of making many books there is no end
December 26, 2007 11:51 AM Subscribe
What should I know about academic publishing, as a researcher working outside academia?
I've had three articles published in academic books/journals on a nineteenth-century writer I'm researching. I've found the process of publication in each case frustrating and wondered what I should expect next time round.
There have been long delays (over a year) in each case from the expected to actual publication dates. For one paper I was asked to sign away copyright - is this usual? (I protested and was offered the option of signing away publication rights instead, which I did.)
There's never been any discussion about what contributors receive - is it acceptable to ask for a free copy of the publication? Is there ever a situation, as an unknown researcher, in which I could ask for payment or royalties (yes, I know I won't ever make any more than a trivial amount from this business)?
In all three cases there were last minute flaps when I was asked to make changes (in one case the house style had changed significantly), and it felt like no-one had read the thing before then. Is this usual? I had expected to get comments from the editors early on and enter into a debate about changes in content, but this has only happened in one case - should I expect real interest in the content from editors? Finally, proof-reading of one article showed that the publishers had introduced a lot of errors (eg 19xx for 18xx several times) - again, is this normal?
Any other hints or tips about academic publishing, or online communities (I use VICTORIA quite a bit, but don't know where else to look for scholarly support) would be useful. As a non-academic it sometimes feels that I have no-one to tell me the obvious stuff that graduate students all know!
I've had three articles published in academic books/journals on a nineteenth-century writer I'm researching. I've found the process of publication in each case frustrating and wondered what I should expect next time round.
There have been long delays (over a year) in each case from the expected to actual publication dates. For one paper I was asked to sign away copyright - is this usual? (I protested and was offered the option of signing away publication rights instead, which I did.)
There's never been any discussion about what contributors receive - is it acceptable to ask for a free copy of the publication? Is there ever a situation, as an unknown researcher, in which I could ask for payment or royalties (yes, I know I won't ever make any more than a trivial amount from this business)?
In all three cases there were last minute flaps when I was asked to make changes (in one case the house style had changed significantly), and it felt like no-one had read the thing before then. Is this usual? I had expected to get comments from the editors early on and enter into a debate about changes in content, but this has only happened in one case - should I expect real interest in the content from editors? Finally, proof-reading of one article showed that the publishers had introduced a lot of errors (eg 19xx for 18xx several times) - again, is this normal?
Any other hints or tips about academic publishing, or online communities (I use VICTORIA quite a bit, but don't know where else to look for scholarly support) would be useful. As a non-academic it sometimes feels that I have no-one to tell me the obvious stuff that graduate students all know!
There have been long delays (over a year) in each case from the expected to actual publication dates.
This is pretty normal (though some fields are working to change this, and some fields have journals that are designed to get a result out there quickly). My first publication is an article in a book that I wrote in 2004 or so, and it's now scheduled to come out in January 2008.
There's never been any discussion about what contributors receive - is it acceptable to ask for a free copy of the publication?
They usually say up front whether they will do this. Most journals in my experience send preprints, and book volumes don't.
I had expected to get comments from the editors early on and enter into a debate about changes in content, but this has only happened in one case - should I expect real interest in the content from editors?
If any of it was peer reviewed, you would get comments from the reviewers...doesn't sound like that though. Editors (in my somewhat limited experience) will give you comments if it is near their area of expertise, but not so much otherwise. If it were peer reviewed they would play a larger role by serving as the intermediary between you and the reviewers. In everything I've been involved with there was at least one editor who had read the article carefully, though.
the publishers had introduced a lot of errors (eg 19xx for 18xx several times) - again, is this normal?
This is normal, sadly. Read the proofs very very carefully.
posted by advil at 12:29 PM on December 26, 2007
This is pretty normal (though some fields are working to change this, and some fields have journals that are designed to get a result out there quickly). My first publication is an article in a book that I wrote in 2004 or so, and it's now scheduled to come out in January 2008.
There's never been any discussion about what contributors receive - is it acceptable to ask for a free copy of the publication?
They usually say up front whether they will do this. Most journals in my experience send preprints, and book volumes don't.
I had expected to get comments from the editors early on and enter into a debate about changes in content, but this has only happened in one case - should I expect real interest in the content from editors?
If any of it was peer reviewed, you would get comments from the reviewers...doesn't sound like that though. Editors (in my somewhat limited experience) will give you comments if it is near their area of expertise, but not so much otherwise. If it were peer reviewed they would play a larger role by serving as the intermediary between you and the reviewers. In everything I've been involved with there was at least one editor who had read the article carefully, though.
the publishers had introduced a lot of errors (eg 19xx for 18xx several times) - again, is this normal?
