11
Scientific Publishing: Coexistence Between New Entrants and Traditional Players
Our research is carried out in the context of the digitalization of publishing. In fact, publishing, as a sector of the cultural industries, has long been affected by a phenomenon of “generalized digitalization”. For Christian Robin (2016), in the past 40 years, all of the phases of publishing, from writing to selling books, have gradually been digitalized. Digitalization also affects the organization of activity in the sector – with the introduction of information technology in management, for example.
From this perspective, at least since the beginning of the 2010s, the production of so-called “digital” books has been developing. Behind this generic term is a multitude of forms and formats – such as PDF files, EPUBs, HTML documents, “enriched” books (i.e. multimedia files) as well as printed or digital works linked to “companion sites”. These heterogeneous productions are not yet stabilized, either in terms of form or in terms of economic models. Their development is attracting the interest of “new entrants” who are investing in the sector.
These new players with very variable dimensions come from various sectors, for example IT. They are often linked to cultural industries or network industries (Miège 2017). Their investment in publishing raises the question of a possible redefinition of the sector and its borders. These “new entrants” are not the only ones to take a position on digital publishing. The “traditional” players are also taking advantage of these new forms of publishing.
In this context, the publication of scientific books is a particular sector. By scientific works we mean specialized works produced by players from the world of research, all disciplines combined. This is a particular area in the sense that publishers, who publish books as well as journals and sometimes other types of documents, have been addressing the issue of producing “digital” documents for a number of years.
11.1. Questioning, hypotheses and methodology
This chapter’s objective is to better understand the articulation of the logics of the so called “traditional” players (scientific publishers) with those of “new entrants”, who remain to be qualified. This underlies a series of questions: do “new entrants” exist in the scientific publishing sector and, if so, how can they be characterized? Is there a meeting between these different players? Why and how does it work?
Two hypotheses guide this work. First, “new entrants” are not strictly speaking publishers. In particular, they do not have certain attributes specific to the editorial function. Second, “new entrants” must show specific signs of legitimacy in order to enter the field of scientific publishing.
In short, the objective is to situate the position of “new entrants” in the sector based on their relationships with “traditional” publishers. This study allows us to question the evolution of the central function of the editor within the sector (Miège 2000).
This work is based on research conducted as part of our thesis. It concerns the challenges of publishing scientific works at the territorial level, based on the Rhône-Alpes region of France. In France, the region is the largest echelon of local administrative territory. In 2016, a regrouping of regions was carried out throughout the country, from 25 to 16. The Rhône-Alpes region merged with Auvergne, becoming Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. Since our research began before this merger, it is geographically limited to the former Rhône-Alpes region.
Our research concentrates on the years following the development of publishing formats and “digital” reading materials with regards to which all stakeholders are positioned, namely the 2000s and early 2010s.
We conducted a series of interviews with scientific publishers in the Rhône-Alpes region (11 editorial structures) in order to find out, among other things, about their investment in new forms and formats of publishing as well as the relationships they had with possible new players in relation to these forms.
We also met with some of the “new entrants” identified in the region in order to find out the reasons and forms of their investment in publishing, as well as their possible relationships with “traditional” players. There are four structures, which were created after 2000: BeeBuzziness, Épisciences, Hal and Persée.
We will start by focusing on the new entrants and try to qualify them in light of the preliminary results of our field study. Then, we will see to what extent these new entrants are positioning themselves within the scientific publishing sector and in relation to their stakeholders.
11.2. Scientific publishing and new entrants in the Rhône-Alpes region
11.2.1. Elements of definition
The traditional definition of a publisher in France covers a set of distinctive characteristics that differ from the English-language definitions of editor and publisher. First of all, they fulfill a dual role, both as a trader and an intellectual with the ability to design and manage an intellectual property fund (Mollier 2005).
Three criteria, taken up by Sophie Noël (2012) in her work on independent critical publishing, seem to constitute the publisher’s criteria. First of all, the gatekeeper role or filter role: the publisher makes choices regarding the manuscript proposals that they receive. They develop a recognizable editorial line, even though it is generalist. Then, there is the editor role: the editor does an editing job – in the sense of modification – of the text, both in content and form. Finally, the role of publisher or visibility: this is the publisher’s commitment to a nationwide distribution of works (Noël 2012).
These definitions are not neutral in that they reject other forms of publishing. For example, Guylaine Beaudry (2011), a book historian who has worked on scientific communication and digital technology, points out that it is possible to publish a text without necessarily having edited it. In addition, vanity publishing is excluded from these conceptions of the editorial function.
