I thought it may be useful to see a letter discussing the issue of the Journal from when Routledge first started publishing. see below’13 September 2007Dear HelenThank you for copying me into your message of 5 September to the committee. I think your message sums up the current state of pay very well and it is useful for me to be able to see what peoples’ specific concerns are. Please feel free to circulate this letter to your committee if you feel it would be useful. May I begin by confirming the three points that you set out:1.The proposal is not about emerging the journals, but about preserving their distinct specialist qualities under a single new title.2.The specialist paper issue would indeed have a specific secondary title3.The intention is basically that TPC should continue to operate as it does now. Shulla and I have discussed some changes she would like to see, including recruiting paper conservators onto an Editorial Board. I think also your point is well made that in terms of what members see and receive, we are only talking about a change of title, and that quite possibly many members will not even notice the difference. Now to address the specific concerns you listed at the end of your message:- a concern that moving to an academic publisher such as Routledge will ‘water down’ the professional content and rigour of TPC.Routledge are not cowboys or amateurs. They are one of the largest and most highly respected publishers in the world. It is hard to see why they should want to drive journal standards down. Some people have asked me, conversely, whether a publisher would push our journals in the opposite direction – making it too academic and insufficiently practice-based. Neither fear is well-founded. Routledge have for example been publishing the Journal of the Society of Archivists since 1999, and I know that SoA is very happy with their relationship with them. The proposal to partner with a publisher may appear surprisingly innovative within our own community, but it has been the norm for many professional bodies, learned societies and membership organisations for a very long time. Conservation is getting left behind at the moment. - altering the name of the journals represents a significant change for members.B&PG Committee members are clearly in a better position than I am to judge this, but I can’t really see why it should be. If they have the same content in the same form and the same design coming out at the same time of year I think your observation that some won’t even notice the difference may be nearer the mark. - several respondents expressed suspicions that there was another agenda for the changeI am not sure what such a mystery agenda might consist of. The strategic agenda is as I set out in my letter to committee members last month – to grow the international readership, to reach conservators and other collections care specialists who are not currently receiving our journals; to encourage more conservation professionals and researchers to write for the journal; to head in the direction of cited status in order to give us the best chance of attracting new writers; to deploy the enormous resources and experience of a professional publishing firm to support and develop our journals. The world is moving on around us – journal publication is not what it was thirty years ago but the way we try to produce our own journals has not changed much since the 1970s. We are missing more and more opportunities to share and develop conservation knowledge by trying to do everything ourselves on a tight budget and relying on the sheer slog and dedication of a small number of volunteer members. - a general feeling that the status quo is okay and why change itThe status quo clearly is OK from the members’ point of view, since we know that members value their journal and are not conscious of any need to change it. Interestingly the editors of our two journals are very clear that the status quo is completely unsustainable and that significant changes need to be considered for the future. I will address this more fully when I meet you next week. - the speed of change is too rapid, with not enough time for consultation or discussionWe need all the material facts in order to be able to make a sound decision. If there are important material facts which people feel are missing, or concerns that have not been answered, we can certainly take the time required to tackle them. However unless there are such issues I am not persuaded that ‘more time’, in and of itself, will help us make a better decision. - several respondents talked about merging the journals and how that would not be a good ideaAgain I think your own notes are helpful here. Personally I am not a proponent of merging the journals for its own sake or because I think the world would be a better place if we had one journal rather than two. The purpose of this proposal is not to merge the journals. The only justifiable context for merging them, as far as I am concerned, is if there is a major benefit which we can harness by doing so. That benefit is a relationship with a publisher who will enable us to develop and grow our journals with a secure future. That is the purpose of the proposal – the need to bring the journals under a single title is simply a consequence. It therefore seems to me inappropriate to try and look narrowly at the question of whether the journals should be merged or not, since that is not the core question. The core question is whether the benefits we would gain by partnering with a publisher are the right ones for the strategic future of our journals. If those benefits are in fact what our journals need, then we need to will the means in order to achieve the end. - the perception that the ‘citing’ issue was of low importance to conservatorsI entirely accept that for the individual reader there is no particular benefit in knowing that articles are cited, or not. As long as articles are relevant and interesting that is all most readers want. Nevertheless readers should not have a false sense of security. It is relevant, in this context, that the special Asian edition of TPC was originally intended to come out in 2004 and we did not manage to get it out until 2007. Why was this? Well one reason was that many of the authors did not have any particular incentive to write for the journal. They contributed their articles more or less as a favour. Equally the next issue of TPC has been delayed, and Shulla reports that there are general difficulties in attracting enough papers. It is this, and not the change of title, which represents the real threat to our journals. If we can’t attract people to write for them, they become harder to produce. Delays ensue as we wait for authors to send copy, or try to attract more authors to contribute. If we can’t get enough papers of quality we have to publish a thin volume, or compromise on quality. These are very real threats to the future of our journals. We face them already. It is not safe or sustainable for us to go on relying on goodwill contributions which are harder and harder to secure. The key thing about citation is not that it makes any difference to the reader, but that it gives the author a big incentive to submit their paper. This is not only true for researchers. It is also true of all the