whiz
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by whiz on May 16, 2013 3:06:07 GMT -5
Avoid CSP if you seriously want your work published in the real sense. Their contract will tie you in so long as the book in print. Strong reasons to believe they publish on demand - so effectively they have you forever.
If your work is anything worthy of a wider readership avoid CSP; they may have an academic background but there is no peer review, which there should be for any reputable academic publisher. You do most of the layout work and proof yourself. They communicate entirely by email (sometimes not answered) and disclose no phone number.
|
|
|
Post by guest1234 on May 16, 2013 12:08:07 GMT -5
Just a side note: "real" academic (university, peer-reviewed) presses don't necessarily publish junior scholars' work for free these days. Even quite reputable presses will ask for what they call "subvention funds" or subsidies for publishing a book. Some universities will cough up the money for this for junior faculty. Presses may also ask for the author to pay for things like indexing of the manuscript. Just FYI, as it's all stuff that came as a surprise to me when I got an advance contract with a reputable, mid-tier university press.
|
|
|
Post by About CSP on Feb 18, 2014 11:58:51 GMT -5
Once I published with CSP, right at the beginning of my career. The process was fine, did not cost a penny to us and in the end, the publication was quite helpful to me. More important, CSP has a quite flexible copyright policiy. So I could distribute the text, upload it to academia.edu and other repositories without problem, etc. All that CSP asked was for the corresponding credits, but nothing else. On the other hand: CSP is clearly a new publisher, so they still have issues of limited distribution, of 'academic recognition', etc. At the beginning they were slightly sloppy with edition, but as far as I know this has getting better. Overall, I would say CSP is a young, but still serious academic publisher. It is struggling to survive in a world of some big names and a number of (real) vanity publishers and scams. CSP is also very clear when stating they are NOT Cambridge UP, but an association of Cambridge scholars - which is true, btw - that wanted to create a different press. I would say that CSP is ideal for serious edited books and serious conference proceedings. If it is a book that you consider as your 'big thing' or as your baby, then I would first try in more traditional presses, but still taking CSP as a good second option.
|
|
|
Post by avoid on Feb 18, 2014 14:31:54 GMT -5
It's not a vanity press. It has the name it does because it was started by a group of profs at Cambridge, but has never been associated with Cambridge Univ. Press. Vanity presses require authors to foot the bill for publication. Legitimate academic presses do not. And, CSP does not require authors to pay for publication. I think it's still pretty new, but a serious academic press. It's not new. And it's not serious. Avoid.
|
|
|
Post by seconded on Feb 18, 2014 15:33:02 GMT -5
It's not a vanity press. It has the name it does because it was started by a group of profs at Cambridge, but has never been associated with Cambridge Univ. Press. Vanity presses require authors to foot the bill for publication. Legitimate academic presses do not. And, CSP does not require authors to pay for publication. I think it's still pretty new, but a serious academic press. It's not new. And it's not serious. Avoid. Seriously. Not to harp on, but this should not be presented as a debate with two sides. Avoid Cambridge Scholars Press and avoid Edwin Mellen. Neither will help you in your career. In fact, probably both would hurt you in your career.
|
|
DoesAnyoneReadAnymore
Guest
|
Post by DoesAnyoneReadAnymore on Feb 21, 2014 1:08:15 GMT -5
This thread is very weird, for it presupposes that the quality of a work is determined purely by the wrapper in which the work appears. I can cut those just starting out a little slack, for this is a place to discuss first moves in the career. But to go on and on and on about what press one should never even consider? It's very weird.
If you are fortunate you will write many things and publish most of those things. How can you say, right now, what presses you'd NEVER consider for a paper or book you write 40 years from now? How can you trust your foreknowledge of your own development as well as future changes in the stature, demands, or even existence of various presses and journals enough to make such pronouncements?
Ask yourself (or google, or wikipedia), what presses published the major works of those we now hold in high regard? Many of those presses don't even exist anymore. And, I bet that many of the presses that existed then and still exist now probably (would have) rejected those works. I mean, can you see Harvard University Press publishing Das Kapital when it was first published, or publishing the equivalent contemporary paradigm-buster today? You really think an elite press is going to publish something that renders everything else on their list mere toilet paper? What review process of established presses could EVER let that happen?