Finally, in the theories of cultural industries, within the book trade, the publisher is a central industrial player, generally located “at the interface of artistic, technical, financial, reproductive, promotional and commercial activities” (Miège 2000, p. 26). Beyond this interface dimension, the publisher is a central player, because it participates, in one way or another, in each of the activities mentioned, at least where it can exercise responsibility (Miège 2000).
In general, the term “new entrant” refers to any player outside a given sector who chooses to establish itself in that sector. This term is linked to economic analyses and corporate strategy. It is particularly used in Porter’s five forces analysis which was developed in 1979. It is also used in the context of research on cultural industries, in particular analyses of the publishing sector and its developments (Bouquillion 2008; Rouet 2013).
11.2.2. About new entrants
In Rhône-Alpes, 18 scientific editorial structures were identified as part of our field survey. They are all more than 10 years old and were created between 1972 and 2002, and a large part of them were established in the 1970s (seven structures). None of them was created in the context of the production of new forms of publications. They are therefore not new entrants, but rather traditional players in publishing.
A search of the profession’s directories, in particular the annual supplements to the professional journal Livres Hebdo in recent years1, does not reveal the creation of new structures of this type in Rhône-Alpes. The same is true for the directory proposed by the regional book structure in Rhône-Alpes, the Arald2.
However, other structures involved throughout the creative process have emerged in the region. In addition, the heads of editorial structures we met mentioned the players with whom they had recently collaborated (or who had recently approached them) as part of the development of their digital offer. These elements, although not exhaustive, are the first indicators that make it possible to detect some examples of new entrants to scientific publishing.
11.2.3. Some examples of new entrants
Not all of these new entrants are located in Rhône-Alpes. They were identified by looking at professional information and through interviews with publishers in Rhône-Alpes. In the next section, we will see how they interact with publishers in our field.
First, digitalization or digital publishing service providers have been developing for several years, in France and abroad. They work on collections that have already been funded by the publisher (in retrospect), from printed copies or printer files, or support the publication of future titles in order to propose a digital version. It is marketed either by the publisher through their chosen channels or directly by the service provider, who makes it available on their own website. The development of assistance for digitalization by a service provider, proposed by the National Book Centre for several years3, has undoubtedly contributed to the emergence of this type of player.
Second, with the marketing of books in “digital” formats, a whole series of websites have appeared in different countries. The players behind these sites have different positions within the book industry, although they seem to be more downstream at first sight. Some of these players position themselves on the equivalence of traditional functions of the sector. For example, the Eden books platform distributes digital books to resellers. Others, such as Cairn.info, handle several or even all of the downstream activities of the sector, namely distribution and sales. Finally, some have a more global position, taking on a set of tasks from the creation of a digital file to its availability to final audiences. This is the case, for example, with the Persée portal.
Finally, some players are positioning themselves in parallel with – or even as an alternative to – traditional publishers, without performing all the functions of a publisher. These include open archive platforms, of which Hal is an emblematic example in France. These platforms allow for varying degrees of editorialization of content and the emergence of “epi-newspapers”, i.e. journals composed of articles deposited in open archives. Scientific blogging platforms, such as Hypotheses.org, although far from the formal book, represent to some extent an alternative to book publishing.
Generally speaking, the perception of these players as “new entrants” in the scientific publishing sector remains delicate. First, the analysis of the presentation of their activities indicates that they do not assume all the characteristics of the editor function as we have defined. This partly explains why they are not listed in professional directories as publishers.
Second, the positioning of these players is multifold and sometimes unclear regarding the activities they undertake. This makes the attempt to categorize them more difficult and irrelevant, especially if the typology is based on the traditional functions of the book trade. This difficulty seems revealing, as does the status of these players, who are not publishers in the “traditional” sense of the term. On the one hand, the apprehension of new entrants questions the operationality of the analysis criteria based on the traditional vision of the sector. On the other hand, it undoubtedly shows a potential restructuring of the players and the roles they assign to themselves within the sector.
Third, many of these players (such as Lekti, a digital publishing service provider) do not only position themselves in scientific publishing, but also cover a multitude of editorial fields. Others, on the contrary, are specialized in this sector, such as the Persée portal, or even in certain fields such as the human and social sciences, which is the case for OpenEdition.
Finally, the positioning of these new entrants in relation to the traditional players in the sector, in particular publishers, is also very variable. Some (such as Lekti) wish to become service providers or partners of publishers, while others (such as Hal) represent a possible “threat of substitute products or services”, as Michael Porter (1979) refers to them in his model. These are closer to the definition of new entrants, without being publishers in the traditional sense of the word.
The diversity of the positions of these new entrants also raises the question of their relationship with the more traditional players in scientific publishing.