This is normal, sadly. Read the proofs very very carefully.
posted by advil at 12:29 PM on December 26, 2007
as a contributor to an academic publication (almost always small journals, comparatively) you shouldn't expect royalties. it's not unheard of that you would get a free copy of the journal though.
i used to work for a place and we published journals of a size that yours probably are. we did not give away copies of journals to contributors and i thought that was jerky, but, well, not my department. but you can always ask for a copy of the journal.
any journal and publisher worth their salt will ask you to sign away copyright. it's standard. you can huff and puff all you want, but a lot of places think they're doing you a favor by publishing your paper and getting your name out there. look closely at the next agreement you sign. it may or may not preclude you from including it in a collection of your papers, etc. essentially, they're just covering their butt so you can't go back later and sue them for publishing your work without your permission (your signature is your permission).
by editors, do you mean the journal editors (scholarly dudes like yourself) or the publisher's editors (cube rats in a windowless office)? again, it varies by publication, but the journal editor should have at least seen your paper in order to have accepted it for publication in the journal. but maybe the journals you're in do it differently? i don't know. the publisher will most likely not look at your paper at all. they'll just pass it on to a copy editor to edit for style, ESL, etc. You (or the journal editor) should have been able to review proofs of your paper one more time between copy editing and publication, at which point the errors in century should have been pointed out and corrected.
Journal editors are usual very busy people--heads of departments, chairs on umpteen boards, etc. They're likely not going to engage you in any kind of meaningful discussion about your paper. they'll accept it or they won't, and if they accept it they MAY offer some critique, but i wouldn't hold your breath.
posted by misanthropicsarah at 1:14 PM on December 26, 2007
i used to work for a place and we published journals of a size that yours probably are. we did not give away copies of journals to contributors and i thought that was jerky, but, well, not my department. but you can always ask for a copy of the journal.
any journal and publisher worth their salt will ask you to sign away copyright. it's standard. you can huff and puff all you want, but a lot of places think they're doing you a favor by publishing your paper and getting your name out there. look closely at the next agreement you sign. it may or may not preclude you from including it in a collection of your papers, etc. essentially, they're just covering their butt so you can't go back later and sue them for publishing your work without your permission (your signature is your permission).
by editors, do you mean the journal editors (scholarly dudes like yourself) or the publisher's editors (cube rats in a windowless office)? again, it varies by publication, but the journal editor should have at least seen your paper in order to have accepted it for publication in the journal. but maybe the journals you're in do it differently? i don't know. the publisher will most likely not look at your paper at all. they'll just pass it on to a copy editor to edit for style, ESL, etc. You (or the journal editor) should have been able to review proofs of your paper one more time between copy editing and publication, at which point the errors in century should have been pointed out and corrected.
Journal editors are usual very busy people--heads of departments, chairs on umpteen boards, etc. They're likely not going to engage you in any kind of meaningful discussion about your paper. they'll accept it or they won't, and if they accept it they MAY offer some critique, but i wouldn't hold your breath.
posted by misanthropicsarah at 1:14 PM on December 26, 2007
1. One year + to publication is standard for both journals & academic press books. (Hey, it could be worse: Dad the Emeritus Historian of Graeco-Roman Egypt had one article come out around nine years or so after it had been accepted...)
2. I've retained copyright on only a couple of my articles. Also standard, at least in the humanities.
3. You should get some offprints or one free copy of the book. ("Should" being the operative term: one publisher is nearly two years behind on sending me my contractually-guaranteed copy.) No royalties, unless you're the author of a book (and, depending on the publisher, not necessarily then, either). I've only been paid for encyclopedia articles.
4. I'm a little puzzled about your description of the editors, as I've always had noticeable feedback from both peer reviewers & editors. Granted, some journals/editors are more hands-on or interventionist than others.
5. Yes, weird things happen to the article while it's being set, even if you've submitted electronic copy. I recently found myself unscrambling a sentence, for example. Proofs should indeed be proofread.
posted by thomas j wise at 4:44 PM on December 26, 2007
2. I've retained copyright on only a couple of my articles. Also standard, at least in the humanities.
3. You should get some offprints or one free copy of the book. ("Should" being the operative term: one publisher is nearly two years behind on sending me my contractually-guaranteed copy.) No royalties, unless you're the author of a book (and, depending on the publisher, not necessarily then, either). I've only been paid for encyclopedia articles.
4. I'm a little puzzled about your description of the editors, as I've always had noticeable feedback from both peer reviewers & editors. Granted, some journals/editors are more hands-on or interventionist than others.
5. Yes, weird things happen to the article while it's being set, even if you've submitted electronic copy. I recently found myself unscrambling a sentence, for example. Proofs should indeed be proofread.
posted by thomas j wise at 4:44 PM on December 26, 2007
The editor and the COPY editor are not the same thing. If you get your ms back late asking you to change your referencing format (like from APA to MLA), that's because the copy editor spotted this mechanical error in your ms. It does not mean that the reviewers didn't read it of course -- they HAD to read it to recommend revisions or publication. But it's not the reviewers' jobs to say "author uses wrong footnote style" or whatever.
posted by ethnomethodologist at 6:59 PM on December 26, 2007
posted by ethnomethodologist at 6:59 PM on December 26, 2007
Yep, all this is normal. A one year turnaround from submission to print would be quick in most humanities fields. Often a review can take three to six months if it is sent out to more than one reviewer, or reviewed a second time as a "revise and resubmit." Most journals have a several-issue queue for already accepted papers as well. It can, and often does, take 18-24 months, easily, to publish a refereed journal article.