students on Masters degrees up and down the country. It is a really big feather in their cap if they can get their papers published in a cited journal. Likewise people who lecture at Camberwell, West Dean or Northumbria. Their institutions are subject to RAEs and they need publications in cited journals to get the ranking they need to secure continued funding and the future of their departments. If there is no strong reason why people should bother submitting articles to TPC we will not find it easy to increase the flow of papers. Conversely, by providing Masters students and college lecturers with a cited journal in which to publish, we will both be giving them every encouragement to share ideas and knowledge, and helping them improve the profile, funding and sustainability of their departments. So to sum up, if we stick to the status quo because it seems familiar and most members are happy with it, people need to be clear that it is certainly not going to get any easier to attract more contributions, and may well get harder. I would also argue that in addition to being a benefit of membership, Journals have a wider role to play in spreading knowledge and understanding more generally. Cited status would be a major help in allowing our Journals to fulfill this role.There are a few other points which have been raised with me in discussion. They were not included in your note but it may be useful to address them here. Why is it necessary to bring both journals under a single title?This is not a particular requirement of Routledge, but a general requirement we would face with any large publisher. A year ago we received a proposal from Sage which I rejected on financial grounds, but that too would have necessitated our bringing the journals together. The basic model on which most publishers work is a minimum of 4 issues per year. I had discussion with Elsevier earlier this year and they declined to take us on because we could not generate 4 issues per year. In cases where Journals have established readerships, some publishers are prepared to take them on with just two issues per year. Two journals with one issue per year each is just a non-starter for them. Does cited status mean we have to be more like Studies in ConservationNo. The Journal of the Society of Archivists is not much like Studies and when I come to talk you about this next week I may be able to bring you a copy of the Journal I used to work on, which is if anything more like Icon News than Studies. Cited status does not imply either a departure form the practice-based tradition of the journal, or a flight into esoteric academia, or a watering down to make it more general. I hope I have been able to set out some of the important questions which form part of the decision now to be made. It is these long-term questions and the opportunities now open to us which are uppermost in my mind. But finally – just to reiterate some points which may be getting lost in the general discussion:Under this proposal there will continue to be a dedicated paper conservation issue which will appear once every year. It will be clearly designated as such. No change in editorial scope is proposed. Editorial independence will remain. Far from trying to finesse TPC out of existence, I am proposing that we now actively recruit paper conservators as members of a new Editorial Board to see the publication securely into the future. I hope these notes are useful and I look forward to discussing the matter with you and the rest of the committee next week. I expect to be able to circulate the full Routledge proposal to you in advance of this meeting.Alastair
I thought it may be useful to see a letter discussing the issue of the Journal from when Routledge first started publishing. see below’13 September 2007Dear HelenThank you for copying me into your message of 5 September to the committee. I think your message sums up the current state of pay very well and it is useful for me to be able to see what peoples’ specific concerns are. Please feel free to circulate this letter to your committee if you feel it would be useful. May I begin by confirming the three points that you set out:1.The proposal is not about emerging the journals, but about preserving their distinct specialist qualities under a single new title.2.The specialist paper issue would indeed have a specific secondary title3.The intention is basically that TPC should continue to operate as it does now. Shulla and I have discussed some changes she would like to see, including recruiting paper conservators onto an Editorial Board. I think also your point is well made that in terms of what members see and receive, we are only talking about a change of title, and that quite possibly many members will not even notice the difference. Now to address the specific concerns you listed at the end of your message:- a concern that moving to an academic publisher such as Routledge will ‘water down’ the professional content and rigour of TPC.Routledge are not cowboys or amateurs. They are one of the largest and most highly respected publishers in the world. It is hard to see why they should want to drive journal standards down. Some people have asked me, conversely, whether a publisher would push our journals in the opposite direction – making it too academic and insufficiently practice-based. Neither fear is well-founded. Routledge have for example been publishing the Journal of the Society of Archivists since 1999, and I know that SoA is very happy with their relationship with them. The proposal to partner with a publisher may appear surprisingly innovative within our own community, but it has been the norm for many professional bodies, learned societies and membership organisations for a very long time. Conservation is getting left behind at the moment. - altering the name of the journals represents a significant change for members.B&PG Committee members are clearly in a better position than I am to judge this, but I can’t really see why it should be. If they have the same content in the same form and the same design coming out at the same time of year I think your observation that some won’t even notice the difference may be nearer the mark. - several respondents expressed suspicions that there was another agenda for the changeI am not sure what such a mystery agenda might consist of. The strategic agenda is as I set out in my letter to committee members last month – to grow the international readership, to reach conservators and other collections care specialists who are not currently receiving our journals; to encourage more conservation professionals and researchers to write for the journal; to head in the direction of cited status in order to give us the best chance of attracting new writers; to deploy the enormous resources and experience of a professional publishing firm to support and develop our journals. The world is moving on around us – journal publication is not what it was thirty years ago but the way we try to produce our own journals has not changed much since the 1970s. We are missing more and more opportunities to share and develop conservation knowledge by trying to do everything ourselves on a tight budget and relying on the sheer slog and dedication of a small number of volunteer members. - a general feeling that the status