next »

[airball]

Hi Rebelgirl,

I understand your hesitation. The one book that I looked at (I don't recall if it began life as a conference) was quite slim, and the problems in the text made it appear that chapters had been edited for length by someone other than the author. (Footnotes referred to passages that were not in the text, evidence that seems to be missing, etc.)

I've no idea if you sign away control of the text, but it might be something to keep an eye upon.

Good luck,

airball

[tuxedo_cat]

I am resurrecting this thread to see what the current opinion is of this press and, perhaps more importantly, how it is regarded by search committees.  One would hope that any new press might improve over time, but the question of reputation (in MLA and history fields mostly?) is also of importance.

The issue came up in another thread where we were discussing advice for new PhDs in English. Those of you on search committees, have you noticed candidates who have essays in anthologies published by CSP?  Does that create any impressions one way or the other about the candidate?

[pink_]

It really depends.  My campus would be perfectly happy to see an essay placed in a CSP collection or to see someone edit such a collection themselves.  But I teach at an SLAC.  CSP wouldn't go over so well at a more research intensive institution.  I regret having one essay in a CSP collection myself because it's basically inaccessible because the books are so expensive to purchase in the US.

[neutralname]

CSP seem to be putting out books at a prodigious rate.  I've seen some books from them that are very good, but I'm not sure how great their quality control is.  Since it is a relatively new press (isn't it?) you can't rely on it having a strong reputation.

[empyrean_aisles]

Chiming in to say that I've heard of one search committee (for a UK university) who dismissed any applications from people whose book was out with CSP.

(YMMV, as this is just one data point.)

[scratch32]

Just chiming in here, since I was the one who mentioned CSP on the other thread. I did not know much about this press until I started looking through the job applicants for a position in English that we are hiring for this year.

Of the 200 or so that I've looked at thus far, most still in grad school or out a short time, no less than 40-50 (not an exaggeration) have essays in CSP volumes. These are all edited collections. Some of the single-author books they publish look to be very short (in the range of 70 pages).

These numbers make me seriously doubt the vetting process at CSP. Are these books sent out for review to external readers?

[pep_sal]

I suppose this is a vent about Cambridge Scholars Publishing, but I think it will provide some insight for others searching for information about the press.

I ordered an essay collection through ILL because the titles of some of the essays seem relevant to my current project, but the introduction has left me with such a terrible impression that I am hesitant to proceed on to the essays in question.

I can only conclude that no native speaker of English could possibly have reviewed the introduction before publication, and I fear that this probably reveals a great deal about the level of peer review and editorial guidance that the press provides.
The intro I mention seems to have been rendered into English using an automatic translator. On one occasion, a sentence actually states that the contributors do not know anything about the subject in question. 

I am going to find alternative sources for the information I am seeking, rather than have to cite from this collection.

[santommaso]

I can only conclude that no native speaker of English could possibly have reviewed the introduction before publication...The intro I mention seems to have been rendered into English using an automatic translator. On one occasion, a sentence actually states that the contributors do not know anything about the subject in question. 

Wow. With a teaser like that, let's have some quotations! Don't hold back!

[pep_sal]

I can only conclude that no native speaker of English could possibly have reviewed the introduction before publication...The intro I mention seems to have been rendered into English using an automatic translator. On one occasion, a sentence actually states that the contributors do not know anything about the subject in question. 

Wow. With a teaser like that, let's have some quotations! Don't hold back!

I'm afraid I've been as bold as I'm willing to be for the moment.
If it's any consolation, santommaso, the website provides sample pdfs of their titles, so it's there for all to discover.
http://www.c-s-p.org
If only I had known this before making the ILL request, I might have been able to save my library a few bucks. :(

[globalseek]

I have a collection of essays by myself from CSP, so I guess I'm in a position to say something about it.

My manuscript was reviewed by a Cambridge University professor, so quality control process is there, though really prestigious presses would use two reviews. They also had an internal editorial check, though their proof-reading leaves much to be desired - perhaps that explains the level of language.

I didn't pay any money to them, so it's not a vanity press.

As for the "prestige value" of this press, of course it's not the same as say, OUP but it's a serious press which needs time to build a reputation. Definitely not a good idea for a first book by someone looking for tenure (I do have another research monograph from Ashgate). But for a volume of collected essays or a seminar volume it's not bad, although I must say I have seen people without any significant publication (perhaps with just an obscure article) getting tenure-track on the basis of personal rapport. Yes, that happens even in well-known universities.

