For the majority of scholars, the printed book format produced in an academic setting (i.e., published and distributed by an academic publisher) has thus become synonymous with formal scholarly communication. With the development of digital and multimodal forms of communication, this analogous relationship between print (and all that it entails) and formal scholarly communication is becoming less determined, and the future of the scholarly book is once again heavily debated.12

Living Books will focus predominantly on affirmative projects (and related ideas and concepts), projects that are exploring alternative futures for the book, the difficulties mentioned thus far notwithstanding.

This is for the simple reason that it can be argued that the humanities have always been in crisis and that humanities book publishing has never been financially self-sustainable.9 Similarly, the intention here is not to overcome this condition via the route of technological utopianism (wherein innovative digital solutions will resolve the crisis) or the search for new sustainable business models or by defending an idealized past system of values associated with the (printed) book and the humanities. Instead, it might be more useful to embrace this “crisis” or messiness to some extent, in order to explore the potentialities

Nonetheless, the consequences are wide-reaching. In particular, this state of affairs influences the job prospects of early-career researchers, for whom, more often than not, it remains a challenge to get their first book published. It also affects the quality of scholarly research in that it remains difficult to publish academic monographs that are highly specialized, difficult or radical, experimental or multimodal, or that fall outside current vogues in academic publishing, making them harder to market or incorporate into a specific series or publication list. Indeed, we have grown accustomed to a situation in which a book finding a publisher tends to be determined by its marketability, not by its value or quality as a piece of scholarship.

Instead of seeing the monograph as a fixed object, I present it here as an elaborate set of scholarly practices, structures of knowledge production, and discursive formations, which together enact the dynamic and emergent materiality of this medium. At the same time, in a complex interplay of relations, the scholarly book helps to shape the various formats, debates, and actants that are involved in the processes of knowledge creation. This double aspect of the book, as both enacted and enacting, means that the monograph occupies an important nodal point in this meshwork of relations and thus plays a vital role in determining what kinds of knowledge are possible.

one of the first experiments in humanities book publishing to rigorously explore the potential implications and possibilities of the digital medium for the humanities monograph, for the humanities, and, ultimately, for the human.

Esto es a lo que me refiero por «liberación en elimaginario». Pensar cómo sería vivir en un mundoen el que la gente tuviera realmente el poder dedecidir por sí misma, individual y colectivamente,a qué tipo de comunidades pertenecer y qué tipode identidades adoptar, es una tareaverdaderamente difícil. Y hacer posible esemundo, algo todavía más difícil. Significaríacambiarlo casi todo y tener que enfrentarse a laoposición persistente, y en última instanciaviolenta, de quienes se están beneficiando delestado actual de cosas. Lo que sí es fácil esdedicarse a escribir como si estas identidadescreadas libremente ya existiesen, lo que nos evitatener que plantearnos los problemas complejos eintratables del grado de implicación de nuestropropio trabajo

la antropología es una especie depopulismo amplio. Al menos no nos posicionamos,en un momento dado, junto a las élites o junto aquien las apoya. Estamos con la gente humilde.Pero dado que en la práctica la mayoría de losantropólogos trabajamos en las universidades(que son cada día más globales), o bien enconsultorías de marketing o en la ONU, ocupandopuestos dentro del aparato de gobierno global,quizá todo se reduzca a una declaración fiel yritualizada de nuestra deslealtad hacia la éliteglobal de la cual formamos parte comoacadémicos (a pesar de nuestra marginalidad).¿Qué forma adopta este populismo en lapráctica? Ante todo implica demostrar que lagente humilde que es objeto de estudio se resistecon éxito a algún tipo de poder o influenciaglobalizadora que se le impone desde arriba

académico es en gran medida la capacidad deestablecer derechos de propiedad sobre una ciertaforma de conocimiento y asegurarse, por otra, quelos demás no tengan demasiado acceso a éste

Institucionalmente, como fuenteimaginativa, es responsable de la creación denuevas formas sociales y de la revalorización otransformación de las viejas

essentializing attributes or properties, such as openness and fluidity, are also accorded to the digital format. I therefore also do not want to claim that the potential for increased collaboration and open forms of publishing will be a guaranteed outcome of “digital innovation.” Experimenting with new forms of communication is hard work, involving more than only the overcoming of technological barriers. As I outline throughout Living Books, it also entails a critical redesign of scholarship. Digital promises and utopias will similarly face scrutiny. It is my intention to examine those aspects that might actually be exciting, experimental, and perhaps more ethical in digital scholarship.

In comparison with this structure, which offers possibilities of connection that can be actualized, the importance of what has actually been noted is secondary. Many of the notes will soon become unusable or cannot be used at a given occasion. This holds both for excerpts which are only useful in the case of especially remarkable formulations and for our own deliberations. Theoretical publications do therefore not result from simply copying what can already be found in the slip box. The communication with the slip box becomes fruitful only at a high level of generalization, namely that of establishing communicative relations of relations. And it becomes productive only at the moment of evaluation, and is thus bound to a certain time and is to a high degree accidental.

Santo Tomá sMoropublicósu"UTOPIA"en1516,yLuterodioelprim er paso haciala ReformaPro·testa nteen31d eo ctubre d e1517,al p ublicarsus95t e s i senWittem berg.Despu és,la H isto r iaha se g uidos ucurs o.Deestosh echoshanpasadocuatro sig los ymedio,yho y tenemossuficientepers pectivapara d arnosc u entademuchas cosasquenuestrosantepas adosn o p udieron ver.

These models are emerging, which is why its exciting to be involved in the ground floor of this sector, however some models clearly make sense already and thats largely because they closely follow the models free software itself has shaped. If you want status, then you can make a name for yourself by leading a team to write the docs ala free software itself, if you want money then build the reputation for the documentation team and contract out your knowledge (eg. extend the docs on contract ala free software).

Te avisaremos antes de realiza

Average publishing costs per article vary substantially depending on a range of factors including rejection rate (which drives peer review costs), range and type of content, levels of editorial services, and others. The average 2010 cost of publishing an article in a subscription-based journal with print and electronic editions was estimated by CEPA to be around £3095 (excluding non-cash peer review costs). The potential for open access to effect cost savings has been much discussed, but the emergence of pure-play open access journal publishers allows examples of average article costs to be inferred from their financial statements. These range from $290 (Hindawi), through $1088 (PLOS), up to a significantly higher figure for eLife (page 66).

Virtually all STM journals are now available online, and in many cases publishers and others have retrospectively digitised early hard copy material back to the first volumes. The proportion of electronic-only journal subscriptions has risen sharply, partly driven by adoption of discounted journal bundles. Consequently the vast majority of journal use takes place electronically, at least for research journals, with print editions providing some parallel access for some general journals, including society membership journals, and in some fields (e.g. humanities and some practitioner fields). The number of established research (i.e. non-practitioner) journals dropping their print editions looks likely to accelerate over the coming few years (page 30).

Despite a transformation in the way journals are published, researchers’ core motivations for publishing appear largely unchanged, focused on securing funding and furthering the author’s career (page 69)

At the moment, Neylon explains, the scholarly publishing process involves ferrying a document from place to place. Researchers prepare manuscripts, share them with colleagues, fold in comments and submit them to journals. Journal editors send copies to peer reviewers, returning their comments to the author, who goes back and forth with the editor to finalize the text. After publication, readers weigh in with commentary of their own.