Report of the Consultative Committee
National Occupational Standards Review and Scoping of Project to Incorporate Journals Publishers
Monday 8th December, 2.00pm at Macmillan, Crinan Street.
Committee Members:
John Whitley - Publishing Skills Council
Nick Evans - The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
David Bull - Palgrave Macmillan
Claire Bird - Oxford Journals
Janet Dean - Royal Society of Chemistry
Leon Heward-Mills - Thomas Telford Publishers
(Claire Bird and Janet Dean were unable to be present at the first meeting but have contributed to the content of the subsequent report.)
Purpose of the meeting
To examine the National Occupational Standards for Book Publishing and assess:
- Their suitability for journals publishers
- The scope of the required changes
- The most appropriate format for presentation in future
Introduction
National Occupational Standards (NOS) have been designed to help employees to identify what they need to know, and what they should be able to do, to perform their jobs effectively. The Standards can therefore be used as checklists for required competencies, for building appraisal systems and training plans, even for writing job descriptions and recruitment advertisements. The Publishing National Occupational Standards are freely available as downloadable word documents from The Publishing Training Centre website or from Skillset.
Following a recent review and upgrade of the Publishing NOS the need to revise them to take account of the particular nature of Journals Publishing was highlighted. A plan to scope the project was agreed with The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, who endorsed the proposal, and Skillset approved a budget. A consultative committee was formed to examine the NOS and report on the need for change and the scope of the required changes.
Why is journals publishing different?
The process is significantly different at several points. Content is normally submitted to the Journals publisher by authors without payment and a professional or peer review process is required to establish credibility/validity. This has implications for the way commissioning is handled, and rights and contracts will also be different. It may also highlight the issue of publishing ethics and potential conflicts of interest. It was felt that the distinction between the editorial management and production processes as described in the existing Publishing NOS was much more blurred than in traditional book publishing, though it was acknowledged that this was also changing for books. Editorial control, the role of the editorial/ownership Boards, their responsibilities and relationships with editors also tended to differ. Indeed relationships in general, with external academic editors, authors, owners, librarians and referees would differ significantly from parallel situations within book publishing. There were no elements covering production tracking and control. Aspects of account management and customer service/support also differed widely, partly because of the subscription nature of the service. Certainly sales and marketing had moved on with Web 2, podcasting, social communities and viral marketing becoming more prevalent. This is also the case for books but was missing from the NOS altogether.
It was recognised that, in general, books are developed individually whereas journals are usually distinct brands into which the content is poured. Journal brands are managed and developed by the publisher on an ongoing basis, in order to evolve with the market. Content is more easily deconstructed and can be distributed differently to books, though again there is evidence of this happening to books also. Timelines for publication will vary significantly, and the product life-cycle should also be considered.
Some differences in terminology were noted, especially around the distinction between the editor and the publisher. It was felt that a separate glossary of terms might help to cover this.
Scope and Format of the Required Changes
Whilst there were many parallels with book publishing, it was felt that it would be a mistake to present the required changes as additions to the existing “books” content. Because of the different nature of journals publishing it was proposed that a new approach should be adopted, driven by workflow rather than specific job functions, and that it should be possible to map the workflow to improve accessibility. It was felt that this approach would also benefit the original document next time changes are due. It was suggested that the revised NOS for Journals publishers could be mapped back to the original document without great difficulty. Because some terminology was used differently it would be important to add a glossary. It was felt that this approach would, to some extent, future-proof the document and make it both relevant and accessible.
Next Steps
After review by the committee this report will be posted to The Publishing Training Centre website , the Publishing Skills Council Website and the ALPSP website for wider industry consultation. In January 2009 a final report will be composed and sent to Skillset for consideration. If the proposals are accepted plans will then be drawn up to develop a revised set of NOS for Journals Publishers.
To comment on these proposals please email your thoughts to john@bookhouse.co.uk or call him on 020 8874 2718 no later than 6th January 2009.