
situations? What shared infrastructure, workflows, and cross-training opportunities 
offer the greatest promise for both press and library?

1:30 AM – 2:30 PM Working Session 4 — Digital Scholarship and Dissemination

Explore the possibilities of digital scholarship not only to maximize access, but also 
to better support interdisciplinary scholarship, teaching, and learning across the 
institution, from the position of an aligned library and press. Areas of exploration 
include: new and experimental modes of scholarly research, publication, and 
dissemination; the creation of data management plans; Open Access models; print-
and-digital hybrid scholarship; partnering with or creating digital scholarship centers; 
discoverability of new scholarly publication forms; and preservation of digital research 
publications and products.

2:30 – 2:45 PM Break

2:45 – 3:30 PM Plenary: Wolfram Horstmann

3:30 – 4:00 PM Summit Summary

Cliff Lynch — What have we learned today
Peter Berkery, Elliott Shore — Defining action steps for the future

4:00 PM  Wrap and Close



27Across the Great Divide

Appendix 5:
Reflections on AAUP/ARL/CNI Meeting and Opportunities for Library-Press Collaboration

Clifford Lynch, Executive Director, Coalition for Networked Information

May 12, 2016; revised Oct 16, 2016

I had the opportunity to provide some summary reflections for the Association for Research 
Libraries (ARL)/Association of American University Presses (AAUP)/Coalition for Networked 
Information (CNI) convening of university libraries and university presses in May 2016. This is an 
edited, abstracted, and summarized version of my remarks.

Convened jointly by ARL, AAUP, and CNI, funded by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and 
hosted by Temple University Libraries and Temple University Press, the Presses Reporting to 
Libraries (P2L) Summit was held in Philadelphia on May 9–10, 2016. In the first such meeting of 
members of this particular community, 23 teams of press directors and library deans/directors 
with an administrative relationship (typically involving the press reporting into the library) 
discussed the benefits of, challenges in, and possibilities around this relationship.

My remarks fall into three categories: macro issues, specific observations (“gems”) that I 
thought were really important, and questions I was surprised not to hear much about in the 
conversation, but that seem important to me.

Macro Issues

We heard much talk of ecosystems throughout the conversations today. Ecosystems were an 
integral part of Scott Waugh’s opening plenary, and I think he accurately described much of 
what’s going on in what he characterized as the scholarly communications ecosystem.

But we should not be thinking in terms of ecosystems, I believe. This is a terrible mistake as we 
try to understand the implications of recent developments. Ecosystems are nasty places when 
left unsupervised and uncivilized. Darwin rules. Here we find “nature, red in tooth and claw” 
(Tennyson, In Memoriam A.H.H.); existence is “nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbs, Leviathan). 
The academy can make other futures, if it has the will.

The difference between ecosystems and societies is the introduction of not-necessarily- 
Darwinian values and moral structures (e.g. don’t eat the weak or elderly). Here I must 
recognize, with a great debt of thanks, Timothy Norris (formerly a Council on Library and 
Information Resources fellow, Norris is now at the University of Miami), whose excellent blog 
post has been haunting me for the past few years.

1 Scholarly publishing needs to be a society; 
the academy is a society. Talking of ecosystem rather than society in this context is an abdication 
of responsibility. We must invent our own future deliberately, not simply let it evolve from 
marketplace competition.

1 Timothy Norris, “Morality in Information Ecosystems,” September 18, 2014, http://
connect.clir.org/blogs/tim-norris/2014/09/18/morality-in-information-ecosystems.

http://connect.clir.org/blogs/tim-norris/2014/09/18/morality-in-information-ecosystems
http://connect.clir.org/blogs/tim-norris/2014/09/18/morality-in-information-ecosystems


28Across the Great Divide

Peter Berkery of AAUP earlier spoke of defining a space, a sphere of university press activity and 
responsibility and of clearly distinguishing this from the commercial scholarly publishing space. I 
think this is going to be essential, and most effectively and easily done in the world of scholarly 
monographs and also, perhaps, in humanistic journals. There is great opportunity for scoping 
territory in new long-form argument genres in the digital realm. This sphere needs to be clearly 
delineated as part of the society of the academy, not the broader ecosystem and marketplace of 
scholarly publishing.

Inside this society I think we are going to need different, or additional, economic models to 
support the dissemination of scholarly work, particularly long-form arguments. Organizationally 
and with regard to budgets, treating presses explicitly as part of the host university’s scholarly 
communications portfolio and strategy is a central step towards making this possible. All of the 
institutions represented here have at least taken the first steps along this path.

