Whose Words Are We Reading? The Cartelisation of Anglophone Trade Book Publishing and Its Postcolonial Impact: The Case of India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the global structuring of Anglophone trade book publishing, Indians can easily access books published by UK and US multinational publishers. Yet, Indian local publishers and authors often do not access an international readership nor the associated economic and social rewards. This thesis examines the contribution of cartelisation and multinationalisation in furthering postcoloniality in Indian Anglophone trade publishing. It also analyses the extent of that postcoloniality, how cartelisation has impacted Indian publishing and writers, and the role that multinationalisation has played. \nTo meet these aims, I build upon secondary literature in publishing studies, book history and postcolonial theory. I conducted primary research via semi-structured interviews with senior publishing professionals in the UK and India. As a decolonising research method, I include my professional, personal and academic engagement with the research topic through autoethnographic vignettes. \nThis research has enabled a unique contribution to scholarship. I found that territorial rights are perceived as normative practice within publishing. In this system, British multinational publishers claim the export markets of most former British colonies while US multinationals claim exports to Canada, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Due to this cartelisation and the cultural hegemony of the UK and the US, Indian Anglophone trade books cannot match the revenue generation of foreign books in both Indian and international markets. Thus, India is perceived as a ‘market’ territory, not a source of literature worth promoting abroad. Cartelisation became an ingrained practice because of multinationalisation since local publishers – which aid the development of the national literary space – cannot compete with the multinationals’ resources. My research centres on India and can be extended to comparative nations. This thesis focuses on the historical context and contemporary scenario of cartelisation, but I also offer recommendations to be executed within and outwith publishing to combat the postcoloniality of cartelisation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".