quo is okay and why change itThe status quo clearly is OK from the members’ point of view, since we know that members value their journal and are not conscious of any need to change it. Interestingly the editors of our two journals are very clear that the status quo is completely unsustainable and that significant changes need to be considered for the future. I will address this more fully when I meet you next week. - the speed of change is too rapid, with not enough time for consultation or discussionWe need all the material facts in order to be able to make a sound decision. If there are important material facts which people feel are missing, or concerns that have not been answered, we can certainly take the time required to tackle them. However unless there are such issues I am not persuaded that ‘more time’, in and of itself, will help us make a better decision. - several respondents talked about merging the journals and how that would not be a good ideaAgain I think your own notes are helpful here. Personally I am not a proponent of merging the journals for its own sake or because I think the world would be a better place if we had one journal rather than two. The purpose of this proposal is not to merge the journals. The only justifiable context for merging them, as far as I am concerned, is if there is a major benefit which we can harness by doing so. That benefit is a relationship with a publisher who will enable us to develop and grow our journals with a secure future. That is the purpose of the proposal – the need to bring the journals under a single title is simply a consequence. It therefore seems to me inappropriate to try and look narrowly at the question of whether the journals should be merged or not, since that is not the core question. The core question is whether the benefits we would gain by partnering with a publisher are the right ones for the strategic future of our journals. If those benefits are in fact what our journals need, then we need to will the means in order to achieve the end. - the perception that the ‘citing’ issue was of low importance to conservatorsI entirely accept that for the individual reader there is no particular benefit in knowing that articles are cited, or not. As long as articles are relevant and interesting that is all most readers want. Nevertheless readers should not have a false sense of security. It is relevant, in this context, that the special Asian edition of TPC was originally intended to come out in 2004 and we did not manage to get it out until 2007. Why was this? Well one reason was that many of the authors did not have any particular incentive to write for the journal. They contributed their articles more or less as a favour. Equally the next issue of TPC has been delayed, and Shulla reports that there are general difficulties in attracting enough papers. It is this, and not the change of title, which represents the real threat to our journals. If we can’t attract people to write for them, they become harder to produce. Delays ensue as we wait for authors to send copy, or try to attract more authors to contribute. If we can’t get enough papers of quality we have to publish a thin volume, or compromise on quality. These are very real threats to the future of our journals. We face them already. It is not safe or sustainable for us to go on relying on goodwill contributions which are harder and harder to secure. The key thing about citation is not that it makes any difference to the reader, but that it gives the author a big incentive to submit their paper. This is not only true for researchers. It is also true of all the students on Masters degrees up and down the country. It is a really big feather in their cap if they can get their papers published in a cited journal. Likewise people who lecture at Camberwell, West Dean or Northumbria. Their institutions are subject to RAEs and they need publications in cited journals to get the ranking they need to secure continued funding and the future of their departments. If there is no strong reason why people should bother submitting articles to TPC we will not find it easy to increase the flow of papers. Conversely, by providing Masters students and college lecturers with a cited journal in which to publish, we will both be giving them every encouragement to share ideas and knowledge, and helping them improve the profile, funding and sustainability of their departments. So to sum up, if we stick to the status quo because it seems familiar and most members are happy with it, people need to be clear that it is certainly not going to get any easier to attract more contributions, and may well get harder. I would also argue that in addition to being a benefit of membership, Journals have a wider role to play in spreading knowledge and understanding more generally. Cited status would be a major help in allowing our Journals to fulfill this role.There are a few other points which have been raised with me in discussion. They were not included in your note but it may be useful to address them here. Why is it necessary to bring both journals under a single title?This is not a particular requirement of Routledge, but a general requirement we would face with any large publisher. A year ago we received a proposal from Sage which I rejected on financial grounds, but that too would have necessitated our bringing the journals together. The basic model on which most publishers work is a minimum of 4 issues per year. I had discussion with Elsevier earlier this year and they declined to take us on because we could not generate 4 issues per year. In cases where Journals have established readerships, some publishers are prepared to take them on with just two issues per year. Two journals with one issue per year each is just a non-starter for them. Does cited status mean we have to be more like Studies in ConservationNo. The Journal of the Society of Archivists is not much like Studies and when I come to talk you about this next week I may be able to bring you a copy of the Journal I used to work on, which is if anything more like Icon News than Studies. Cited status does not imply either a departure form the practice-based tradition of the journal, or a flight into esoteric academia, or a watering down to make it more general. I hope I have been able to set out some of the important questions which form part of the decision now to be made. It is these long-term questions and the opportunities now open to us which are uppermost in my mind. But finally – just to reiterate some points which may be getting lost in the general discussion:Under this proposal there will continue to be a dedicated paper conservation issue which will appear once every year. It will be clearly designated as such. No change in editorial scope is proposed. Editorial independence will remain. Far from trying to finesse TPC out of existence, I am proposing that we now actively recruit paper conservators as members of a new Editorial Board to see the publication securely into the future. I hope these notes are useful and I look forward to discussing the matter with you and the rest of the committee next week. I expect to be able to circulate the full Routledge proposal to you in advance of this meeting.Alastair
Umm, are you really just giving this info out for nothing?
