1. Aimee Dewar 1
MAPU713 – Publishing Processes Report
INK Journal 2016
INK Journal is a student-led, yearly publication that is run as part of the English and Creative Writing (ECW)
Department at Plymouth University. The journal is an anthology of poetry, short fiction, creative nonfiction and
artwork, including illustration and photography, and functions as a free resource that is used to market the MA
and BA (Hons) English and Creative Writing courses, as well as the wider School of Humanities and Performing
Arts, at University open days for prospective students. It also functions as a volunteer project for current students at
the University; the editorial team is made up of both undergraduates and postgraduates from a variety of
courses. My role on the project was General Editor and team leader. The brief was to commission and collate
creative writing and artwork submissions from the Plymouth University student body with the view to producing a
small-run print and online – i.e., web-based in the form of a website and PDF version of the print product –
specialist creative journal, published by the University of Plymouth Press (UPP), with the delivery date of 11th
May 2016.
In the Dictionary of Publishing and Production, a journal is defined as simplistically as ‘a specialist
magazine’ (Collins, 2006, p. 144), a characteristic that reflects INK’s specialism in creative writing and visual
art. Additionally, they are headed by an editor, or team of editors or board members, and content is generated by
a number of contributors via a call for submissions (Intellect, 2016). INK, though not circulated through usual
routes of journal distribution or bookselling known in academic publishing for instance, is a publication that is
produced through making use of many typical publishing processes related to book and journals, such as the
practices mentioned above. However, some elements were not necessary to include as part of INK’s route to
publication, such as a focus on sales. For instance, as a free resource that is used as a marketing tool for the
University and that benefits student volunteers with editorial experience, INK is not easily comparable to other
publications that create a profit for the organisation or publishing house through direct sales or subscriptions, as
is the usual purchasing method for journals (Smith, 2012, p. 56). However, a budget from the School of Humanities
and Performing Arts was available for all aspects of the project, from production to marketing and promotion,
including the product’s launch party, where the title would first become available and put into circulation. Therefore,
while generating a direct profit is not the main concern of the publication, managing and working within a set
budget remained a key element of my role.

2. Aimee Dewar 2
Journals can also be termed as a format through which to present mainly academic writing and that
makes explicit use of digital publishing methods and online-focused business models in particular to circulate to
readers (Smith, 2012, p. 145). For journals, the role of the Internet has been pivotal; because of this change ‘the
publishing process [has been] made more seamless, as the tools used to produce the articles are fundamentally
the same as those which create the differentiated products and services downstream, [such as] the new sales
models and targeted marketing techniques’ (McCartan, 2010, pp. 239 – 40). The changing identity of journals,
and the consciousness that publishers are developing in regards to areas such as Open Access (Norwood, 2015),
have caused them to become increasingly digitally aware products in terms of production, distribution and
marketing. As such, and despite its unconventional status, INK 2016 made use of a digital journal, social media
marketing campaigns, employed editorially styled content such as a featured artist spread, and was a project
largely focused around sourcing content from various authors, poets and artists in a mass call for contributions.
From the outset of this project, it was necessary to combine traditional publishing methods with digital technologies,
such as by generating a comprehensive online presence for INK as well as our efforts to digitise and make
available our website past editions of the journal, caused us to use and brand INK as a more fully engaging
product for its desired audience.
Taking on an existing product such as INK posited both advantages and limitations in terms of my role
and expectations of the project. My initial research was guided by the journal’s existing reputation, brand and
the strategies that were previously used to bring INK to publication. It was beneficial to have these resources,
such as handover notes from the previous General Editor (see Appendix 1), to draw upon to develop the 2016
issue; not only did they enable me to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the project as a whole in terms of
the output, they also caused me to assess the ways in which each individual element had previously contributed
towards the success of the publication. In turn, this data allowed me to strive to build on and improve the
product, a notion that influenced my initial investigations.
This benefit was matched by the knowledge of some members of the editorial team who had seen
previous incarnations of INK or had been involved in the editorial process of earlier editions. During our first
editorial meeting that formed part of my initial research, team members were able to raise any suggestions
concerns with immediacy, allowing for a quick analysis of the limitations and goals of the project from the
outset (Velickovic, 2013) and judgements to be made (Balkwill and Davies, 2011, p. 89). In terms of my role, it

