按需印刷在臺灣學術出版的發展與困境

The Development and Dilemma of Print on Demand (POD) in Taiwan’s Scholarly Publishing

張瑋麟(Wei-Lin Jhang)

指導教授 ： 林奇秀

國立臺灣大學/文學院/圖書資訊學研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.01923

摘要

POD是一種根據客戶對印刷產品的數量要求，將電子文稿輸入數位印刷設備，即時印製出版品的出版模式。出版社採用POD出版模式後，即可依顧客需求隨需隨印、更彈性地銷售紙本書，紓解退書與庫存問題，和讓書籍永不絕版。一些學者和專業機構都曾對POD抱持相當高的期望，它們尤其覺得讀者群固定小眾的學術書籍適合採POD出版模式出版。在POD問世十餘年後，其應用範圍並未如若干文獻和報導預期的廣泛。承上所述，本研究主要探討兩點問題：（1）臺灣的學術出版社，如何應用傳統的製版印刷和新型的POD與電子書三種出版模式？它們選用這三種出版模式的原因為何？（2）在上述使用情境之下，POD的發展狀況和遭遇的限制為何？本研究從社會－技術網絡觀點出發，設計以深度訪談作為主要資料來源的個案研究法，探討本研究所關懷的問題。
研究結果顯示，由於大多數出版社在使用製版印刷出版模式時，仍然能獲得最大利潤，並同時可控制倉儲壓力，使它們不願擴大應用POD出版模式。並且，大多數學術出版社在使用POD出版模式時，通常仍會為了克服成本問題，而先行印製一定數量的書籍，卻非以許多文獻預期的按需出版方式應用POD設備。此外，若出版社要利用POD出版模式再版絕版書籍，也需要組織配置、適當營運模式或其他資源條件的配合，才能持續讓書籍永不絕版。不過，部份個案會因為組織環境或主事者理念等因素，而願意用POD出版模式出版較多種出版品。
從本研究的研究結果可看出，許多認為學術書籍適合以POD和電子書出版模式出版的前人文獻過於「科技命定論」。事實上，學術出版社需要許多社會與技術層面的條件配合，方能順利使用POD出版模式。不同出版社因面臨不同經營環境，需不同配合條件。綜上所述，研究者在觀察新技術進入既有場域時，應並重社會與技術因素，方可較全面的分析出促進與阻礙新科技傳播的關鍵因素。

關鍵字

按需印刷 ； 隨選列印 ； 學術出版 ； 製版印刷 ； 電子書 ； 學術出版社

並列摘要

POD is a publish model with two characteristics: (1) customized printing amount, (2) printing electronic documents via digital printer. There are many advantages for publishers to adopt the POD model: (1) printing publications according to reader’s need, (2) selling printed book flexibly, (3) relieving the problems of book return and stocking, (4) putting an end to out-of-print. Some scholars and professional organizations such as OCLC regard the POD model suitable for academic publications which is niche market. However, POD had been invented for more than ten years, but its application is not as extensive as some literature and reports expected. Therefore, this study focuses on two questions: (1) How do academic publishers use traditional printing, oncoming POD and e-Book publish models? Why do they use these models? (2) What is the development and limitation of POD? To realize above-mentioned questions, this study, a case study research, designed a questionnaire and interviewed 9 scholarly publishers through social-technical network approach.
The research result shows that most publishers can maximize profit and handle stocking via traditional printing publish model. Hence, they are not willing to extend the use of POD. Cases that use POD to publish more publications are often supported by institutional environment or leader’s opinions. In addition, most publishers do not usually use POD in the manner of print on demand as some literature expected. In consideration of cost, they often print certain amount of books beforehand. Besides, publishers cannot sustain the operation of POD unless they limit the reprinting of out-of-print books with several conditions, such as operating POD printers by themselves, adopting make-to-order production, or supporting by other profit.
This study then discovers that some literature which advocate publishing academic publications by POD and e-Book publish models are inclined to be “technological determinism.” They tend to omit a lot of social and technical factors that academic publishers need to coordinate with in order to apply POD. In reality, different publishers may face with different situations, and they require corresponding supports respectively. In conclusion, when researchers observe the process of new technology entering an existing field, they should take both social and technical factors into account, in order to comprehensively analyze the key factors that improve or impede the dissemination of a new technology.

並列關鍵字

POD ； Print on Demand ； Scholarly Publishing ； Academic Publishing ； Printing ； e-Book ； Scholarly Publisher

參考文獻

陳俊偉（2011）。政府電子書營運合作問題研究。未出版之碩士論文，淡江大學資訊與圖書館學研究所，新北市。

林維萱（2008）。臺灣地區電子書定價模式之探討。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所，臺北市。

吳紹群（2010）。臺灣地區人文學學術出版與學術傳播之研究。未出版之博士論文，國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所，臺北市。

劉鈐佑（2010）。誰讀社會學？學術出版。臺灣社會學會通訊，70，17-19。

廖信、邱迪先、黃俊凱、林宜萱（2011）。BOD (Book on Demand)系統平臺開發之研究。中華印刷科技年報，2011年，318-331。