Inserito da levitra (non verificato) il Dom, 11/08/2013 - 10:51.
Time to face the music armed with this great information.
Inserito da Saroj (non verificato) il Sab, 10/08/2013 - 10:46.
Non potevo macnare.... COMPLIMENTI....tanti e di cuore da una fedelissima della prima ora che spera di fartene ancora e ancora, alle prossime tappe che raggiungerai!Ti bacio cara Stefania...e buona settimana! Monica
Inserito da Elena (non verificato) il Ven, 09/08/2013 - 07:52.
As has been explicitly ceemmntod upon & reiterated above, the dedicated Book & Paper Journal is an invaluable resource. The promise was made to us when we, as IPC, merged with ICON that it would remain and continue as a specialist journal. We, B&PG, are a large and diverse group within ICON, we have no other journal of this kind in the UK, which reflects and disseminates the wide-ranging specialisms encompassed by the B&PG. I agree (as ceemmntod above by others) that the reasons for putting this proposal forward should be clearly presented to us, ICON members, and the question answered why the Board of ICON Trustees have agreed the proposal before putting it forward without proper explanation or prior consultation with members. I strongly oppose this proposal; I too fear that it would be damaging to our profession, and to current and future students, to willfully and irresponsibly ‘lose’ this specialist journal. If the reasons given for presenting this option are made clear, another way has to be found to deal with them.
Inserito da Pipicntax (non verificato) il Ven, 09/08/2013 - 06:20.
While I am not opposed in pcpnriile to the proposal that the dedicated book and paper issue of the ICON journal will be dropped in favour of two multi-disciplinary issues, I do have serious concerns about this plan.I agree with many of those who have commented above, that clear and transparent communication from the ICON Board of Trustees is essential. I know from speaking to many conservation friends and colleagues that members already feel marginalised and ignored by the higher echelons of ICON and that each year the decision to renew is more difficult as subscriptions go up and benefits go down.I think that there is a very real risk that many Book and Paper Group members will choose to leave ICON if this plan goes head without consideration of Book and Paper Group members' views and assurances from ICON that the proportion of book and paper related articles in such a multi-disciplinary journal will reflect the proportion of book and paper conservators within the total ICON membership.I sincerely hope that the Board of Trustees consults properly with the entire membership of ICON, particularly the Book and Paper Group members, and that any decision taken is fair and transparent.
Inserito da Orville (non verificato) il Ven, 09/08/2013 - 06:02.
I can understand that other crtaeovsnion disciplines might feel under-represented within Icon publications, as paper/book does have a huge share. This could be changed by having two mixed publications. Another argument pro merge that comes to my mind is to further encourage interdisciplinarity in crtaeovsnion.However, I would not appreciate a merge. The Paper Conservator', and, after their amalgamation [n.b. isn't one merge enough?], the paper issue of The Conservator' is, as others already stated, not only important within the UK, but worldwide. Both journals have always been a major source for my studies abroad and in the UK, and I have always appreciated the balanced mixture of scientific and historic research and applied crtaeovsnion craftmanship they represent which some other journals don't offer. There is only very few peer reviewed journals solely dedicated to paper and book crtaeovsnion in English language worldwide, and with the paper issue being sacrificed for whatever reasons our profession would definitely loose a very important one.I'd rather encourage other groups within Icon to publish their own journal the more publications in our still comparably young profession, the better than suggesting a merge which will inevitably lead to a cut in published articles in the paper/book sector.I, too, wonder what the reason for the merge is and would very much appreciate if the Board could tell the members.
Inserito da Mohammed (non verificato) il Ven, 09/08/2013 - 05:55.
As has been already noted, our own junroal was one of the promises made at the time of the merger. I, too, would be very sorry to see it go, but I can understand the rationale behind such a proposal. However, one cannot help asking if this is the thin edge of the wedge. If we give up the separate Paper Conservator, will that signal the progressive reduction of the paper content in the other junroal? Will we end up with just another multi-discipline publication in a few years? As a conservator in private practice, my professional memberships are a major expense. ICON gives me the best value of any of them because I receive a publication devoted exclusively to my discipline. We may be guaranteed that there will be no change to the paper content, but how will that guarantee differ from the one made at the time of the merger?As a foreign member (Canada), however, I find myself also wondering about practical issues, like postage costs and packaging. Even now, my junroals arrive with bruised corners, etc. something twice as thick would (should?) require improved packaging and probably involve higher postage fees.I would be extremely reluctant to see the departure of our separate Paper Conservator. Perhaps the merger of the two editorial groups ought to be a condition of the agreement.