3. Aimee Dewar 3
was essential that, as a team leader and project manager, I was ‘assertive and confident in [my] decisions by
basing them on evidence and considered discussions’ (2013). These initial discussions aimed to enhance the
existing brand of INK and are exemplary of the ‘crucial … groundwork’ (2013) required to make informed
decisions regarding how the output was to be planned and realised. This was especially important due to the
need to first create a visual brand for INK 2016 to then inform the content creation from our contributing authors
and artists with our call for submissions. According to Smith, the typified workflow of a publishing project begins
with content creation, publication and finally delivery (2012, p. 133). In terms of INK, the processes preceding
the content creation were multiple and, for this reason, initial research was fundamental.
As a result, initial team discussions highlighted the need for separate call for submissions campaigns
for creative writing and artwork respectively (see Appendix 2, Item 3), a viewpoint proposed by team members
who had witnessed the combined call for submissions prior to INK 2016 and were dissatisfied with the involvement
artists and photographers had with the publication in the past. To combat this issue, and to initially increase the
amount of art submissions (see Appendix 2, Item 3), we created two poster campaigns that were also printed
into flyers and shared on our social media pages (see Appendix 3). In turn, the journal was able to develop as a
more visually cohesive product. The flyers enabled us to identify clear goals for each of the submissions: for
instance, the artwork to be produced on a commission basis to correspond with and compliment our selected
written content. By isolating these goals from the outset, we were able to generate a strong visual brand that
generated over 70 written submissions and over 50 artist contributions in total – with eleven eventually created
to marry together with written pieces.
However, elements such as pre-existing expectations and guidelines from the ECW Department posed
limitations to the project. For example, by choosing to adopt key elements of the production schedule from
previous years, I neglected to adapt it to fit the new 2016 timeline and, as a result, its structure became restrictive.
As can be seen from Appendix 4, our initial schedule, based on the notes I received from the ECW Department,
we were due to have a first call for submissions beginning in December 2015 with a second call in February
2016. This practice had remained a constant across past editions of INK and, for this reason, was an element of
the schedule I initially saw no reason to alter. However, towards the end of February, it became clear that enough
time could not be allocated for a second call for submissions to be announced before the arrival of the early
Easter break (25th
March – 18th
April) and our planned print-ready date of 6th
April. As digital publishing

4. Aimee Dewar 4
pioneer Alison Jones argues, there is an ever-increasing need for publishers to be ‘agile’ (2015a) in order to
determine a project’s success, ‘a commitment to testing and evaluating at every step, [and] a willingness to
pivot’ (Jones, 2015a), adapting as we are met with new challenges. Whilst not always considered as positive or
containing low risk (Jones, 2015a), innovating and calling into question the pre-existing, tried and tested schedule
at the research stages of the project could have avoided a significant change of planning at a later stage. However,
this alteration did not impact the publication process as a whole or cause it fail; ‘understanding the difference
between experimental (a.k.a. beneficial) failure and the catastrophic kind is key […] to encourage innovation’
(Faherty, 2016) and subsequently benefit the publication in the future. Indeed, to overcome this issue I chose to
coordinate an extended deadline campaign (see Appendix 6) and create an amended schedule for INK in a new
move away from the organisation of previous years.
In terms of production, my role of General Editor can be seen to most likely collate with commissioning.
It is one that requires a creative ‘vision’ (Vassilopoulos, 2016) for a product that is essentially produced by authors
and artists who have contributed to the project (Balkwill and Davies, 2011, p. 52) as well as the overall responsibility
to decide what gets published in the final journal to most successfully fulfil this vision (2011, p. 53). For instance,
as part of a collection of works, each element of INK 2016 had to be carefully commissioned to match the existing
quality of the journal’s reputation as well as the standards I had set for the project. As a consequence, my role
also entailed elements of project management and leadership such as managing the editorial team (2011, p. 85)
as well as negotiating with authors in the editing process once their work was selected (2011, p. 78).
As such, I was required ‘to be a good people person’ (Vassilopoulos, 2016) and my communication
with the editorial team and external suppliers paramount to my success (Ugolini, 2015). In addition to face-to-
face team meetings, I chose to achieve this by connecting the INK team virtually via a Facebook group to increase
the ease in which the group could communicate. As Velickovic states, ‘Technology is your friend […] Even
something as simple as a private Facebook group […] will help your group stay on top of things when you can’t
physically meet’ (2013). As can be seen from the actualised production schedule (Appendix 5), meetings were
sparse as gathering the team together at regular intervals proved difficult. Employing social media as an online
‘hub’ (Balkwill and Davies, 2011, p. 173) for the editorial team proved helpful to post regular updates, distribute
minutes from team meetings and to inform and remind the group about any forthcoming action they needed to
take, and to check progress. The ability to communicate with the team on a daily basis and without having to

