<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: LSE Media &#038; Comms Imprint?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/0042.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/0042.html</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:42:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: David Brake</title>
		<link>http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/0042.html#comment-633</link>
		<dc:creator>David Brake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:56:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/2005/01/lse-media-comms-imprint/#comment-633</guid>
		<description>It's an interesting idea but how would we handle the cost of editing? Of indexing (sometimes the author picks up this tab, sometimes the publisher does)? Of illustrations? And of putting catalogues through the letterboxes of thousands of libraries to persuade them our titles are worth purchasing?

And of course there's the question of the brand. If I &lt;i&gt;could&lt;/i&gt; get my book published by Routledge I would probably be foolish to choose to publish in the "LSE Media &#038; Communications Series" instead - which I fear would make the imprint seem like a place where Routledge and Sage's cast-offs go. It's not fair, but I'm sure that's why we don't see more of the kind of indie publishing you describe.

The big question for me (derived from the last issue above) is, "would we reject people"? If we didn't reject anyone the imprint might not be taken seriously (even if it came from a good brand like the LSE's). If we did we'd have to have some kind of peer review system running.

Note: As you probably know there is already an all-electronic &lt;a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/mediaWorkingPapers/Default.htm"&gt;Media@LSE working Papers&lt;/a&gt; collection. To be a devil's advocate, why not publish books this way and ask people to print them out if they want to read them?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s an interesting idea but how would we handle the cost of editing? Of indexing (sometimes the author picks up this tab, sometimes the publisher does)? Of illustrations? And of putting catalogues through the letterboxes of thousands of libraries to persuade them our titles are worth purchasing?</p>
<p>And of course there&#8217;s the question of the brand. If I <i>could</i> get my book published by Routledge I would probably be foolish to choose to publish in the &#8220;LSE Media &#038; Communications Series&#8221; instead - which I fear would make the imprint seem like a place where Routledge and Sage&#8217;s cast-offs go. It&#8217;s not fair, but I&#8217;m sure that&#8217;s why we don&#8217;t see more of the kind of indie publishing you describe.</p>
<p>The big question for me (derived from the last issue above) is, &#8220;would we reject people&#8221;? If we didn&#8217;t reject anyone the imprint might not be taken seriously (even if it came from a good brand like the LSE&#8217;s). If we did we&#8217;d have to have some kind of peer review system running.</p>
<p>Note: As you probably know there is already an all-electronic <a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/mediaWorkingPapers/Default.htm">Media@LSE working Papers</a> collection. To be a devil&#8217;s advocate, why not publish books this way and ask people to print them out if they want to read them?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EVC</title>
		<link>http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/0042.html#comment-632</link>
		<dc:creator>EVC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:15:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/2005/01/lse-media-comms-imprint/#comment-632</guid>
		<description>Just a quick note: &lt;a href="http://www.pabd.com"&gt;PABD&lt;/a&gt; (publish and be damned) is the UK representative in that clutch of printers on demand.  Here's a &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1205143,00.html"&gt;Guardian article&lt;/a&gt; about them.

Elizabeth</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a quick note: <a href="http://www.pabd.com">PABD</a> (publish and be damned) is the UK representative in that clutch of printers on demand.  Here&#8217;s a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1205143,00.html">Guardian article</a> about them.</p>
<p>Elizabeth</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Media @ LSE Group Weblog  &#187; Blog Archive   &#187; Soon anyone will be able to make a book from their blog</title>
		<link>http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/0042.html#comment-634</link>
		<dc:creator>Media @ LSE Group Weblog  &#187; Blog Archive   &#187; Soon anyone will be able to make a book from their blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/2005/01/lse-media-comms-imprint/#comment-634</guid>
		<description>[...] New company Qoop promises to do it all for you - like the traditional vanity press model &lt;a href="http://groupblog.workasone.net/index.php?p=41"&gt;EVC alluded to earlier&lt;/a&gt; but tailored for moving online media offline. Thanks to John Battelle for th [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] New company Qoop promises to do it all for you - like the traditional vanity press model <a href="http://groupblog.workasone.net/index.php?p=41">EVC alluded to earlier</a> but tailored for moving online media offline. Thanks to John Battelle for th [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
