book presses

[books]

Hi,

Does anyone here know about how Routledge and Columbia University Press rank among the book presses? My understanding is that they are both not "up there" but still rather valued - is that correct? And more importantly: is there something to be said about "diversifying" outlets? I.e., if you already have a book or two with a top press, would it be better to go to another one (even if "lower", like Routledge) when working on a new book or does that not play a role at all?

Thanks!

[justmeee]

I'm pretty ignorant on this subject, but would love to hear others take on a rough sketch on book press rankings

[unipressorbust]

University presses are almost always better. Even if you haven't really heard of it. A for profit publisher like Routledge is much less desirable. Unless you're writing something just to have it out.

Of course, it might be easier to get a book for the classroom published by a Routledge, Zed, Polity, Springer, Ashgate, etc. But these rarely become academic hits.

[notthatimportant]

I think that prestige of press is not that important, probably because nobody has bothered to rank the presses or do any kind of impact analysis. So people feel about them the way that people used to feel about departments and journals before rankings became so big and a .1 dip started keeping one up at night.

Generally, I think that Chicago, Harvard and Princeton are considered the better presses. U of California, Cambridge, Duke, Stanford, and some others are usually considered middle tier (I say this only because people say that the quality of what they publish varies). Then there is lots below that. However, the publisher is much less important than the content of the book. Lots of big name people publish with "lower" presses for example (in part, maybe, because they get a more favorable contract and figure that their name, not the press, is what will move their books).

[asaworkshop]

Here's some helpful information from an ASA workshop on transforming your dissertation into a book. Rankings are included at the bottom. They are based on the presenter's subjective opinion, and she notes that explicitly. But they align with what I, at least, have generally heard from senior scholars.

www.ssc.wisc.edu/gender/Resources/Dissertation-Book.pdf

[series]

It's also important to keep in mind that academic presses are often known for their series, and not every press - even the top ones - publish every kind of book. For example, Chicago has a great ethnography series and Princeton publishes a lot of econ soc books. But Minnesota is really well known for the social movement series, and NYU press is publishing more and more on topics that are related to 'hot topics' in the news. California is great for gender books, from what I hear. So it's not all about rank or status, but also about 'fit' with the project.

[SUP]

Stanford and NYU are publishing great work in race and immigration. Picked up a lot of amazing authors that were turned down by California when UC press was not accepting first time authors.

[profits vary]

Oct 30, 2012 0:48:44 GMT -5 unipressorbust said:

University presses are almost always better. Even if you haven't really heard of it. A for profit publisher like Routledge is much less desirable. Unless you're writing something just to have it out.

Of course, it might be easier to get a book for the classroom published by a Routledge, Zed, Polity, Springer, Ashgate, etc. But these rarely become academic hits.

University presses are absolutely more prestigious. But there's a lot of variability among the for profit ones, particularly by discipline. For sociology, I'd say Zed and Polity (and maybe Pine Forge) are considered better than Routledge, Springer, Ashgate, etc. They both publish well known authors and have strong lists overall.

[my 2 cents [assoc. prof., R1]]

Cal is definitely not second tier; generally speaking, Cal and Chicago have the most general prestige--this is historically speaking. Cal is particularly strong on immigration and Chicago on urban but both respected across board. I would include within this first tier as well Cambridge, Oxford, Princeton. As noted by others, other presses re very strong in particular areas [e.g., Minnesota and immigration]

[University presses]

I like Chicago, California, Harvard, and Princeton the most. Oxford is also up there, but their list is so huge a lot of good stuff can get lost in it. Rutgers, NYU, and temple are also solid. After that, as an author, you might be expected to pay for copy editing and don't even get your hopes up about marketing.

[52 cents]

Oxford used to be good; now they just publish anything and everything. Duke and Minnesota are both top tier; Temple, not so much.

[ILR]

Cornell's imprint, ILR, has good stuff on work, orgs, and occupations. Like Columbia, its not as prestigious within sociology, but may reach a wider audience in other disciplines.

[postdoc]

Any thoughts on the max. accepted number of previously published articles in a book? Is 3 (published in high-impact journals) out of 7 ok for instance? Does the requirement differ among different publishers?

[sockpuppet]

5 years ago, I'd say 3 was too much. These days, i think it could work.

[some thoughts]

I teach at an R1, and we absolutely care about what press a book is on for tenure--and Chicago and Cal are king. The above poster is right that many esteemed people publish at "lower prestige" presses, but the important thing to note is they have tenure so it is not an issue of where they publish affecting their promotion [most don't publish in a lower tier press until they are full professor].

As for how many articles, 3 would be fine. I myself published 4 that were directly related to the book and one that was partly based on it and the press did not bat an eye. I should note there is not really a "requirement" about a max amount.