5. Aimee Dewar 5
assemble physically was beneficial to the pace at which the project could be run. Without frequent communication,
each editor’s independent objectives could not be realistically managed nor any amends or later aims be generated
with ease. For instance, the social media editors had changing goals throughout the course of the journal’s production
in terms of what we were promoting. By allowing means for regular virtual communication, we were able to be
‘reflective and critical’ (Velickovic, 2013) at all stages of the project – even when meetings were not scheduled
– and create tailored goals that could be more easily be achieved when introduced and set at regular intervals.
Communication, therefore, played a significant role in how well I was able to execute my production
schedule. In addition to initial team discussions, consistent communication throughout the project would help
ensure the successful and timely delivery of each element of the process leading up to the journal’s launch and
control of the project’s vertical integration (Smith, 2012, p. 60). However, this was not always possible and, at
points, slippage (Smith, 2012, p. 134) did occur as a result. For Smith, time is a critical element of the project
management process when scheduling the production process: ‘Construct the production schedule backwards
from the publication date decided […] taking all the various milestones into account’ (2012, p. 132). A key
milestone for INK was the delivery of the promotional materials to begin our call for submissions campaign,
originally proposed to begin in December 2015 (see Appendix 4).
However, as can be seen from our realised schedule (Appendix 5), this was delayed until the 11th
January 2016. A lapse of communication with the design editors over the Christmas break resulted in a later
delivery of the visual call for submission materials to upload to our social media platforms and online journal.
As ‘the design and production schedule dovetails with the editorial schedule’ (Smith, 2012, p. 132), this setback
would have a subsequent effect on the later stages of the process, for instance the collating and editing of the
submissions. As a result, the span of time wherein our submissions could be gathered became limited and applied
pressure to our production schedule and our publication date. However, just enough time was allowed due to
some flexibility worked into the schedule. The use of contingencies in scheduling and project controlling is not
always favoured in publishing (Balkwill and Davies, 2011, p. 181), as ‘adding a bit of leeway’ can lead to a ‘false
sense of confidence’ and a ‘lackadaisical approach’ (2011, p. 181) to the schedule from some members of the
supply chain (Smith, 2012, p. 132). Indeed, it can be seen that by intending for flexibility can cause the delivery
of work so be completed by the last possible deadline and, due to inconsistencies in communication, I did not
effectively manage the situation by allowing earlier deadlines to be missed and slippage to come into play.

6. Aimee Dewar 6
In regards to the editorial process, the content for INK Journal 2016 was created through a shortlisting
process during workshops with the editorial team, including the editors in charge of each genre and the two
associate editors. Following the formation of our shortlist, my established editorial process was informed by
what can be seen as usual procedures in the publishing industry: revising and preparing content for the product,
final sign off and launch (Smith, 2012, p. 108). This process was coupled with my working with the design
editors on elements such as the design concept, creating the design template and subsequently dropping our
content into this outline (2012, p. 108). In addition, I liaised with the Document Production Centre (DPC) to
generate a timeline for printing as well as an initial quote for the work subsequent to them creating an estimate
price (2012, p. 109). Managing these elements in combination with one another established my editorial,
organisational and leadership skills. Overall, it was my ability to monitor the performance of all of these aspects
against our proposed schedule that would determine the outcome of the project (2012, p. 109).
As a consequence, I was fully ingratiated in all elements of editorial production and design. I believe
that working closely with the designers improved elements of the product especially in terms of its brand and
purpose for the ECW Department to showcase the project as a creative part of Plymouth University’s student
output. This was actualised by the designers’ early involvement in generating the call for submissions campaign,
meaning they were an ‘integral’ (O’Rourke, 2016) component and ultimately able to ‘add value’ to the project
as a whole (O’Rourke, 2016). This was due to the establishment of INK’s visual brand, through the materials
used on our social media and website such as banners and graphically designed images (see Appendix 7), ahead
of the design of the print journal. In turn, the designers were able to impact upon my initial objectives for INK; a
strong online presence, an increasingly important aspect of publishing (O’Rourke, 2016), and improved visibility
around campus (see Appendix 2, Item 2).
However, more could have been achieved in terms of fully integrating INK’s design in the realm of
digital publishing. Though attempts were made to digitise some past editions of the journal (specifically 2011
and 2012, with 2015 already in PDF and e-magazine formats) by creating PDF downloads (Smith, 2012, p. 145)
and adding these to an archive on our website, INK Journal is yet not a fully realised e-publication. Myself and
my web editor, as well as the design editors on a separate occasion, liaised with the UPP to discuss options to
create INK as an EPUB (Jones, 2015b) document at the same time as coordinating our print-quality PDF and, as
such, building the digital process into our existing print requirements, in keeping with the current organisation