Commenti
I thought it may be useful to see a letter discussing the issue of the Journal from when Routledge first started publishing. see below’13 September 2007Dear HelenThank you for copying me into your message of 5 September to the committee. I think your message sums up the current state of pay very well and it is useful for me to be able to see what peoples’ specific concerns are. Please feel free to circulate this letter to your committee if you feel it would be useful. May I begin by confirming the three points that you set out:1.The proposal is not about emerging the journals, but about preserving their distinct specialist qualities under a single new title.2.The specialist paper issue would indeed have a specific secondary title3.The intention is basically that TPC should continue to operate as it does now. Shulla and I have discussed some changes she would like to see, including recruiting paper conservators onto an Editorial Board. I think also your point is well made that in terms of what members see and receive, we are only talking about a change of title, and that quite possibly many members will not even notice the difference. Now to address the specific concerns you listed at the end of your message:- a concern that moving to an academic publisher such as Routledge will ‘water down’ the professional content and rigour of TPC.Routledge are not cowboys or amateurs. They are one of the largest and most highly respected publishers in the world. It is hard to see why they should want to drive journal standards down. Some people have asked me, conversely, whether a publisher would push our journals in the opposite direction – making it too academic and insufficiently practice-based. Neither fear is well-founded. Routledge have for example been publishing the Journal of the Society of Archivists since 1999, and I know that SoA is very happy with their relationship with them. The proposal to partner with a publisher may appear surprisingly innovative within our own community, but it has been the norm for many professional bodies, learned societies and membership organisations for a very long time. Conservation is getting left behind at the moment. - altering the name of the journals represents a significant change for members.B&PG Committee members are clearly in a better position than I am to judge this, but I can’t really see why it should be. If they have the same content in the same form and the same design coming out at the same time of year I think your observation that some won’t even notice the difference may be nearer the mark. - several respondents expressed suspicions that there was another agenda for the changeI am not sure what such a mystery agenda might consist of. The strategic agenda is as I set out in my letter to committee members last month – to grow the international readership, to reach conservators and other collections care specialists who are not currently receiving our journals; to encourage more conservation professionals and researchers to write for the journal; to head in the direction of cited status in order to give us the best chance of attracting new writers; to deploy the enormous resources and experience of a professional publishing firm to support and develop our journals. The world is moving on around us – journal publication is not what it was thirty years ago but the way we try to produce our own journals has not changed much since the 1970s. We are missing more and more opportunities to share and develop conservation knowledge by trying to do everything ourselves on a tight budget and relying on the sheer slog and dedication of a small number of volunteer members. - a general feeling that the status quo is okay and why change itThe status quo clearly is OK from the members’ point of view, since we know that members value their journal and are not conscious of any need to change it. Interestingly the editors of our two journals are very clear that the status quo is completely unsustainable and that significant changes need to be considered for the future. I will address this more fully when I meet you next week. - the speed of change is too rapid, with not enough time for consultation or discussionWe need all the material facts in order to be able to make a sound decision. If there are important material facts which people feel are missing, or concerns that have not been answered, we can certainly take the time required to tackle them. However unless there are such issues I am not persuaded that ‘more time’, in and of itself, will help us make a better decision. - several respondents talked about merging the journals and how that would not be a good ideaAgain I think your own notes are helpful here. Personally I am not a proponent of merging the journals for its own sake or because I think the world would be a better place if we had one journal rather than two. The purpose of this proposal is not to merge the journals. The only justifiable context for merging them, as far as I am concerned, is if there is a major benefit which we can harness by doing so. That benefit is a relationship with a publisher who will enable us to develop and grow our journals with a secure future. That is the purpose of the proposal – the need to bring the journals under a single title is simply a consequence. It therefore seems to me inappropriate to try and look narrowly at the question of whether the journals should be merged or not, since that is not the core question. The core question is whether the benefits we would gain by partnering with a publisher are the right ones for the strategic future of our journals. If those benefits are in fact what our journals need, then we need to will the means in order to achieve the end. - the perception that the ‘citing’ issue was of low importance to conservatorsI entirely accept that for the individual reader there is no particular benefit in knowing that articles are cited, or not. As long as articles are relevant and interesting that is all most readers want. Nevertheless readers should not have a false sense of security. It is relevant, in this context, that the special Asian edition of TPC was originally intended to come out in 2004 and we did not manage to get it out until 2007. Why was this? Well one reason was that many of the authors did not have any particular incentive to write for the journal. They contributed their articles more or less as a favour. Equally the next issue of TPC has been delayed, and Shulla reports that there are general difficulties in attracting enough papers. It is this, and not the change of title, which represents the real threat to our journals. If we can’t attract people to write for them, they become harder to produce. Delays ensue as we wait for authors to send copy, or try to attract more authors to contribute. If we can’t get enough papers of quality we have to publish a thin volume, or compromise on quality. These are very real threats to the future of our journals. We face them already. It is not safe or sustainable for us to go on relying on goodwill contributions which are harder and harder to secure. The key thing about citation is not that it makes any difference to the reader, but that it gives the author a big incentive to submit their paper. This is not only true for researchers. It is also true of all