Most academic presses hold the copyright, and royalties or payments for journal articles (as opposed to reviews of book manuscripts, some book chapters are by custom not remunerated; no one is making any money publishing academic journals, least of all authors, who benefit financially from the way peer reviewed articles (supposedly) advance their careers. In fact, if you need to pay for photo or reprint rights etc. for your article, expect to pay out of pocket in most cases.
A journal editor synthesizes reviewer critiques with her/his own critique in replying initially to a submitted manuscript, and makes a final decision based on a standard set of responses reviewers must give after making a substantive evaluation (accept with minor revisions, revise substantially, revise and resubmit, reject). A reviewer can write from one paragraph to ten pages of comments on a single journal article, depending on many factors. An article may be sent back to an author for substantial revision and be sent back to the same reviewers, or different reviewers in some cases. But in the end the judgment is the editor's, as is the final balance of critical challenges.
That has nothing to do with copyediting, usually done in the final round before publication, in a rush, and very often not by a professional, depending on the journal.
In short, academic publishing -- certainly in refereed journals in the humanities and social sciences -- is simply not at all like commercial publishing (though there is a lot of convergence going on in the book publishing world). Even as new efficiencies are introduced with online publishing and other electronic shortcuts ("track changes," anyone?), the process is clogged because of the high number of hungry PhDs and junior faculty members scrambling for a shrinking number of tenured positions, for which peer-reviewed journal articles are the prime currency of purchase.
It's a rich and messy world. There are lots of guidebooks and websites that give you bits and pieces of it, but it is nowhere, that I know, well synthesized because it is an industry in turmoil and transition at the moment. The old systems lie alongside untested new ones, and the whole structure is stressed by mounting costs and demographic pressures. Academia itself, really, is like that these days. A lot of new journals emerge to survive a year or two; many venerable journals are reinventing themselves.
It's a world unto itself.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:44 PM on December 26, 2007
Most academic presses hold the copyright, and royalties or payments for journal articles (as opposed to reviews of book manuscripts, some book chapters are by custom not remunerated; no one is making any money publishing academic journals, least of all authors, who benefit financially from the way peer reviewed articles (supposedly) advance their careers. In fact, if you need to pay for photo or reprint rights etc. for your article, expect to pay out of pocket in most cases.
A journal editor synthesizes reviewer critiques with her/his own critique in replying initially to a submitted manuscript, and makes a final decision based on a standard set of responses reviewers must give after making a substantive evaluation (accept with minor revisions, revise substantially, revise and resubmit, reject). A reviewer can write from one paragraph to ten pages of comments on a single journal article, depending on many factors. An article may be sent back to an author for substantial revision and be sent back to the same reviewers, or different reviewers in some cases. But in the end the judgment is the editor's, as is the final balance of critical challenges.
That has nothing to do with copyediting, usually done in the final round before publication, in a rush, and very often not by a professional, depending on the journal.
In short, academic publishing -- certainly in refereed journals in the humanities and social sciences -- is simply not at all like commercial publishing (though there is a lot of convergence going on in the book publishing world). Even as new efficiencies are introduced with online publishing and other electronic shortcuts ("track changes," anyone?), the process is clogged because of the high number of hungry PhDs and junior faculty members scrambling for a shrinking number of tenured positions, for which peer-reviewed journal articles are the prime currency of purchase.
It's a rich and messy world. There are lots of guidebooks and websites that give you bits and pieces of it, but it is nowhere, that I know, well synthesized because it is an industry in turmoil and transition at the moment. The old systems lie alongside untested new ones, and the whole structure is stressed by mounting costs and demographic pressures. Academia itself, really, is like that these days. A lot of new journals emerge to survive a year or two; many venerable journals are reinventing themselves.
It's a world unto itself.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:44 PM on December 26, 2007
PS -- it is normal for a journal to provide an author with a number of offprints of her/his article; only rarely a copy of the journal itself. It is often assumed you are a subscriber in any case. And almost all recent (and many older) academic articles can now be obtained electronically fairly soon after publication in typeset PDF form.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:45 PM on December 26, 2007
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:45 PM on December 26, 2007
Response by poster: Thanks for all this. It looks as if I was fortunate to find one out of the three (journal/book) editors actually interested in my paper!
posted by paduasoy at 1:06 PM on December 29, 2007
posted by paduasoy at 1:06 PM on December 29, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
If you get comments, my understanding is that they'd be primarily from the referees (are these referred journals?).
Usually it's standard to get at least 1 free copy of the printed journal.
One non-obvious thing is that it's usually not allowed to submit to more than one journal simultaneously unless both/all explicitly allow it in their guidelines.
posted by Jahaza at 12:26 PM on December 26, 2007