7. Aimee Dewar 7
of some parts of the industry: ‘Our digital program does not reside in a separate “new media department” but is
spread across the entire [company]’ (Wallace in Smith, 2012, p. 148). However, towards the end of the process
decisions were reached to miss out this step in the publishing chain. Despite its benefits, creating the EPUB file
was not achievable with the limited production schedule in terms of timing and meeting our strict deadlines in
order to obtain a print version of the journal in time for the product’s launch.
The potential benefits of directing INK down the e-publishing route would have been vast for the project
and, in turn, the University and its students; for instance, raising the profile of the journal and making it more
readily available for students – and potential students – across campus, nationwide or even globally, such as
exchange students interested in studying within the ECW Department. Additionally, taking INK’s initial small
print run of 500 copies into account, making the journal available to download onto e-readers for personal
access (Smith, 2012, p. 145) would increase the journal’s audience reach without having to incur large, additional
costs for further print runs (£1253 for 500 copies and £69 per extra 100 copies as quoted by the DPC via email,
13 April 2016, see Appendix 8). Furthermore, the project’s aim was to create a publication, from inception to
delivery, following key elements of the publishing process. By omitting e-publishing from the project, it can be
argued that a significant aspect of the realisation of INK 2016 was missed. For instance, in order for INK to have
become a more widely discoverable (Broad, 2015) entity one must correspond the ISBN to an e-product’s
metadata on, for example, Amazon (discussion with Paul Honeywill, UPP, 2016). Yet, the PDF downloads we
employed to generate an online version of the journal are able to achieve the simplistic goal of allowing the journal
to be viewed and read online, with the potential for students to locate the journal on the ECW’s page on the
Plymouth University website. This function of the journal as a basic online-accessible product can be seen as
sufficient for its purposes for marketing the University despite it’s limitations for INK 2016 as a publishing
project that is accurately reflective of the changeable and forward-thinking industry in which it is situated,
where e-publishing elements such as interactivity are increasingly discussed thanks to new developments in
EPUB3 and HTML5 (Smith, 2012, p. 154 and Jones, 2015).
The project management and editorial responsibilities I had as General Editor of INK 2016 were most
positively influenced by elements such as communication, strong design and close attention to time restraints
after initial setbacks, allowing all elements to be delivered on time and the project to be successfully completed.
However, the project could have been enhanced beyond what was achieved by myself and the editorial team,

8. Aimee Dewar 8
thus creating a project that involved many more complex processes that would have ultimately increased the
journal’s relationship with wider issues in publishing, such as the inclusion of digital publishing and the creation
of a legitimate e-product. Furthermore, corresponding to the nature of INK as a student volunteer project that
also markets study at the University, this additional element would have included the learning and implementing
of skills that would later become applicable to the potential careers of the students involved, especially those
who are interested in pursuing digital publishing or cross-media products. Though my realisation of the project
was successful and met the brief set by the ECW Department, innovating within the parameters of the project
would have resulted in a product that could be seen to aptly react and respond to the current fluctuations in the
industry, whereby digital is pushed to the forefront and fully expanded.