the students on Masters degrees up and down the country. It is a really big feather in their cap if they can get their papers published in a cited journal. Likewise people who lecture at Camberwell, West Dean or Northumbria. Their institutions are subject to RAEs and they need publications in cited journals to get the ranking they need to secure continued funding and the future of their departments. If there is no strong reason why people should bother submitting articles to TPC we will not find it easy to increase the flow of papers. Conversely, by providing Masters students and college lecturers with a cited journal in which to publish, we will both be giving them every encouragement to share ideas and knowledge, and helping them improve the profile, funding and sustainability of their departments. So to sum up, if we stick to the status quo because it seems familiar and most members are happy with it, people need to be clear that it is certainly not going to get any easier to attract more contributions, and may well get harder. I would also argue that in addition to being a benefit of membership, Journals have a wider role to play in spreading knowledge and understanding more generally. Cited status would be a major help in allowing our Journals to fulfill this role.There are a few other points which have been raised with me in discussion. They were not included in your note but it may be useful to address them here. Why is it necessary to bring both journals under a single title?This is not a particular requirement of Routledge, but a general requirement we would face with any large publisher. A year ago we received a proposal from Sage which I rejected on financial grounds, but that too would have necessitated our bringing the journals together. The basic model on which most publishers work is a minimum of 4 issues per year. I had discussion with Elsevier earlier this year and they declined to take us on because we could not generate 4 issues per year. In cases where Journals have established readerships, some publishers are prepared to take them on with just two issues per year. Two journals with one issue per year each is just a non-starter for them. Does cited status mean we have to be more like Studies in ConservationNo. The Journal of the Society of Archivists is not much like Studies and when I come to talk you about this next week I may be able to bring you a copy of the Journal I used to work on, which is if anything more like Icon News than Studies. Cited status does not imply either a departure form the practice-based tradition of the journal, or a flight into esoteric academia, or a watering down to make it more general. I hope I have been able to set out some of the important questions which form part of the decision now to be made. It is these long-term questions and the opportunities now open to us which are uppermost in my mind. But finally – just to reiterate some points which may be getting lost in the general discussion:Under this proposal there will continue to be a dedicated paper conservation issue which will appear once every year. It will be clearly designated as such. No change in editorial scope is proposed. Editorial independence will remain. Far from trying to finesse TPC out of existence, I am proposing that we now actively recruit paper conservators as members of a new Editorial Board to see the publication securely into the future. I hope these notes are useful and I look forward to discussing the matter with you and the rest of the committee next week. I expect to be able to circulate the full Routledge proposal to you in advance of this meeting.Alastair
I thought it may be useful to see a letter discussing the issue of the Journal from when Routledge first started publishing. see below’13 September 2007Dear HelenThank you for copying me into your message of 5 September to the committee. I think your message sums up the current state of pay very well and it is useful for me to be able to see what peoples’ specific concerns are. Please feel free to circulate this letter to your committee if you feel it would be useful. May I begin by confirming the three points that you set out:1.The proposal is not about emerging the journals, but about preserving their distinct specialist qualities under a single new title.2.The specialist paper issue would indeed have a specific secondary title3.The intention is basically that TPC should continue to operate as it does now. Shulla and I have discussed some changes she would like to see, including recruiting paper conservators onto an Editorial Board. I think also your point is well made that in terms of what members see and receive, we are only talking about a change of title, and that quite possibly many members will not even notice the difference. Now to address the specific concerns you listed at the end of your message:- a concern that moving to an academic publisher such as Routledge will ‘water down’ the professional content and rigour of TPC.Routledge are not cowboys or amateurs. They are one of the largest and most highly respected publishers in the world. It is hard to see why they should want to drive journal standards down. Some people have asked me, conversely, whether a publisher would push our journals in the opposite direction – making it too academic and insufficiently practice-based. Neither fear is well-founded. Routledge have for example been publishing the Journal of the Society of Archivists since 1999, and I know that SoA is very happy with their relationship with them. The proposal to partner with a publisher may appear surprisingly innovative within our own community, but it has been the norm for many professional bodies, learned societies and membership organisations for a very long time. Conservation is getting left behind at the moment. - altering the name of the journals represents a significant change for members.B&PG Committee members are clearly in a better position than I am to judge this, but I can’t really see why it should be. If they have the same content in the same form and the same design coming out at the same time of year I think your observation that some won’t even notice the difference may be nearer the mark. - several respondents expressed suspicions that there was another agenda for the changeI am not sure what such a mystery agenda might consist of. The strategic agenda is as I set out in my letter to committee members last month – to grow the international readership, to reach conservators and other collections care specialists who are not currently receiving our journals; to encourage more conservation professionals and researchers to write for the journal; to head in the direction of cited status in order to give us the best chance of attracting new writers; to deploy the enormous resources and experience of a professional publishing firm to support and develop our journals. The world is moving on around us – journal publication is not what it was thirty years ago but the way we try to produce our own journals has not changed much since the 1970s. We are missing more and more opportunities to share and develop conservation knowledge by trying to do everything ourselves on a tight budget and relying on the sheer slog and dedication of a small number of volunteer members. - a general feeling that the status