next »

[rebelgirl]

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.

Hi, Tuxedocat, I'm reposting the information below from the other CSP thread to be sure it's seen.  Our volume from CSP *was* peer reviewed, and I'm concerned lest the message that they don't peer review ends up devaluing it.  That would be a real disservice to our contributors, who did excellent work and should be evaluated on their merits rather than on misinformation about the press. 

My update, from the other thread:
A colleague and I edited a collection of essays for CSP.  Our initial proposal, including sample chapters, was reviewed by two U.Cambridge professors.  CSP told us that the final manuscript had been reviewed, as well, though we did not get readers' comments.  We were then asked for names of reputable scholars in our fields to whom the volume would be sent for advertising quotes, as well:  two well known writers gave us favorable comments.  So while CSP's process was not standard, our volume was in fact peer reviewed. 
 
As I noted on other CSP threads, I had doubts precisely because they initially approached us about creating conference proceedings (based on special topic sessions we had chaired for a number of years).  Now that the book is out, I have mixed feelings about the experience--as other posters said, there was little feedback and no editing from them--we did it all.  We couldn't get enough complimentary copies for contributors, and getting the book reviewed is a challenge b/c they are not sending review copies, just queries.  These were issues we had not thought to negotiate up front.

OTOH, we liked having the level of control we did re: the volume itself.  We were permitted the time to do the job we wanted re: indexing, proofreading, etc.  We worked closely with our contributors through revisions.  Our contact person at the press always responded to us quickly and professionally.  It was a rewarding, enjoyable project, and (naturally) we think the essays in the book make strong contributions to our Cool Relatively New Subfield of Basketweaving.  My main concern now is that the younger scholars in the volume may be disadvantaged because of the press's mixed reputation, and that would be a real shame.  I hope that--as educator10 said downthread [on the other thread]--people will look at CSP's website and judge its volumes based on their content. 

[tuxedo_cat]

Thanks, rebelgirl.  It is very helpful to have a variety of perspectives about experiences people have had with the press.  One of my concerns (can't remember if I posted this upthread or in a PM with someone else) is about whether grad students and young scholars may be encouraged to publish an essay with this press instead of submitting it for publication in a journal in their field with a more stable reputation and consistently rigorous review process.

[rebelgirl]

Tuxedo_cat, I'm concerned about this too.  While a younger scholar, I had a good article essentially buried in an invited collection that wasn't widely reviewed and then went out of print.  Others later published my conclusions, but in journals.  In retrospect, I should have sent that piece to a journal, but was flattered to be asked to contribute to the volume. 

That memory has come back as I've seen CSP slap a very high price tag on our volume and then decide not to send out review copies unless journals respond to a query email.  I had assumed that because this is a Relatively New & Cool Subfield of Basketweaving, people would be interested--but they won't be interested if they never hear about it.  I don't want the younger scholars in this collection to suffer from this. 

I'm working to get out the word about this volume (and so are contributors), but if I were now advising a younger scholar, I'd urge submitting to a journal over submitting to an anthology.  CSP's not a lone offender here--economic pressures are driving many presses to cut back on advertising, complimentary copies to reviewers, etc. . . . "Submit to journals first" is good general advice, I suspect, now more than ever.   

[lkermode]

No reputable press routinely requests MSS from student conferences (including undergraduate). A number of good presses even shy away from encouraging major academic conference proceedings in their publication lists these days. The last post about the minimal press editorial involvement and rather suspect use of the term "peer review" pretty much tells you that (for the present) this press has dressed itself in the trappings of a proper academic outfit (my students got excited when they saw "Cambridge" in the title of the press requesting their papers). Maybe they are trying to build into something that will gain reputation, but it will be hard to shake this early dodginess. And a previous post talked about the Cambridge professors with the press and their impressive website: there are people affiliated in various ways with the press and with universities -that's about all the website tells us. There is no doubt that some good work will come out through this press, just as some probably comes out through Mellen Press, but it will be buried in the huge quantity of solicited and minimally reviewed work they publish. I like the idea of making publishing more accessible in this current climate of increased publishing requirements, but my note to grad students on the job market is that I would much rather see a couple of major conference presentations on your CV than an essay in a collection by this press.

[isalicus]

Although their website clearly states they have moved away from the conference proceedings publishing that they did early on ...
 

With regards to this, I can say that I was just solicited a volume by this press, based on a CFP I did on a mailing list, which was for a somewhat experimental conference session that I'm putting together with two fellow, early career PhD students. We're at a well-known US university, but none of us consider ourselves experts on the particular topic of our session: rather we wanted to experiment with the forms and conventions of our field (as grad students do) and facilitate a more formal conversation with our peers and professors.

Moreover, the form letter I received was very much that: a rather robotic, formal letter that apparently mistook our session for a full-blown conference.

The idea of publishing our session had not crossed my mind yet, and my judgment may be premature, but I'm not very inclined to take up the offer.

[neutralname]

I got a similar email from them.  My impression is that they are going down  in quality, and are ready to publish just about anything, in the hope that a few libraries will buy their books.

[bibliothecula]

I also just got a solicitation--I am the program chair for an upcoming conference. I deleted it without replying.

[tuxedo_cat]

More anecdotal data:

A colleague of mine at another school reported that this press recently sent her a collection of essays to request a blurb.  She was deeply dismayed by the sloppiness of the introduction and refused.  They apparently got the name of the leading scholar on the topic wrong.  The volume was eventually published with some minor revisions to correct egregious errors.

About volumes from conferences:  this volume was also solicited from a conference open to scholars, non-scholars and students (so whatever their website may say, they're still doing this).  It included a basically unrevised Senior Thesis from an undergrad that my colleague had also read (the student was in her dept).  The student's essay was good, for an undergrad thesis, but hardly polished enough to be published.

So, further evidence that the quality of output from this press is highly irregular, probably dependent largely on the scholarly integrity of whoever edits a given volume.  The broader oversight by editors at the press itself seems to be quite unreliable.

[neutralname]

It seems that they offer to publish the papers from just about ever conference in humanities and social sciences.  Their name keeps on turning up.  Publishing them isn't very different from self-publishing in terms of quality guarantee.  Still, they do put out some products that are OK. 

[qassandra]

I've received two solicitations from CSP: one to publish proceedings of a graduate conference I organized and one for my not-yet-finished dissertation. As much as I would like to think that I've built up a reputation for awesomeness, the latter especially is big red flag.

[alpha_bet]

I also just got an email from them about a CFP I posted online.
One thing I noticed, though - it's a "solicitation" only in the most general sense.
They weren't offering to automatically publish anything we sent them.
It was more like an advertisement for keeping them in mind if we ever wanted to send a formal proposal.

[neutralname]

I just agreed to contribute a chapter to a book published by CSP, based on a conference I was at.  All they saw in an abstract, and that's all they have for all the papers.  But they have agreed to publish. 

[deadcatbounce]

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.

CSP told us that the final manuscript had been reviewed, as well, though we did not get readers' comments.

To me that makes it sound like it has not been legitimately peer-reviewed.

I just recently served on a granting committee that quickly reached the conclusion that CSP is not a genuinely peer-reviewed press and when evaluating CVs we proceeded as such.

[treeoflife]

Just for the sake of argument, why not read and judge all articles on merit rather than the press.

[tuxedo_cat]

Just for the sake of argument, why not read and judge all articles on merit rather than the press.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple, either for relying on such essays for one's own scholarship -- or for evaluating someone's scholarship in a tenure file.  For most schools with even modest publication requirements for tenure, only articles published by journals and presses with an established and consistent peer-review process will "count" for tenure.