Come on, people. Press and journal prestige ISN'T everything. The best work, the work that defines the epoch we live in as we bequeath it to future generations (as opposed to work that forms the simple careers of the simple careerists) is often not even submitted to traditionally "elite" places. Why be virulently antagonistic to the places that open themselves to the prospect of actually publishing something non-formulaic and new?
|
|
|
Post by run away on Feb 21, 2014 11:54:44 GMT -5
This isn't an issue of only counting elite presses as worthy publishers of quality material. This is about avoiding those bottom-feeder presses that prey upon an academic's desire to see something in print; there are vultures out there who dress up self-publishing projects with an veneer of authenticity. They are called "vanity presses" because they allow you to take pride in an achievement that others will discount. If you have to spend money up front to cover publication costs -- and if this is known to others -- then you are actually doing damage to your reputation. It is worse than not publishing anything at all, because the assumption (right or wrong) is that your work is so weak that you have to pay off a press to circumvent editorial and peer-review processes.
Basic rule of thumb for young scholars: if somebody is soliciting your manuscript sight unseen, without you having first submitted a formal proposal, you should ignore their entreaties and run away. They provide a shortcut to publishing, but the higher authorities who will make making tenure decisions (senior colleagues, deans, etc.) will often not count such works as peer-reviewed contributions to the discipline. If it smells like a vanity press, the taint will transfer to you and remain a permanent stain in your c.v.
If you're a senior scholar who has nothing to lose, fine. Most of us aren't. Publishing with CSP or Edwin Mellen is a very bad move. (That's not an exhaustive list, by the way. Another rule of thumb: if a publisher you've never heard of contacts you, check to see if any of their titles are on your bookshelf or in your EndNote entries. If not, that's a good sign that you should just file away these offers in an "unsolicited offers" folder in your email client and resist any temptation to reply.)
|
|
DoesAnyoneReadAnymore
Guest
|
Post by DoesAnyoneReadAnymore on Feb 21, 2014 12:37:33 GMT -5
Interesting. So, your advisor happens to know Joe Schmoe, who has just taken a position at Johnson Press (JP). JP wants to start a list in sociology, is committed to providing tons of resources to make a splash in the field (good copy-editing, promotion, and so forth) and your advisor happened to mention you as a rising star with interesting work. The advisor forgets to mention this to you. Still, Joe Schmoe e-mails you soliciting your manuscript, even though they've NEVER seen your work. You fail to mention the contact to your advisor on fear that it will cheapen your work, and you refuse to respond to the e-mail because you remember someone writing: Basic rule of thumb for young scholars: if somebody is soliciting your manuscript sight unseen, without you having first submitted a formal proposal, you should ignore their entreaties and run away. Or, you are talking with an acquisitions editor at ASA, and while enthusiastic about your book they note your book will have low sales volume but high impact. They wonder whether your university will kick in a modest subvention of, say, $2,000. Because you remember someone once wrote: If you have to spend money up front to cover publication costs -- and if this is known to others -- then you are actually doing damage to your reputation. It is worse than not publishing anything at all, because the assumption (right or wrong) is that your work is so weak that you have to pay off a press to circumvent editorial and peer-review processes. you gently place your still steaming coffee cup down on the table, note you have another meeting to go to, and make your exit. Or, you see Jennifer Doe at ASA, and she mentions their sociology list is growing. She ticks off a few of the "important" (to her) books they've recently published. You take her card and indicate you'll try to send her the manuscript you are working on now. But, back in your room, you remember that someone wrote that: if a publisher you've never heard of contacts you, check to see if any of their titles are on your bookshelf or in your EndNote entries. If not, that's a good sign that you should just file away these offers in an "unsolicited offers" folder in your email client and resist any temptation to reply. so you check to see if any of the works she listed are in your EndNote list. Sadly, none are. You throw away her card--there's no reason you should publish with a press whose major recent publications are in subfields you happen to never need to cite. I understand some want to warn people away from vanity presses. That is a laudable aim. But this is a case of those out of the know giving advice about very serious matters. The process is FAR MORE complicated than the simple signals they offer suggest. Follow their advice at your (and your career's) own risk.
|
|
|
Post by craziness on Feb 21, 2014 12:58:16 GMT -5
This thread just got crazy.
If you're trying to get tenure or promotion, seek out a university press--or one of the commercial academic presses listed above. Someone provided a link to Naomi Schneider's list in this thread somewhere. Follow her advice.