quo is okay and why change itThe status quo clearly is OK from the members’ point of view, since we know that members value their journal and are not conscious of any need to change it. Interestingly the editors of our two journals are very clear that the status quo is completely unsustainable and that significant changes need to be considered for the future. I will address this more fully when I meet you next week. - the speed of change is too rapid, with not enough time for consultation or discussionWe need all the material facts in order to be able to make a sound decision. If there are important material facts which people feel are missing, or concerns that have not been answered, we can certainly take the time required to tackle them. However unless there are such issues I am not persuaded that ‘more time’, in and of itself, will help us make a better decision. - several respondents talked about merging the journals and how that would not be a good ideaAgain I think your own notes are helpful here. Personally I am not a proponent of merging the journals for its own sake or because I think the world would be a better place if we had one journal rather than two. The purpose of this proposal is not to merge the journals. The only justifiable context for merging them, as far as I am concerned, is if there is a major benefit which we can harness by doing so. That benefit is a relationship with a publisher who will enable us to develop and grow our journals with a secure future. That is the purpose of the proposal – the need to bring the journals under a single title is simply a consequence. It therefore seems to me inappropriate to try and look narrowly at the question of whether the journals should be merged or not, since that is not the core question. The core question is whether the benefits we would gain by partnering with a publisher are the right ones for the strategic future of our journals. If those benefits are in fact what our journals need, then we need to will the means in order to achieve the end. - the perception that the ‘citing’ issue was of low importance to conservatorsI entirely accept that for the individual reader there is no particular benefit in knowing that articles are cited, or not. As long as articles are relevant and interesting that is all most readers want. Nevertheless readers should not have a false sense of security. It is relevant, in this context, that the special Asian edition of TPC was originally intended to come out in 2004 and we did not manage to get it out until 2007. Why was this? Well one reason was that many of the authors did not have any particular incentive to write for the journal. They contributed their articles more or less as a favour. Equally the next issue of TPC has been delayed, and Shulla reports that there are general difficulties in attracting enough papers. It is this, and not the change of title, which represents the real threat to our journals. If we can’t attract people to write for them, they become harder to produce. Delays ensue as we wait for authors to send copy, or try to attract more authors to contribute. If we can’t get enough papers of quality we have to publish a thin volume, or compromise on quality. These are very real threats to the future of our journals. We face them already. It is not safe or sustainable for us to go on relying on goodwill contributions which are harder and harder to secure. The key thing about citation is not that it makes any difference to the reader, but that it gives the author a big incentive to submit their paper. This is not only true for researchers. It is also true of all the students on Masters degrees up and down the country. It is a really big feather in their cap if they can get their papers published in a cited journal. Likewise people who lecture at Camberwell, West Dean or Northumbria. Their institutions are subject to RAEs and they need publications in cited journals to get the ranking they need to secure continued funding and the future of their departments. If there is no strong reason why people should bother submitting articles to TPC we will not find it easy to increase the flow of papers. Conversely, by providing Masters students and college lecturers with a cited journal in which to publish, we will both be giving them every encouragement to share ideas and knowledge, and helping them improve the profile, funding and sustainability of their departments. So to sum up, if we stick to the status quo because it seems familiar and most members are happy with it, people need to be clear that it is certainly not going to get any easier to attract more contributions, and may well get harder. I would also argue that in addition to being a benefit of membership, Journals have a wider role to play in spreading knowledge and understanding more generally. Cited status would be a major help in allowing our Journals to fulfill this role.There are a few other points which have been raised with me in discussion. They were not included in your note but it may be useful to address them here. Why is it necessary to bring both journals under a single title?This is not a particular requirement of Routledge, but a general requirement we would face with any large publisher. A year ago we received a proposal from Sage which I rejected on financial grounds, but that too would have necessitated our bringing the journals together. The basic model on which most publishers work is a minimum of 4 issues per year. I had discussion with Elsevier earlier this year and they declined to take us on because we could not generate 4 issues per year. In cases where Journals have established readerships, some publishers are prepared to take them on with just two issues per year. Two journals with one issue per year each is just a non-starter for them. Does cited status mean we have to be more like Studies in ConservationNo. The Journal of the Society of Archivists is not much like Studies and when I come to talk you about this next week I may be able to bring you a copy of the Journal I used to work on, which is if anything more like Icon News than Studies. Cited status does not imply either a departure form the practice-based tradition of the journal, or a flight into esoteric academia, or a watering down to make it more general. I hope I have been able to set out some of the important questions which form part of the decision now to be made. It is these long-term questions and the opportunities now open to us which are uppermost in my mind. But finally – just to reiterate some points which may be getting lost in the general discussion:Under this proposal there will continue to be a dedicated paper conservation issue which will appear once every year. It will be clearly designated as such. No change in editorial scope is proposed. Editorial independence will remain. Far from trying to finesse TPC out of existence, I am proposing that we now actively recruit paper conservators as members of a new Editorial Board to see the publication securely into the future. I hope these notes are useful and I look forward to discussing the matter with you and the rest of the committee next week. I expect to be able to circulate the full Routledge proposal to you in advance of this meeting.Alastair
Umm, are you really just giving this info out for nothing?
