Palgrave Macmillan commissioned surveys to understand researcher behaviors and needs. The surveys found that researchers want more options for publishing work between journal article and monograph length. A majority agreed a mid-length publication format would be good and would consider publishing in it. In response, Palgrave Macmillan launched palgrave}pivot, publishing works between 25,000-50,000 words within 12 weeks of acceptance. Over 1,200 researchers provided feedback that informed palgrave}pivot's development to better serve the academic community.

1. Background
Palgrave Macmillan commissioned surveys of over 1,200 Humanities and Social
Sciences researchers from around the world to better understand consumption
behaviors.
The surveys explored several factors:
„ Research and reading habits
„ Ease of identifying and accessing academic content
„ Keeping up-to-date with news and opinion in your field
„ Thoughts on publication format
palgrave}pivot: Breaking Boundaries
Speed of Production – the average production time for a title is 9 weeks.
SportingTimes by Kath Woodward published in just 5 weeks.
Length of Publications – the average page count for a palgrave}pivot title
is 134 pages.
Number of titles – palgrave}pivot launched in October 2012 with 21 titles
across the Humanities and Social Sciences. Many more titles are due to
publish throughout 2013.
Open Access
Palgrave Macmillan recently announced a new Open Access program
across all publication formats: palgrave}pivot titles, journal articles and
monographs.
With Palgrave Open, Palgrave Macmillan is taking the lead in responding
to the academic community’s request for an alternative publishing model
to sit alongside traditional methods.
History of Publication Formats
Some key statistics:
„ Most scholarly print books are published between 70 - 110,000 words, most journal articles are between 7,000 and 8,000 words in length
„ Publishers have to balance the costs of publishing the book (editing, typesetting, printing etc.) with the perceived value of the book, which is often associated with
the length
„ Traditional timing from manuscript to publication to market availability had to take into account not just editing, but printing, shipping, and the cataloging and
purchasing schedules of booksellers
The evolution of digital publishing means that these limitations no longer exist. Why not publish at the natural length of the research?
Emerging technology means that works can be published on increasingly fast schedules, which means research gets to the scholars who need it sooner.
palgrave}pivot Overview
palgrave}pivot breaks down the boundaries of academic publishing by enabling authors to publish their research at lengths between that of a journal article and a scholarly
monograph.
Publishing within 12 weeks of acceptance after full peer-review, new research will reach the market quickly for greater impact.
Projects published with palgrave}pivot are:
„ focused on new and important research
„ at lengths between a typical journal article and a scholarly monograph, in the region of 25-50 thousand words
„ both authored or edited collections
Published digitally, titles are available to libraries through their library supplier or via Palgrave Connect. They are also offered as print editions or as ebooks for individuals.
Survey Results and Highlights
Research and reading habits
„ Most respondents are satisfied with the quantity and quality of literature
within their field, however 60% said that they wished they could be more
up-to-date
„ Working papers and conference papers were the formats that were most
likely to be read online. Monographs were most likely to be read in print.
Articles were the format that the greatest proportion (38%) said they read
online and in print equally
Ease of identifying and accessing academic content
„ Almost 2/3 said that purchases ‘always’ or ‘usually’ come from library
budgets and only 16% had purchasing authority
„ Only 15% of respondents said that they ‘never’ spend their personal funds
on academic literature
„ More than half (58%) of respondents said that in the past year, there has
been content that they would have liked to have accessed but were unable
to due to budgetary restrictions
Keeping up-to-date with news and opinions
„ All content types were considered to be useful (research articles,
monographs, chapters of monographs, working papers and conference
papers) by at least half of respondents. Review articles received the most
positive response, with 93% finding them useful
„ While most were satisfied with the volume of news and opinion content
available, 1/4 of respondents would like to see more news content and
editorials
View on publishing formats
„ 58% of those surveyed responded that they ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’
that it would be a good idea to have a mid-length publication format
„ Of those plus those that were indifferent, 84% said that they were ‘likely’
or ‘quite likely’ to considered publishing in this new format
„ For articles, over 2/3 (64%) were of the view that they are generally about
the right length, with those who disagreed tending to feel that they are a
little too long
„ For monographs, a smaller proportion (50%) felt they were around the
right length and again, those who disagreed tended to feel that they are a
little too long
Conclusion
The results of these surveys show us that the market would welcome an
alternative format for publishing scholarly research.
In December 2011 Palgrave Macmillan announced a new digital initiative
that breaks free from the restrictions of traditional scholarly publishing,
palgrave}pivot.