Note that there’s recent data questioning the value of the apparently very minimal editorial 
contributions of science publishers, for example.

2 In stark contrast, I think that the contributions 
that the best university presses make in taking a monograph from first draft to final version is 
widely understood to be very, very large.

As part of this we need to understand and define “us and them” to identify who is within the 
collaborative and collectively supported society and who stands outside as competition, as 
pure marketplace players and competitors. This is a very nasty and potentially controversial 
question that needs to be taken up. Where do the big, wealthy university presses, that are so 
important in the monographic marketplace, like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, etc., fit in? They 
aren’t here because they are among the university presses that have not restructured their 
reporting relationships. Are they commercial publishers in all but name, or are they instruments 
of the academy that can be brought within this new sphere? What about all of the other smaller 
university presses?

We need to understand the various lines and axes of collaboration: at this meeting we have 
focused mainly on intra-institutional (library and press) collaborations rather than cross- 
institutional collaborations involving libraries and presses from several institutions. Libraries 
have, in some areas at least, a very strong record in this kind of inter-institutional work; the 
library-press collaborations need to build on this and span the nation. We must do more 
focusing on common platforms and ways to make library systems better accommodate presses 
broadly (e.g. today’s discussion on metadata workflows).

It is clear, at least at the institutions represented here, that presses are moving from the 
periphery, from ancillary services, to the core and center of the academic enterprise. This trend 
is hugely important, and it allows, indeed invites, presses to re-consecrate themselves to their 
genuine fundamental mission: to abandon subventions for genuine budgets and to be funded, 

2 See Sharon Farb et al, “How Much Does $1.7 Billion Buy You? A Comparison of 
Published Scientific Journal Articles to Their Pre-print Version,” presentation from CNI Fall 2015 
Membership Meeting, https://wp.me/p1LncT-69J. Another presentation on this subject, by 
Martin Klein et al, “Comparing Published Scientific Journal Articles to Their Pre-print Versions,” 
was made at the Joint Conference on Digital Libraries 2016.

https://wp.me/p1LncT-69J


29Across the Great Divide

at least in part, as components of the central academic enterprise, as part of a university 
scholarly communications and stewardship strategy. It makes it possible to stop doing “stretch” 
quasi-mass-market publications to help cross-subsidize what they are really supposed to be 
focusing on.

Finally, it is very striking to me today that there is no consensus among the scholarly and funder 
communities about the vision of the desirable future for the monograph. Contrast this to the 
scientific journal, where it is clear that scientists, funders and policymakers in the US, UK and 
elsewhere have broadly agreed that the desirable and goal end-state is open access (OA), 
though there is argument about the pathways (green, or gold, or other means) to reach that 
desired future, with the emerging consensus varying from nation to nation,

3 and we are still 
struggling to understand the economics and other implications of the alternatives. Note also 
that the current US funder requirements for public access to journal articles are substantially 
different than the open access approaches that libraries have been advocating to faculty over 
the past decade or more. But for science, and for the journal article, there’s a rough general 
consensus as to where we should be headed.

Is there agreement that the future goal for monographs in digital form is open access? 
What, if any, is the role of the embargo? What, if any, are the models for commerce and OA 
co- existence? Further, there’s the question of what to do with out-of-print works, and what 
to do when books in digital form never go out of print (though contracts between author 
and publisher may expire). I think we do not have a consensus on this, in fact, not even the 
beginnings of a consensus, and I think that there is great urgency attempting to develop 
this consensus.

Gems: Observations that Got My Attention (and My Own Extensions or Re-interpretations 
of These)

• We must figure out how to do cross-institutional subvention for individual monographs 
relatively routinely. This is hard, but seems clear, at least to me.

Open Educational Resources as they are now emerging are a fertile area for new collaborations 
that include press and library. But beware: these resources heavily engage non-print media and 
are going to require new skill sets that are often present neither in the library nor the press.

• Enlist the press’s marketing arm to feature institutional special collections and 
IR materials.

• There are rich opportunities for bibliographic curation of university press publications: 
authors are collaborators, so it would be useful (and wise) to include links to some 
content, reviews, tables of contents, etc. Use the library to feed these elements into the 
bibliographic record continuum. Turn university press books into “featured items” in 
discovery systems and make these publications stand out. Also, use these publications 

3 See, for example, the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences 
and Humanities, the Office of Science and Technology Policy memo “Increasing Access to the 
Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research,” the Finch Report on Open Access, The Royal 
Society’s “Science as an Open Enterprise,” and many others.