Also, "Johnson Press"? Really? Creepy.
|
|
|
Post by yuckotheclown on Feb 21, 2014 13:19:48 GMT -5
This thread just got crazy. If you're trying to get tenure or promotion, seek out a university press--or one of the commercial academic presses listed above. Someone provided a link to Naomi Schneider's list in this thread somewhere. Follow her advice. Also, "Johnson Press"? Really? Creepy. Don't sleep on Johnson Press, it has erected quite a reputation for publishing seminal work.
|
|
|
Post by run away on Feb 21, 2014 14:09:57 GMT -5
Interesting. So, your advisor happens to know Joe Schmoe, who has just taken a position at Johnson Press (JP). ... [Three humorous but unlikely scenarios follow.] I contend if (1) you really are a rising star with good potential for making an impact by publishing your dissertation, and/or (2) you have a good advisor who is looking out for your best interests, you will never encounter these situations as described above. I'm sorry, but the bottom-feeder presses have to solicit manuscripts in this way because they don't attract active scholars who understand how the game actually works. Another good rule of thumb: ask your advisor if working with these publishers is in your best interest. Good presses have good reputations. Unless you're in contention for ASA's best dissertation award, you're going to have to submit a proposal and take part in a bona fide review process that will be interpreted as legitimate by the gatekeepers who really matter. Beware of publishers that flatter your ego before they have any information about your thesis beyond its provocative title.
|
|
|
Post by Lynne Rienner on Feb 21, 2014 14:47:01 GMT -5
Where does Lynne Rienner fit into this discussion? It seems like they solicit a lot of dissertation-into-book proposals at ASA based on skimming presentation lists, so I don't expect that they're held in especially high esteem. But their title list seems to include some pretty decent books, including a couple I've read and found valuable, by respectable professors.
Based on this discussion it seems like it's better than the CSP/bottom feeders but only about on par with something like Palgrave Macmillan in that they're both corporate presses that do provide some basic services to authors and don't require payment?
I don't really know. Anyone else have thoughts?
|
|
Lynne Rienner response
Guest
|
Post by Lynne Rienner response on Feb 21, 2014 15:42:52 GMT -5
I'd place Lynne Rienner as third tier, but still better than CSP/Edwin Mellen. It would be okay for me (asst prof at a middling SLAC), but likely wouldn't count for much at a R1 or R2. Their books are expensive (mostly just for library sales) but I think they have print on demand paperback option in case someone wants to adopt it for their course. FYI, if you're thinking of turning the diss into a book, I found this really helpful: scatter.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/10-steps-from-dissertation-to-book-contract/
|
|
|
Post by canadian on Feb 27, 2014 19:21:34 GMT -5
This isn't an issue of only counting elite presses as worthy publishers of quality material. This is about avoiding those bottom-feeder presses that prey upon an academic's desire to see something in print; there are vultures out there who dress up self-publishing projects with an veneer of authenticity. They are called "vanity presses" because they allow you to take pride in an achievement that others will discount. If you have to spend money up front to cover publication costs -- and if this is known to others -- then you are actually doing damage to your reputation. It is worse than not publishing anything at all, because the assumption (right or wrong) is that your work is so weak that you have to pay off a press to circumvent editorial and peer-review processes. Basic rule of thumb for young scholars: if somebody is soliciting your manuscript sight unseen, without you having first submitted a formal proposal, you should ignore their entreaties and run away. They provide a shortcut to publishing, but the higher authorities who will make making tenure decisions (senior colleagues, deans, etc.) will often not count such works as peer-reviewed contributions to the discipline. If it smells like a vanity press, the taint will transfer to you and remain a permanent stain in your c.v. If you're a senior scholar who has nothing to lose, fine. Most of us aren't. Publishing with CSP or Edwin Mellen is a very bad move. (That's not an exhaustive list, by the way. Another rule of thumb: if a publisher you've never heard of contacts you, check to see if any of their titles are on your bookshelf or in your EndNote entries. If not, that's a good sign that you should just file away these offers in an "unsolicited offers" folder in your email client and resist any temptation to reply.) Just want to provide a caveat to the "If you have to spend money up front to cover publication costs then you are actually doing damage to your reputation." I'm north of the border and our major university presses like University of Toronto Press, UBC Press, and McGill-Queens University Press often expect authors to pay for some of the publication costs. There's a grant available through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) that can offset that cost, and the publishers usually help you get the grant to some extent, but if you don't get it for whatever reason, you have to pay. But, it doesn't mean the presses aren't reputable. It's just how things work up here, particularly for first-time authors.
|
|
|
Post by Without Prejudice on Apr 28, 2014 12:08:02 GMT -5
Cambridge Scholars is not a Vanity Press but a seriously author-friendly and relatively new house that is definitely trying to do things right.
|
|