Publishing SF Criticism
Hi. I have several questions I'd like to post under different topics regarding professional development, i.e., the publishing and promoting of book-length works of sf criticism. It's my hope that this forum will be especially useful to graduate students and scholars who don't have much experience with the (scholarly) publishing industry. Here's the first one:
Where to publish a work of sf criticism will likely be contingent upon where one teaches, or where one wants to teach (e.g. a Research 1 institution, a 4-year liberal arts school, a smaller state school, a community college, etc.). An R1 institution like Michigan State University, for instance, where I did my Ph.D., requires faculty to publish with top tier presses. MSU would scowl at a book published by, say, McFarland or Greenwood. (Then again, MSU would scowl at a book of sf criticism!) Wright State University-Lake Campus, on the other hand, where I teach now, is not as research-intensive and doesn't place as much emphasis on the publisher (which is why I had the freedom to publish my book Technologized Desire with a small, fledgling press, and it still carried significant weight in my recent promotion to associate professor). The question, then, is: What do seasoned sf scholars have to say about this dynamic? Is it wise for graduate students and new tenure-track faculty to start by submitting manuscripts to top publishers and then work their way down the line? This can take a long time, and given the state of the job market, folks need publications faster and faster.
publishing opportunities
Many University presses are notoriously fickle about what subjects they are interested in publishing. But a look on Amazon at forthcoming 2010 publications in the history and criticism of science fiction suggests that--at this moment--the following presses, all of which will publish significant books this year, can be added to David's list of publishers who are receptive to manuscripts in sf criticism:
Indiana Univ ersity Press
Palgrave Macmillan
Routledge
Continuum
University of Minnesota Press
University of South Carolina Press
Bob
publishing opportunities
Thanks for starting this discussion, David. The drought of publishing opportunities has affected just about all forms of literary scholarship. So, this is a problem that a great many assistant professors are wrestling with throughout the larger fields of English studies and the Humanities. My own sense is that a young scholar who is doing really good work needs to think BOTH about looming personnel decisions in her or his own department and what is needed for personal development as a scholar--including getting good feedback from peer-review processes. So, I think it is valuable to try out one's work with a highly visible press that has a commitment to sf scholarship (e.g. Liverpool UP or Wesleyan UP) or that has been sympathetic to publishing sf work in recent years (e.g. Duke UP or Ohio State UP) before resorting to McFarland or Greenwood. This isn't just a matter of snobbery but of ensuring that one is getting honest, informed, and responsive advice about and validation of your work from knowledgeable scholars. Because someone doing research in SF is often the only person in the department pursuing that scholarly line, you often cannot get much helpful feedback at the local level--which makes it all the more important to get good readers' reports on your work. So, without denying the anxieties that so many newer members of the profession feel about the relationship of their publication records to tenurability, I just want to put in a word about this other crucial aspect of professional development: helpful and informed peer review, especially in the subfield of SF studies where there is such a sense of isolation except on those few occasions when one gathers with others, as at SFRA or at the Conference on the Fantastic or at the Eaton conference.
Bob Crossley
Peer Review
I strongly believe in what you say about the importance of peer-review, Bob. A question comes to mind: Do McFarland and Greenwood not have peer-review processes in place? If so, is it more a matter of the quality of peer-reviewers there vs. Duke UP, UMichP, etc.? If not, on what basis do they accept manuscripts, and who accepts them? Is it simply one person sitting behind a desk who says yay or nay? These are questions for anybody, of course. I have read several books and anthologies from McFarland and Greenwood that are excellent, both in terms of content and mechanical polish. I have read others that aren't so excellent.