Following recent consultations between the Syndics of Cambridge University Press and members of the Faculties of Archaeology and Anthropology of the University of Cambridge, the Press has moved decisively to regain the initiative and prestige that were threatened by its recent rejection of Anastasia Karakasidou's book manuscript and by the events that followed. On 21 March, the Press stated that the decision raised "important" issues; that it wished to learn from the experience; and that it was taking seriously, and will respond to, the views expressed by many in the academic world. Specifically, it has instituted, as we suggested, a wide-ranging review of its procedures whereby manuscripts are reviewed for publication. This review is to possess the transparency that it requires, and should benefit academic publishing far beyond the confines of one particular press; indeed, the commitment to consult members of other publishing and academic bodies is, we suggest, the clearest possible indication of the Press's seriousness of intent.
We wish to signal our immense satisfaction and pleasure at this positive development. Since, moreover, it clearly recognizes the sources of dismay over the Karakasidou decision among the international academic community, we recommend ending the moratorium on manuscript refereeing and submission for which we had called a few weeks ago.
The Association of Social Anthropologists of the British Commonwealth has moved to criticize CUP's earlier action, and will revisit the issue at next year's business meeting. We believe that this was one of a number of events that helped to persuade the Press of the very widespread unhappiness that the academic community felt over the original decision, and we view its new determination to implement a thorough review of procedures as presaging an important contribution to the protection of scholarly activity.
In addition to those who negotiated with the Press in Cambridge and initiated the ASA action, many others deserve the gratitude of the academic community as a whole. We prefer to name institutions and groups rather than individuals, but those who have been personally involved will have the satisfaction of seeing their efforts swiftly rewarded. We wish to mention: the Society for the Anthropology of Europe and its e-mail network (H- SAE); the ASA and other interested academic bodies in the U.K. and U.S.; the news media in several countries; and, last but perhaps most important, the many scholars -- including students -- who, sometimes at great personal cost, wrote in protest, withdrew their manuscripts, or refused to referee new manuscripts, and so ensured that the message was heard with ringing clarity. We would be remiss if we failed to acknowledge also the officers of Cambridge University Press who joined in the discussion and so helped to propel the process in a forward direction. We have all learned a great deal from this experience, which has ramifications far beyond the particular case that triggered it. A serious commitment has been made by CUP to thinking through the role of academic presses in preserving and protecting freedom of scholarly expression and dissemination, and we believe that this will be a true compensation for all those who have suffered the effects of an impassioned and sometimes wrenching debate. It is time to move on; we are glad to be able to to so and we are deeply grateful to those who have helped to make it possible.
Stephen Gudeman and Michael Herzfeld
2 April, 1996