Even with the changing publishing environment, some things stay the same: the importance of the physical, single-author monograph, and the importance of academic patronage.
Single-author monographs, though invaluable, are too often celebrated and rewarded at the expense of respecting the achievements represented by editions, textbooks, translations, collaborations and work for broader audiences.
The latest Jisc survey on the attitudes of academics in the humanities and social sciences to open-access monograph publishing makes an interesting contribution to this debate, showing how central single-author monographs remain to the humanities, and how important the physical – rather than digital – copies are.
Certain excerpts in the paper are taken from or based in part on some passages from the author's monograph (Gajewski, 2010 [1]).
I recently authored the monograph Computational Organic Chemistry [36], which surveys the achievements in the field over the past 40 years.
In 1916, he co-authored a monograph published by the Federal government detailing 644 cases, of which 338 (52%) were fatal, this being before the invention of antibiotic drugs.
As a researcher at the US Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, he has authored several monographs advocating the need for open source methods to transform the craft of intelligence.
In addition, she has co-authored 3 monographs.
He is an author of the monograph "An Economic Analysis of the Financial Records of Al Qaeda in Iraq".
Mr. Angelo, who stepped down recently as curator of vascular plants at the New England Botanical Club, is the author of a monograph, "Concord Area Trees and Shrubs".
