This process has been amplified by simultaneous growth in the number of subfields and journals and in the volume of research published. Among the unintended consequences of these developments has been a serious decline in the ability of libraries to purchase books, undermining a mainstay of the market for scholarly monographs. University presses report that the typical press run for a book that appeals only to academic buyers has fallen by two-thirds in the past decade, and many are concerned that in the near future such publishing, at least in traditional print formats, will no longer be economically viable at all. Underlying these developments is the three-way relationship between universities, faculty, and publishers as it has developed to date. Although faculty are employed and supported by universities to conduct and disseminate the results of research, they are also asked to secure a substantial portion of the necessary resources and to compete in peer review processes to have their works disseminated in scholarly journals.
Faculty also serve as the referees for peer review processes, usually without compensation.
Journals routinely require that authors assign copyright when submissions are accepted, so that the publisher controls future uses of the work unless agreed otherwise. However, rising journal prices have changed the consequences of this relationship and sparked consideration of whether institutions should insist that faculty-publisher contracts acknowledge the necessary interest of the institution in retaining access to the works its faculty publish. Another issue for faculty and their institutions arises because for-profit and some professional society publishers are increasingly seeking tight control over the works they publish. Authors sometimes find that they cannot use an article in an anthology, reproduce it for classroom use, or reuse charts and images in other contexts. This concern is heightened as detecting works posted on the Web becomes easier.