30Across the Great Divide

as an opportunity for bringing people to campus for symposia: connect and curate 
these materials, and use the institutional repository (IR) and the press (either the local 
press, the press that published the monograph originally, or both) to disseminate these 
materials, all linked back to the original monograph. In almost all cases, the number of 
books published by local university presses is quite small (these are events, as opposed 
to the comparatively vast and routine local faculty publications in scientific journals, for 
example): honor these. The local library really can support this.

• Include press projects as part of the development portfolio. This strategy is stunningly 
obvious, but I fear very rare.

• Include in press portfolios the work of scholars (not necessarily faculty at the press’s 
institution) with research focus on local special collections. There are some fabulous 
opportunities here. Furthermore, do this with university museums, archives and other 
campus collections. Develop models to scale up to multiple institutions, not all of which 
will have local university presses. This is a really, really exciting idea. This strategy also 
provides a pathway to independent scholars and citizen scholarship connected to 
local collections.

Things We Did Not Talk About

Personally, I think that one of the great intellectual challenges of our times is to re- 
conceptualize the children of the monograph for the digital world. It is not how we move PDFs 
around or remarket fragmented PDFs of monographs, but what monographs morph into in the 
digital world. We need to talk about standards, templates and preservability. Experiences like 
the Mellon Guttenberg-e project offer a wealth of insight that has not been fully harvested and 
acted upon. We need to orchestrate focused efforts to engage this problem. It’s really hard, 
and really important. We did not talk about it here, and I’m not sure why. Perhaps it’s because 
university presses feel that it is far away from their existential issues, or that it’s just too long 
term, or maybe it was simply that there just wasn’t time to get into it.

This is one that keeps me up at night. Implicit in it is challenging historic assumptions with press 
editorial roles and contributions, and with the traditional length constraints and other practices 
related to scholarly monographs.

One of the challenges here is to balance, or perhaps provide alternative choices, among the 
editorial investments, length and prospective estimated size of readership for monographs in 
the making.

A second challenge is how to deal with the potential separation but inter-connectedness of 
evidence and analysis, and facilitate the reuse of the underlying evidence; this is a fundamental 
problem facing all disciplines and all forms of scholarly communication.



31Across the Great Divide

Related Resources

Coalition for Networked Information. “Institutional Strategies for Open Educational Resources 
(OERs): Report of a CNI Executive Roundtable held April 3 & 4, 2016.” August 2016. https://
www.cni.org/go/oers16-cni-report.

“Keynote Presentations Day 2.” Pacific Neighborhood Consortium 2016 Annual Conference and 
Joint Meetings. August 2016. https://youtu.be/roI05F35eL0.

Lynch, Clifford A. “The Battle to Define the Future of the Book in the Digital World.” First 
Monday 6:6 (June 2001). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/864/773.

Lynch, Clifford A. “A Matter of Mission: Information Technology and the Future of Higher 
Education.” In The Tower and The Cloud, edited by Richard N. Katz, 43–50. Boulder: EDUCAUSE, 
2008. http://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/tower-and-cloud/matter-
mission-information-technology-and-future-higher-education.

Lynch, Clifford A. “The Scholarly Monograph’s Descendants.” In The Specialized Scholarly 
Monograph in Crisis, or How Can I Get Tenure if You Won’t Publish My Book?, edited by Mary M. 
Case, pp. 137–148. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 1999. https://www.cni.
org/go/scholarly-monographs-descendants.

http://www.cni.org/go/oers16-cni-report
http://www.cni.org/go/oers16-cni-report
https://youtu.be/roI05F35eL0
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/864/773
http://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/tower-and-cloud/matter- mission-information-technology-and-future-higher-education
http://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/tower-and-cloud/matter-mission-information-technology-and-future-higher-education
http://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/tower-and-cloud/matter-mission-information-technology-and-future-higher-education
http://www.cni.org/go/scholarly-monographs-descendants
http://www.cni.org/go/scholarly-monographs-descendants

	Across the Great Divide:
	Acknowledgments
	Across the Great Divide:

	Appendix 1: The Role of Libraries and University Presses in the Scholarly Eco-system
	Appendix 2: Participants
	Appendix 3: P2L Survey Analysis
	Appendix 4: AAUP/ARL/CNI P2L Summit Agenda
	Appendix 5: Reflections on the AAUP/ARL/CNI Meeting