next »

[just published]

how good is cambridge scholars press? I have a manuscript that has been accepted and I am awaiting a publication contract. Is this reputable? A bozo I used to know in grad school has a book out with this press, which has just made me think that this is not a great press.

[also wondering]

I know of two conference panel chairs, both reputable, who have been solicited to edit their panels as anthologies.  It seems that CSP is a relatively new press that is trying quite hard to gain a presence in the humanities.  The name sounds good, but I think they are just starting out.

[anon]

And the reason I bring this up in this forum is because I am on the job market and I am hoping having this press on my cv won't raise any red flags.

[Heimlich]

This seems to be a press of little reputation that is trying to trade on the reputation of an esteemed press by having a similar name.  

Think I'll go get a degree from Harfurd University . . .

[Harry]

There was a thread on this a while back (maybe in mid-career or research). Try a search and it should turn up.

[sounds like]

...It sounds like this is a "rip off" publisher.  It sounds almost like Cambridge University Press, but it isn't...

There are others that almost sound like famouns publishers, and they are usually vanity (or semi-vanity at best).

I mean, a legitimate publisher won't call itself, "Cambridge Scholars Press," in my opinion.

[%sig%]

[hmmm]

I know it is new, but it seems to be doing well in terms of interesting essay collections.  And it isn't a Vanity Press: Ray Browne is their popular culture editor.

That said, I don't know that I would send a single-author MS there (ok, I wouldn't), but I also wouldn't have reservations about contributing to an edited collection or reference work. After all, Greenwood isn't an academic press, but they publish works that are useful to academics.

It's about being strategic: I wouldn't want my book to come out from a press that is thought of as not sufficently selective, but there are times when it is useful to contribute to a different kind of book.

[js]

The press is new, it has some decent editors (e.g., the aforementioned Ray Browne), it aggressively solicits manuscripts, and there are people who make knee-jerk assumptions about it and the motivations of naming the press. I'd consider the latter.

[poor business decision]

If it is a legitimate publisher, they should have hired a consultant before naming themselves the way they did.  It will always sound like a vanity press because most people will assume that it isn't legitimate, solely based on the name.

[%sig%]

[classics]

Their classics editor is also solid and has published with Oxford UP. Given the employed & published academics on board it doesn't look suspicious. Remember, vanity presses are run by people out to make money--this doesn't appear to be the case. As to the name, they may have had other reasons and academics aren't always the most savvy when it comes to these things.

[DrStones]

poor business decision wrote:

> If it is a legitimate publisher, they should have hired a
> consultant before naming themselves the way they did . . .

Do you have any doubt that a consultant told them to name themselves what they did? This is a classic case of marketing overreach . . .

[Alex]

It is always good to be cautious but even a brief look at Cambridge Scholars Press website shows that their books are wide ranging and academic.  A little more research research reveals that, where they give information about books, a large number of them are written by authors from established and renowned universities with good publishing records (yes, I have done the paper trails!) and their editors are also based at good UK universities.  I think caution is good but not when it is left unsubstantiated.

[unsure also]

I would agree on most these counts.  
I have an article coming out in a collection in this press probably in the next year or so.   I was on a panel which was approached, so I decided to contribute despite the unknown press.  I still feel odd about it.  The article was sent out to a journal long before this all happened -- so if I hear back from them, I might still back out.
But I would shop around a single author manuscript.  
I think this press is growing a reputation for, let us say, overzealousness.
As for collections, they seem to send out bulk inquiries to panels a little too willingly.   My SCMS panel was approached with a form letter, along with a few at PCA I know about.  
Also, they are putting out a lot of books quickly, which might mean some of poor quality.
But they are new and might grow.  They have some decent people affiliated, as you guys pointed out.  Maybe this is how all presses start out.  I don't know.
But I agree on the name.  They are not a variety press, but could've called themselves 'British Scholars' or 'English Scholars' and save themselves a lot of questions, confusion, and accusations.

[educator10]

The reason Cambridge Scholars Press chose this name is because it was originally started by a group of faculty members at Cambridge University.  They publish both established authors and promising new work, which is something that more well-known presses do not always do, thereby making it difficult for many young and innovative scholars to "get their foot in".

The website of the press clearly states that the press was founded by a group of scholars at Cambridge University but that the press has no formal connection to the university or to its press. 

A number of very respectable scholars, many of whom teach at Cambridge University, have published with this press. 

The press is not a 'vanity' press.  'Vanity' presses require that authors finance, either fully or partially, the publication of their own works.  I am currently in the process of publishing an edited book with this press and the press did not require me to finance the publication of this book.  (By the way, many respectable presses (including some big name university presses) are so hard-pressed financially that they are now beginning to require authors to partially finance publications.)

If people have questions about the nature of a publisher or press, they should visit the website, examine the quality of the works that have been published, and the reputation of some the authors.  In other words, just as with our own work, when it comes to finding out what a press is all about, we should do our research.

[johannespterrs]

I heard that they don't send manuscripts out for review.  Does this mean that their publications are not peer-reviewed?