11.3. Legitimacy and interactions with traditional players in Rhône-Alpes
11.3.1. Tendency to circumvent new entrants
Traditional scientific publishers have also taken up the issues related to digital publishing themselves, for both the digitalization of printed material and the marketing of “natively digital” files. Thus, all publishers offering digital books indicated that they carry out these activities internally. Some use conversion software, such as EBK’s Ebook-LR; others have reorganized their publishing chain by adding tools to it to implement structured publishing, as is the case for two structures that have set up the “XML chain” developed within the Caen University Press.
In addition, out of five publishers who digitalized their collections retrospectively, three used external service providers. These were structures specialized in tasks related to digital publishing and the digitalization of holdings such as Lekti and Persée.
Finally, of the 11 structures offering digital works in various forms, five have delegated the distribution and sale of their production to one or more external players. These may be their distributor-retailer for printed works, which also supports digital works (e.g. Harmonia Mundi), or players specialized in this type of product (e.g. OpenEdition Books).
Therefore, in a way, there is a circumvention of new entrants by the identified scientific publishers. These publishers are aware of the existence of many structures that regularly approach them. Beyond the budgetary issues that reduce the possibility of using external service providers, a certain mistrust regarding new entrants emerges in the interviews with these scientific publishers; new entrants sometimes seem unknown and appear to be a confused group.
11.3.2. Legitimacy and collaboration
However, various structures have initiated collaboration with these scientific publishers, including Numédif and its Métopes structure (structure under the University of Caen that offer a structured publishing chain TEI-XML), OpenEdition Books (offering the distribution and marketing of works on their portal, in various ways), Amazon and Google.
The identification and choice of these structures by publishers seems to be based on various forms of legitimacy linked to common values or skills, sometimes mentioned by our interlocutors. We have identified two types, which are not exclusive.
First, a form of legitimacy linked to the positioning of new entrants appears in our interview analyses. Some of the new entrants have engaged in open access logic, in particular Persée and OpenEdition Books. The distribution modalities and business models differ between these two portals, but this commitment is a value shared by several academic publishers.
Then, we have identified a certain legitimacy in the experience and knowledge of traditional book trades. Indeed, a private publisher from our group has chosen to work with Lekti for a retrospective digitalization operation. This publisher did not fully indicate the reasons for this choice, but was satisfied with it. They even continue to solicit this player for technical questions related to digital publishing, but not related to service monitoring or even to the digitalization of collection. To justify this relationship, the publisher insisted on the knowledge that the person in charge of Lekti had of the publishing profession, based on the fact that he came from this profession and he had practiced it for many years.
Finally, we assume another form of legitimacy, which remains to be verified: namely public institutional legitimacy at the national or regional level. Indeed, most of the new entrants mentioned in the interviews receive support or guidance from public institutions: Metopes, OpenEdition and Persée are all national research infrastructures. EBK also seems to have deployed its software in partnership with its Regional Council and its regional book structure, then Languedoc-Roussillon Livre et Lecture (LR2L). The digitalization activity carried out by Lekti was implemented with funding from the CNL; Lekti was probably an approved service provider under this grant. Without being able to conclude definitively on this point, it should be noted that the new entrants that we have interviewed all have close relations with and even come from the publishing or higher education and research worlds.
This trend is also found in almost all of the new entrants interviewed: Persée, whom we mentioned, as well as Hal and Episciences. The latter two are affiliated with the Center for Direct Scientific Communication (CCSD), a joint service unit under the supervision of the CNRS, Inria, the University of Lyon and INRA. Hal and the CCSD are considered as research infrastructures and are taken into account in the national strategy for higher education and research. Hal is not intended to work directly with publishers and is more oriented towards researchers. It represents a way that is parallel with or alternative to traditional publishing. In this sense, this new entrant has succeeded in entering the scientific publishing sector. The Episciences platform seems less developed. It is currently being restructured and hosts 11 journal titles.
A contrary case is particularly evocative. Among the managers of “potential new entrants” with whom we met was someone from Bee Buzziness, who offered dematerialization and rematerialization solutions for documentation. This player has not succeeded in penetrating the scientific publishing sector or other publishing sectors. The reasons given are primarily budgetary. Bee Buzziness does not yet have an economic model adapted to the funding possibilities of higher education and research players, as the cost is still too high. The manager also mentioned a method of designing an editorial production chain that is too different from what is traditionally implemented by publishers. It seems that this player does not have any legitimacy, either in terms of positioning in the book trade or knowledge of the publishing industry. Its managers, including its founder, have no experience in publishing. These are people from the IT and business sectors. The products and services they offer are based on business models that do not take a specific position on open publishing and the dissemination of research results. Finally, this structure has no particular affiliation with a cultural or higher education and research institution.
