next »

[hyperbole]

Okay, we know who is at the top.

Oxford, Cambridge, Duke, Chicago, major Ivys (I would add Routledge with the caveat that they can also rate much lower due to volume).

And I know that many will want to quibble over differences in field/period/series/sub-field...

But bracketing these differences, how would you rank presses for an MLA field monograph?

I'm especially interested in how you would rank presses that fall into that vague second tier, bottom-of-the-top-tier cluster like

NYU
Rutgers
Indiana
Illinois
UVA
UNC
 

[scratch32]

Well UNC is definitely top tier for American Lit., especially early American. I'm assuming you forgot Stanford as well on the top tier?

I would add Minnesota (especially for theory) and California to your list, both probably above the rest you have listed as "second tier." Maybe Toronto as well?

[balsamic]

In my field of American literature, I'd rather have a book with either NYU or Minnesota than with any of the ivy presses.  I agree with Duke and Chicago being in top tier for my field.  Like scratch, I would also add California.

Never heard of anyone publishing with Indiana or UVA in my field.  I'm under the impression that Indiana is good for African studies but don't know much about it beyond that.  I didn't even know UVA had a press.  I wouldn't publish with Routledge even though some of their books are quite good because they also put dissertations in print, and I wouldn't want anyone to confuse my book with one of those.

For Latina/o literature, the reputations of Texas and Florida are very good, along with the aforementioned Minnesota and Duke.

For Victorian literature, Ohio State is very good.

[jacaranda_]

OP, are you interested in a general discussion, or are you thinking about your own publishing prospects?  If the latter, then it might be helpful to give us a field/period (if you feel comfortable doing that).  Here's how I would add to scratch's list:

Stanford
U of California
Minnesota
U of Toronto
UNC
.............
Hopkins
Blackwell (British)
Methuen (British)
U of Michigan

In terms of other reflections about academic publishing in MLA fields, I agree that Routledge (the recent incarnation, last 15 years or so) is very erratic.  They have published plenty of very prominent studies (Butler, e.g.), but I've also seen some supposedly academic books from Routledge that are just dreadful -- seemed to have no editorial oversight.  But to the extent that they seem to have provided a shot in the arm for academic publishing, I'm happy that they're around.

Ashgate has achieved a lot of visibility lately in early modern studies, and I've had a couple editors approach me about my work, but they definitely don't have anywhere near the status of the traditional presses yet.  I've noticed that Macmillan seems to be doing more academic books recently, too -- am I right in thinking that that is also a new trend?  And likewise, I don't think UVA has a press, or if it does, it may have a narrow focus outside of literary studies?

[seniorscholar]

Field really does matter a lot. UVA is very close to the top in Victorian (but doesn't do anything in the high-theory category). Reputations change with editors, though. Indiana used to be the most receptive place for feminist material and had a dynamite list back in the days when feminist criticism was hard to publish. Etc.

[empyrean_aisles]

Great thread. Thanks to the OP for starting it.

I'd be interested to hear opinions about UK presses as part of this discussion. OUP and CUP are up the top for sure, but which other UK presses would people value? Manchester? Liverpool? Edinburgh?

[junior_guy]

Yes, good thread.  I agree w/ balsamic about Minnesota... UVA is not on my radar in terms of reputation; at least I cannot think of a book in my field that has made a huge impact that was published with that press. 

What are people's thoughts about Penn State Univ. Press and Temple University Press?

[jacaranda_]

Yes, good thread.  I agree w/ balsamic about Minnesota... UVA is not on my radar in terms of reputation; at least I cannot think of a book in my field that has made a huge impact that was published with that press. 

What are people's thoughts about Penn State Univ. Press and Temple University Press?

Temple definitely puts out important studies in minority lit.

[hyperbole]

Thanks all for your posts.

Many replies have wanted to refine the list for the top-tier (something I wrongly thought would be less fun than ranking second-tier).

Recap: Is this a sound list for the top tier?

Cambridge
Oxford
Duke
Chicago
Stanford
U of California

------

Now should we begin to differentiate a lower rung within the top tier, create a second tier, or should the following be included above without qualification?

Minnesota
U of Toronto
UNC
Hopkins
(Columbia/Harvard-Belknap/Yale)


This thread has been great.

[helpful]

What is the criteria for ranking? Does marketing and sales ability fit as criteria? (ie. what is the point of publishing something if no one reads it?)

[hyperbole]

However you define excellence, quality in scholarship.

Even if we are all using different criteria and approaching the question from a number of different angles, it looks as if we are still arriving at some consensus on a number of presses and their ranking.

Assuming respondants are in MLA field, I would much prefer to see how we rank presses (even according to the vaguest of criteria) than, say, the physicist on a T&P committee. 

[helpful]

I agree, hyperbole, but I am thinking one criteria should be marketing and sales (to whatever audience you prefer). There is absolutely no point in publishing something if it isn't read by anyone.

[hyperbole]

Helpful, are you intimating that there may be some presses with an inflated reputation? Presses typically seen as top tier which crank out books no one reads?

Great point. One we should consider. In journals, PMLA comes to mind as a precedent.

I think such a press would rank lower in terms of impact but perhaps still high becuase of prestige or reputation.

Which press are you thinking of? Chicago?

[helpful]

I am more speaking of our own criteria which often seems to be related to 'prestige' or 'giving us high marks in order to get promotion or tenure' yet no one reads the books because the press doesn't market the books.

It would be like ranking universities based on historical reputation but if students aren't happy about their undergrad education (eg. Harvard where undergrads seldom get professors as teachers) this doesn't enter into the rankings, or if it does, only minimally.

[scratch32]

At least in my field or one's closely related to it, Cornell and Penn are in the top tier as well.