Time to face the music armed with this great information.
Non potevo macnare.... COMPLIMENTI....tanti e di cuore da una fedelissima della prima ora che spera di fartene ancora e ancora, alle prossime tappe che raggiungerai!Ti bacio cara Stefania...e buona settimana! Monica
As has been explicitly ceemmntod upon & reiterated above, the dedicated Book & Paper Journal is an invaluable resource. The promise was made to us when we, as IPC, merged with ICON that it would remain and continue as a specialist journal. We, B&PG, are a large and diverse group within ICON, we have no other journal of this kind in the UK, which reflects and disseminates the wide-ranging specialisms encompassed by the B&PG. I agree (as ceemmntod above by others) that the reasons for putting this proposal forward should be clearly presented to us, ICON members, and the question answered why the Board of ICON Trustees have agreed the proposal before putting it forward without proper explanation or prior consultation with members. I strongly oppose this proposal; I too fear that it would be damaging to our profession, and to current and future students, to willfully and irresponsibly ‘lose’ this specialist journal. If the reasons given for presenting this option are made clear, another way has to be found to deal with them.
While I am not opposed in pcpnriile to the proposal that the dedicated book and paper issue of the ICON journal will be dropped in favour of two multi-disciplinary issues, I do have serious concerns about this plan.I agree with many of those who have commented above, that clear and transparent communication from the ICON Board of Trustees is essential. I know from speaking to many conservation friends and colleagues that members already feel marginalised and ignored by the higher echelons of ICON and that each year the decision to renew is more difficult as subscriptions go up and benefits go down.I think that there is a very real risk that many Book and Paper Group members will choose to leave ICON if this plan goes head without consideration of Book and Paper Group members' views and assurances from ICON that the proportion of book and paper related articles in such a multi-disciplinary journal will reflect the proportion of book and paper conservators within the total ICON membership.I sincerely hope that the Board of Trustees consults properly with the entire membership of ICON, particularly the Book and Paper Group members, and that any decision taken is fair and transparent.
I can understand that other crtaeovsnion disciplines might feel under-represented within Icon publications, as paper/book does have a huge share. This could be changed by having two mixed publications. Another argument pro merge that comes to my mind is to further encourage interdisciplinarity in crtaeovsnion.However, I would not appreciate a merge. The Paper Conservator', and, after their amalgamation [n.b. isn't one merge enough?], the paper issue of The Conservator' is, as others already stated, not only important within the UK, but worldwide. Both journals have always been a major source for my studies abroad and in the UK, and I have always appreciated the balanced mixture of scientific and historic research and applied crtaeovsnion craftmanship they represent which some other journals don't offer. There is only very few peer reviewed journals solely dedicated to paper and book crtaeovsnion in English language worldwide, and with the paper issue being sacrificed for whatever reasons our profession would definitely loose a very important one.I'd rather encourage other groups within Icon to publish their own journal the more publications in our still comparably young profession, the better than suggesting a merge which will inevitably lead to a cut in published articles in the paper/book sector.I, too, wonder what the reason for the merge is and would very much appreciate if the Board could tell the members.
As has been already noted, our own junroal was one of the promises made at the time of the merger. I, too, would be very sorry to see it go, but I can understand the rationale behind such a proposal. However, one cannot help asking if this is the thin edge of the wedge. If we give up the separate Paper Conservator, will that signal the progressive reduction of the paper content in the other junroal? Will we end up with just another multi-discipline publication in a few years? As a conservator in private practice, my professional memberships are a major expense. ICON gives me the best value of any of them because I receive a publication devoted exclusively to my discipline. We may be guaranteed that there will be no change to the paper content, but how will that guarantee differ from the one made at the time of the merger?As a foreign member (Canada), however, I find myself also wondering about practical issues, like postage costs and packaging. Even now, my junroals arrive with bruised corners, etc. something twice as thick would (should?) require improved packaging and probably involve higher postage fees.I would be extremely reluctant to see the departure of our separate Paper Conservator. Perhaps the merger of the two editorial groups ought to be a condition of the agreement.