9. Aimee Dewar 9
Bibliography and References
Balkwill, R. and Davies, G., 2011. The Professionals’ Guide to Publishing: A practical introduction to working
in the publishing industry. London: Kogan Page.
Baverstock, A., 2008. How To Market Books. [e-book] 4th
ed. London: Kogan Page. Available through:
MyiLibrary <http://lib.myilibrary.com/Open.aspx?id=122887&src=0> [Accessed on 18 Mar 2016].
Belbin, R M., 2010. Management Teams: Why they succeed or fail. 3rd
ed. London: Elsevier.
Broad, M., 2015. Book publicity: trade vs. academic publishing [online]. Available at: https://bookmachine.org/
2015/11/16/book-publicity-trade-vs-academic-publishing/ [Accessed 31 March 2016].
Collins, 2006. Dictionary of Publishing and Printing. [ebook]. 3rd
ed. London: A&C Black Business
Information and Development. Available through: MyiLibrary <http://lib.myilibrary.com/Open.aspx?id=
45889&src=0> [Accessed on 22 Mar 2016].
Document Production Centre (DPC), documentproductioncentre@plymouth.ac.uk, Kevin Earl,
kevin.earl@plymouth.ac.uk, 2016. INK – go to print [email]. Aimee Dewar, aimee.dewar1604@ gmail.com.
Date sent: 13 April 2016, 16:31.
Faherty, A., 2016. #publishingfail: We need to talk about failure [online]. Available at: https://bookmachine.
org/2016/01/07/publishingfail-we-need-to-talk-about-failure/ [Accessed 16 March 2016].
Honeywill, P, 2016. Discussions regarding INK as an e-product. [conversation] (Personal communication, 22
February 2016).
Intellect, 2016. Journal Index [online]. Available at: http://www.intellectbooks.co.uk/journals/index/ [Accessed
30 March 2016].
Jones, A., 2015a. The art of maximising the amount of work not done [online]. Available at: https://book
machine.org/2015/07/22/the-art-of-maximising-the-amount-of-work-not-done/ [Accessed 4 March 2016].
Jones, A., 2015b. Picturing the Future of the Book. Available at: https://bookmachine.org/2015/08/05/picturing-
the-future-of-the-book/ [Accessed 12 April 2016].
Kerzner, H. R., 2013. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and Controlling. 11th
ed. Hoboken: Wiley.
McCartan, P., 2010. Journals and the Production of Knowledge: A Publishing Perspective. British Journal of
Political Science, [online] 40 (2). Available at: Cambridge Journals http://journals.cambridge.org.plymouth.idm.
oclc.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&pdftype=1&fid=7604020&jid=JPS&volumeId=40&issueId=02&aid=76
04012 [Accessed 3 Mar 2016].
Myers, N., 2016. On being an assistant editor: Kate Ellis interview [online]. Available at: https://book
machine.org/2016/03/30/on-being-an-assistant-editor-kate-ellis-interview/ [Accessed April 2 2016].
Norwood, A., 2015. Making the Big Move to Open Access Publishing [online]. Available at: https://book
machine.org/2015/10/01/making-the-big-move-to-open-access-publishing/ [Accessed 12 March 2016].

10. Aimee Dewar 10
O’Rourke, S., 2016. Why design matters: Collaborating with your designers [online]. Available at: https://
bookmachine.org/2016/01/28/why-design-matters-collaborating-with-your-designers/ [Accessed 28 March
2016].
Perkins, S., 2016. Leadership in creative industries: 10 things we learned at #Quantum16 [online]. Available at:
https://bookmachine.org/2016/04/13/leadership-creative-industries-10-things-learned-quantum16/ [Accessed 14
April 2016].
Smith, K., 2012. The Publishing Business: from p-books to e-books. Switzerland: AVA Publishing.
Striphas, T., 2011. The Late Age of Print: Everyday Book Culture from Consumerism to Control [e-book] New
York: Columbia University Press. Available through: MyiLibrary <http://lib.myilibrary.com/Open.aspx?id=30
9398&src=0> [Accessed 15 April 2016].
Ugolini, S., 2015. 3 Lessons I Learned From Organising a Publishing Conference [online]. Available at:
https://bookmachine.org/2015/03/31/3-lessons-i-learned-from-organising-a-publishing-conference/ [Accessed
2 March 2016].
Vassilopoulos, M., 2016. My Job In 5; Miles Salter, Writer and Director, York Literature Festival [online].
Available at: http://www.thebookseller.com/careersjobs/my-job-5-miles-salter-writer-and-director-york-
literature-festival-326127 [Accessed 2 April 2016].
Velickovik, I., 2013. Navigating the Collaborative Whirlpool: Five Tips for Gliding Through Challenging
Publishing Projects [online]. Available at: https://bookmachine.org/2013/06/05/ navigating-the-collaborative-
whirlpool-five-tips-for-gliding-through-challenging-publishing-projects/ [Accessed 13 March 2016].