next »

[mignon]

I know this press has come up in other threads, but it's never had its very own thread!  My Q to you is:  if  you see this press on a cv, does it make you question the judgment of the cv-er?  Or is this press on its way to legitimacy?  I've published pretty widely, but just got an invitation (from a friend) to submit to a Cambridge Scholars collection.  I'm wondering about its reputation/validity in MLA fields.  Anyone have experiences or perspectives to share?

[santommaso]

I think its reputation has to be established on the books will produce. There is always the difficulty that someone will initially mistake it for Cambridge University Press, and then say, oh, wait; this is something else. Since it isn't going to overtake CUP anytime soon, it might seem second tier by its necessary comparison with CUP.

[oldchair]

It's not the best press, to be sure, but my department does not respond negatively when we see it on an applicant's cv.  CSP has published some fine collections containing some outstanding essays.

[secretweapon]

Cambridge Scholars Press regularly* writes to conference organisers in the UK, offering to publish conference proceedings (as edited books).  Some organisers take it as the easy option - it doesn't necessarily mean that their proceedings aren't good, but maybe they don't want to put the time and energy into sending out proposals.  I have no doubt that it publishes some good stuff, but I've heard it referred to as a step-up from a vanity press - for the very fact that it approaches people for material, rather than the other way around.


*I know of 3 people who have received communications from them - 2 in MLA fields, 1 in history.  Two were grad students.

[fugitive_prof]

In answer to the original question, if I saw it as the ONLY book on a cv, I would be skeptical of the person's scholarship as a first impression.

[mignon]

Thanks, all.  That was my guess:  legit enough, but not prestigious.  I will be submitting my essay to the CSP collection, but it's not the only item on my cv.

I guess we can be happy that publishers (of any stripe) even _exist_ at this point. 

[pink_]

The only problem that I have with CSP (I have two essays in different collections) is that the books are very expensive for US libraries or customers, so it can be very difficult to get your hands on the publications.  One of the volumes that I contributed to is a conference collection, and the other is not, but it is nearly impossible to get either one (and while they give a 40% discount to contributors, there are no off-prints or free copies).  In fact, the first time I saw the final publication was on a trip to Oxford.

[santommaso]

Might anyone be able to say whether this press requires a subvention on the part of the author for publication? I looked at worldcat for two of their published volumes, and one book had 25 listings and the other had 15. Perhaps the books I viewed were not representative, but I am wondering how the press remains in existence.

[pournelle]

People are sure to mistake it for CUP. If it's just on your CV, you'll at least be out of the room, but this is not a clarification you want to make in person.

'Where are you going on vacation this year?'
'Paris.'
'Oh, the Seine!, The Louvre!.'
'No, not Paris France, Paris Texas.'
'Oh.'
'You know it's actually quite nice there in August.'

[airball]

Not to revive a dead thread, but I'm reading one of these conference collections right now, and it is f-ing dreadful. Nothing wrong with the scholarship, per se, but its crammed with typos, footnote problems that my undergrads would catch, etc.

If you can, publish your piece in a journal. This will just make you look like an amateur.

airball

[spongie]

I have the impression that CSP is a bit hit-and-miss, more so than it should be. It's not a vanity press, so it has "proper publisher" cred in that sense, and the website does very clearly say it has nothing to do with Cambridge UP, so it's not trying to fudge its credibility (presumably they simply made the unfortunate mistake of not getting any image consulting/using common sense before choosing the name...).

But. The two edited collections of theirs I've read (okay, browsed through) have been very, very different. One is reasonable, nothing groundbreaking but a decent collection that the contributors don't at least need to be embarrassed by. The other... Yikes. No proofreading, inconsistent referencing, missing words, bazillion chapters that say nothing and so on.

Maybe their monographs are more consistent, but it certainly seems that with edited collections they just pass the buck to the conference organiser (I'm just going to assume their edited collections derive from conferences) to make sure everything fits together, so the quality of the text depends on how committed the editor is. So OP, if you trust your friend to not allow just any old drivel into the collection and to be a bit of an anal proofreader, you might just end up with a chapter in a decent enough book with other chapters that "go" well with yours. But if you have any doubts about your friend's organisational ability or standards, submit elsewhere.

[bacardiandlime]

I know this press has come up in other threads, but it's never had its very own thread! 

Yes, it has:
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=25954.0
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=23575.0
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=30764.0

I have had no contact with this press, but I know a couple of people who have published with them (their PhD theses, and edited collections). It seems to vary between disciplines how seriously people take them. I have heard academics refer to it as "Mickey Mouse" (I don't think they see it as anything better than Edwin Mellen) - and if the problems mentioned by others in this thread are anything to go by, I'd avoid it.

[slack]

I'd rank it below university press of america and above edwin mellon.

[airball]

Bump for Rebel girl

[rebelgirl]

Bump for Rebel girl

Thanks, Airball :)

Interesting info.  Yes, when I checked their website, I was glad to see that they noted right up front they are not affiliated with Cambridge UP, but rather, that their press was founded by Cambridge grads.  I agree that they would have done well to choose a different name, though.  (Maybe they'll see this thread & think about making a change!)

One plus for CSP, I think:  they've put searchable texts they'd published on their website.  When they initially contacted me, I read some in my field and was quite favorably impressed, which was why I wanted to go ahead.  Yes, they had contacted me about publishing an anthology based on a conference session in an MLA subfield. 

My question on the other thread was whether their acceptance policy (send a description of text and audience, list of contributors, cv's of editors, and a sample essay) was odd:  were I publishing an anthology, I'd want to see the whole enchilada before saying yes.  But I'm assuming they'll have some sort of opt out clause, waiting to see that the whole collection's up to the standard of the sample paper.

From posts here, sounds as if their record is mixed, but that they are legit and possibly up and coming.  From what I read on their site in my field, I'm not worried re: quality---just wondering about that acceptance policy, if others have seen similar policies elsewhere.