11.3.3. Particularity of GAFA
Some players that we have not yet mentioned represent a special case in our analysis. Often referred to as GAFA or GAFAM (Smyrnaios 2016), they represent important players in the cultural industry sectors. They have more or less close links with the publishing sector (Robin 2016).
From the point of view of the editors interviewed, eight of them spontaneously mentioned Google, Amazon and, to a lesser extent, Apple. Three publishers consider these companies mainly as “platforms” on which they market their works directly. In addition, these players were mentioned when we discussed the current developments in publishing in our interviews. Google and Amazon are considered both as key players and as threats. On the one hand, these players have such a significant weight that avoiding them is too much of a loss of income, or even impossible. On the other hand, they represent a threat as competitors – in terms of market share – and as partners – due to a possible infringement of publishers’ autonomy.
These cases show that it is, however, possible for some players to enter the scientific publishing sector without showing any sign of particular legitimacy. Access to this sector is based on other strengths, particularly human and financial, which have enabled these companies to take a particular lead on technical developments in publishing and to position themselves ahead of the others. Amazon is also a particular newcomer, since its entry into the publishing industry dates back to the 1990s, before the creation of some of the traditional publishers in our group. At the time, this company was not specifically related to the commercialization of digital works.
11.4. Conclusion
In short, an analysis of activity in the Rhône-Alpes region shows that scientific publishing is a sector that has not seen any new entrants take up residence and perform all the traditional functions of publishing. The new entrants who have been best able to integrate into the sector work in collaboration with traditional publishers. They come from fields close to these publishers and base their legitimacy on common values and knowledge of traditional professions and their challenges. Other players have benefited from their dominant status at the international level to enter this sector.
The selection of publishers is limited to the Rhône-Alpes region. This particularity raises questions about the generalization of the results. However, there are a few leads that seem to confirm the trends identified in our survey. For example, the OpenEdition Books and Persée portals have an increasingly wide range of digital documents and work with a growing number of public and private publishers. Métopes also deploys its structured publishing chain to an increasing number of university publishers in France and abroad (particularly in Latin America).
Our results apply primarily to small publishers, although we are dealing with a sector that also contains the most important editorial structures in the world. For example, new entrants are emerging at the international level, namely “predatory editorial structures” such as the European University Editions. They are outside the scope of our work, but are interesting to take into account as new entrants. To this end, it would be appropriate to extend the field survey to the national level, in order to take into account a wider variety of publishers and interactions with new entrants.
Finally, it would be interesting to extend the characterization of new entrants to publishing and to compare it with possible changes in the publishing profession. It would make it possible to see to what extent the arrival of new entrants into the sector is changing the attributes defining the publishing profession within the book sector.
11.5. References
Beaudry, G. (2008). La communication scientifique et le numérique. Hermès-Lavoisier, Paris.
Bouquillion, P. (2008). Les industries de la culture et de la communication : les stratégies du capitalisme. Presses universitaires de Grenoble, Grenoble.
Miège, B. (2000). Les industries de contenu face à l’ordre informationnel. Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, Grenoble.
Miège, B. (2017). Les industries culturelles et créatives face à l’ordre de l’information et de la communication. Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, Grenoble.
Mollier, J.-Y. (2005). Naissance de la figure de l’éditeur. In Figures de l’éditeur, Legendre, B. and Robin, C. (eds). Nouveau Monde Éditions, Paris, 13–24.
Noël, S. (2012). L’édition critique indépendante : engagements politiques et intellectuels. Presses de l’Enssib, Villeurbanne.
Porter, M. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, March–April, 137–145. Available at: https://hbr.org/1979/03/how-competitive-forces-shape-strategy.
Robin, C. (2016). Les livres dans l’univers numérique, 2nd edition. La Documentation française, Paris.
Rouet, F. (2013). Le livre : une filière en danger ?, 4th edition. La Documentation française, Paris.
Smyrnaios, N. (2017). Les GAFAM contre l’Internet : une économie politique du numérique. Ina, Paris.
Chapter written by Édith LAVIEC.
- 1 Livres Hebdo magazine offers annual supplements, including directories listing publishers and book service providers present in France. See the 2016 Yearbook of the Livres Hebdo edition, supplement to No. 1051 of August 28, 2015, and the 2016 Yearbook of Livres Hebdo service providers, supplement to No. 1061 of November 6, 2015.
- 2 Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes Livre et Lecture (n. d.). Annuaire éditeurs. Available at: https://auvergnerhonealpes-livre-lecture.org/annuaires/editeurs (accessed July 6, 2018).
- 3 This material was implemented in part to provide an alternative to Google’s digitalization project (Robin 2016).