I would also say that search committees should read the published work (at least parts of it) rather than look at the publisher's tag. I have seen some good work being published by lesser-known presses and quite mediocre or even below-mediocre books coming out of well-known presses like the OUP. And no one will believe this, but Cambridge asked me to arrange for the sale of 100 copies of a book of mine. I refused and gave it to Ashgate. Does this make Cambridge a vanity press? Of course not. It's still a prestigious press. It's just that we should come out of these notions of quality being judged by publishers' tags and read the work with a critical eye to judge it.

[milomypal]

I have a collection of essays by myself from CSP, so I guess I'm in a position to say something about it.

My manuscript was reviewed by a Cambridge University professor, so quality control process is there, though really prestigious presses would use two reviews. They also had an internal editorial check, though their proof-reading leaves much to be desired - perhaps that explains the level of language.

I didn't pay any money to them, so it's not a vanity press.

As for the "prestige value" of this press, of course it's not the same as say, OUP but it's a serious press which needs time to build a reputation. Definitely not a good idea for a first book by someone looking for tenure (I do have another research monograph from Ashgate). But for a volume of collected essays or a seminar volume it's not bad, although I must say I have seen people without any significant publication (perhaps with just an obscure article) getting tenure-track on the basis of personal rapport. Yes, that happens even in well-known universities.

I would also say that search committees should read the published work (at least parts of it) rather than look at the publisher's tag. I have seen some good work being published by lesser-known presses and quite mediocre or even below-mediocre books coming out of well-known presses like the OUP. And no one will believe this, but Cambridge asked me to arrange for the sale of 100 copies of a book of mine. I refused and gave it to Ashgate. Does this make Cambridge a vanity press? Of course not. It's still a prestigious press. It's just that we should come out of these notions of quality being judged by publishers' tags and read the work with a critical eye to judge it.

Globalseek: CSP's strategy is at least partly dependent on the knowledge that people will innocently mistake it for CUP.  CSP is not a vanity press but it's also not a prestigious press. But the outrageous prices for the volumes smack of vanity-press-dom.  The editors/writers realize that no one can afford/wants to shell out for over-priced volumes of questionable worth.

[runwithscissors]

I don't think high priced volumes is indicative of a vanity press. CUP, OUP and others further down the ladder like Routledge, Continuum and Ashgate all sell monographs over the $75 mark. I think it's more to do with the high cost of UK publishers than the quality of the output.

[globalseek]

CSP clearly says on its website that it's not related to CUP. I don't see how they want to capitalise on the "identity- based confusion." And I did say it doesn't have a prestige value like some prestigious presses. But if one has a book from a good press, nothing wrong in publishing a collected volume from CSP. Besides, even good presses publish books of questionable worth and not-so-good presses can turn out good books. That's why I said search committees should read at least part of the work rather than judge a scholar's worth by the publisher's tag.

[annoyed_prof]

As someone who has published in one CSP volume and am now editing a volume for me let me offer the following

1. no subvention required = not vanity press
2. no external manuscript review = not peer reviewed
3.  should call themselves "printer" rather than "publisher" as they do not edit the MS at all.  In fact they do almost nothing but format it.
4.  Although their website clearly states they have moved away from the conference proceedings publishing that they did early on,  the quality of the collections (which seems to be the bulk of their works) is going to vary drastically by the editor.  I spent a huge amount of time and got a publishing grad student to intern with me on the project.  I'd like to think it resulted in a respectable volume on a timely contemporary topic that wasn't going to be picked up fast enough by a minor university press
5. they do virtually no marketing, sell e-copies only to libraries, and don't sell e-chapters individually, which would probably reap them higher profits.
6. still with sites like academia.edu and e-portfolios, one can scan their contribution, post it and have it read.

 

CSP clearly says on its website that it's not related to CUP. I don't see how they want to capitalise on the "identity- based confusion." And I did say it doesn't have a prestige value like some prestigious presses. But if one has a book from a good press, nothing wrong in publishing a collected volume from CSP. Besides, even good presses publish books of questionable worth and not-so-good presses can turn out good books. That's why I said search committees should read at least part of the work rather than judge a scholar's worth by the publisher's tag.

[tuxedo_cat]

Thank you so much for this frank update, AP.  Those details fit what I have seen.  And I hope your book does get some attention despite the problems with CSP.