Publishing across the Humanities, the Social Sciences and Business,
palgrave}pivot introduces an innovative new format for scholarly research.
Designed to liberate scholarship from the straitjacket of traditional formats
and business models, palgrave}pivot allows us to deliver quality new
research rapidly, and at its natural length.
What Next – continuing to break boundaries
By listening to the feedback from the academic surveys, Palgrave Macmillan
has been able to develop its products and services according to what the
market needs. The launch of palgrave}pivot offers an alternative format for
publishing scholarly research. The introduction of an Open Access program
across all publication formats strengthens Palgrave Macmillan’s commitment
to liberating scholarship from traditional formats and business models.
Our aim is to continue to break boundaries in 2013 and beyond.
What boundaries still exist in the publishing and
research communities, and how can we remove them?
Breaking Boundaries in Scholarly Publishing:
Endorsements for palgrave}pivot
The announcement of palgrave}pivot has been received with overwhelming
support from the academic and research communities:
palgrave}pivot meets a need for timely research in the digital world. The
Humanists and Social Sciences have been left behind in the immediacy of
published research and palgrave}pivot should be a great innovation to meet
the needs of 21st century students and researchers in these fields. As we know,
‘speed’ and ‘innovation’ are key in the current world of scholarly research.
Jane Fitzpatrick, Acquisitions Librarian, CUNY Graduate Center, USA
Insight in context: That’s the promise of this new format.
- Garett Jones, Department of Economics, George Mason University, USA
The artificial difficulty of publishing work that is longer than a conventional
article and shorter than a book has been an anomaly for many years.
Bridging this gap is an excellent idea, and I congratulate Palgrave Macmillan
on a concept whose time has come and was indeed long overdue.
- John Walton, Research Professor, Basque Foundation for Science, Spain
Selected Titles
From October 2012 to the end of April 2013 palgrave}pivot has published
47 titles, including:
G. Douglas Atkins, T.S. Eliot Materialized: Literal Meaning and EmbodiedTruth
Martin Barker, LiveToYour LocalCinema:The Remarkable Rise of Livecasting
Arthur Asa Berger, Media, Myth, and Society
Hamid Dabashi, Being a Muslim in theWorld
David Elliott, Fukushima: Impacts and Implications
Steve Fuller, Preparing for Life in Humanity 2.0
Ioannis N. Grigoriadis, Instilling Religion inGreek andTurkish Nationalism: A
“Sacred Synthesis”
Akira Iriye, Global andTransnational History:The Past, Present, and Future
Christos Lynteris, The Spirit of Selflessness in MaoistChina: Socialist Medicine and
the New Man
Henry Rosemont Jr, A Reader’sCompanion to theConfucianAnalects
Joel Wainwright,Geopiracy:Oaxaca, Militant Empiricism, andGeographicalThought
Kath Woodward, SportingTimes
Maria-Ionela Neagu, Decoding Political Discourse:Conceptual Metaphors and
Argumentation
Peter Taylor-Gooby,The DoubleCrisis of theWelfare State andWhatWeCan Do
About It
Joel Gwynne, Erotic Memoirs and Postfeminism:The Politics of Pleasure
Frank Furedi, MoralCrusades in anAge of Mistrust:The Jimmy Savile Scandal
Rodanthi Tzanelli,OlympicCeremonialism andThe Performance of National
Character: From London 2012 to Rio 2016
Niranjan Ramakrishnan, ReadingGandhi in theTwenty-FirstCentury
Tore Bjørgo, Strategies for PreventingTerrorism
Many more titles publishing later in 2013 and beyond…
Q: In the past 12 months, has there been any
content that you have wanted to access but
have been unable to due to departmental or
institutional budgetary restrictions?
More than half (58%) of respondents said that in
the past year, there has been content that they
would have liked to have accessed but were unable
to due to budgetary restrictions.
Q: Assuming a reputable scholarly publisher was
publishing a format in between an article and a
monograph in terms of length (20-40 thousand
words) and detail, how likely would you be to
consider authoring such a publication?
For those who agreed that the proposed new
format was a good idea, plus those that were
indifferent, 84% would be at least ‘quite likely’ to
consider publishing this format.
Q: The publication of social science and humanities
research tends to take the form or either a peer-
reviewed journal article or a monograph. Which of
the following statements best describes your view
of the length of a typical journal monograph?
About right
50%
A little too short
4%
I don’t know
8%
Very likely
35%
Quite likely
49%
Not very likely
10%
Not at all likely
1%
Far too long
9%
A little too long
29%
Yes
58%
I don’t know
6%
No
36%
‘
’
’
’
‘
‘