1.2 Participants

The most crucial participants in the system of scholarly publication in art history are scholars, university presses, libraries, museums, and readers. This section introduces their various and overlapping roles, interests, and concerns; Lawrence T. McGill’s report The State of Scholarly Publishing in the History of Art and Architecture contains fuller accounts of our private conversations and group discussions involving junior and senior scholars, publishers, and representatives of libraries and museums.

Junior and senior scholars

As the main producers and readers of art historical publications, scholars identified numerous concerns inthe course of our study. Junior scholars (defined as untenured or recently tenured faculty) and senior scholars (defined as scholarswho have had tenure in leading research institutions for some time) share these interests to different degrees.

Scholars consulted in our study focused on the following concerns.

• Tensions between the requirements of scholarship and the requirements of publishers.
• The relative values of different genres of scholarly publication, both with respect to advancing the field and withrespect to tenure and promotion.
• The costs of publication in the field of art and architectural history.
• Understanding the challenges facing "art history publishing" in comprehensive terms and finding solutions, including moreeffective ways of mobilizing and accessing digital resources.

Ad 1 . Scholars, particularly at the junior level, detail experiences and perceptions that academic presseditors, in seeking to broaden the appeal of their titles in trans- or interdisciplinary ways, ask for shorter manuscripts and changesthat may affect the scholarly contribution in undesirable ways without necessarily becoming more marketable. Junior scholars alsoexpress concerns about a lack of transparency in the process of obtaining a contract and of the functions of peer review. Seniorscholars are concerned that peer review is rarely followed up effectively and that it has something of a rubber-stampfunction.

Ad 2 . Senior as well as junior scholars note that Ph.D. dissertations, formerly one of the major sources ofmonographs, have less of a chance of getting published by university presses without serious revisions of the kind describedabove. Some senior scholars remark, however, that dissertations are now so narrowly focused that many would not make for very goodbooks, and some try to steer their students’ dissertations in such a way that the product is effectively a book-length argument ratherthan an accumulation of data. All the same, scholars noted that the production and dissemination of such dissertation data remainsvital to the health of the discipline. Scholars at all levels would like to ensure that the full range of dissertation research isdisseminated effectively in monographic as well as other forms.

Given an apparent retrenchment in monograph publication, scholars generally wish for promotion and tenurecommittees to acknowledge that other genres of art historical publication may make equally distinguished and transformativecontributions to the discipline. Some emerging fields appear to have fewer monograph publication opportunities available to them,and they may be driven more strongly by exhibitions or articles. Many scholars bemoan the relative devaluation in the credentialingprocess of the peer-reviewed article, noting its timely, cutting-edge, and thoroughly vetted character. Senior scholarsrecall that a series of such articles in the past constituted grounds for tenure and promotion, and that they may nurture thediscipline in ways that are as essential as longer monographs. They recommend a revaluation of the scholarly article based on adissertation chapter. Scholars also note that museum publications inherently command the larger audiences so sought after bypresses.