the disrespect of some publishers [edited]

Music: The Klaxons

Ack! I am such an idiot. I'm editing this post from yesterday because I may know the author and his book deal is still up in the air. But ask me in person and I'll name names!

Many of us are familiar with the generosity of (some) academic presses: they provide desk copies, they sponsor receptions at academic meetings, and sometimes their reps will buy you a round or five whenever you meet up (oh, how I miss that Australian rep from Bedford books!). Most academic presses are in the business to break-even, perhaps turn a modest profit from time to time. There are a number of larger academic presses, however, that are clearly corporate machines. These presses, like McGraw-Hill, are in the textbook business, which is often signaled by their Mary Kay-style visits to your office with textbooks that are not even remotely related to what you teach.

One practice of the bigger publishers that is starting piss me off is the reviewing racket. I have been asked from time to time to review books, usually textbooks. For some presses, the payoff is usually a modest "honorarium" (the industry rate is $100) and copy of the book if it goes to press. I routinely turn such requests down because an afternoon reviewing a textbook is better spent researching, grading, and so forth. Months ago I agreed to review a book for [Naughty Press] because the book was in my field and not a textbook. I suspect my feelings about reviewing are shared by many: it is a "service" to our field, and in general, we should want our colleagues to publish books. After all, rhetorical studies has been moving over to the book model for some time. Reviewing books, like reviewing articles, is a good thing to do for our colleagues.

Let me broadcast this sentiment, and please do share it with as many colleagues as you can remember to share it with: [Naughty Press] is a terrible press and their editorial staff, however unwittingly, is rude. This summer I received a note from [Superslow Assistant] to review a book for them, and they would need it in like two days. I said I'd love to review the book, but they needed to give me a month because I was in the midst of traveling. I had to remind [Superslow Assistant] to send the book a month later. I was told to get the review back no later than August 18. I got it back on the 16th, but didn't hear back from [Superslow Assistant] until a week and a half later later (I'm thinking this is very important for the author, and the editor doesn't even acknowledge receipt of the review). Worse, I didn't hear back from [Superslow Assistant] after two attempts to ask, "did you get the review?" This non-communication has continued up until today. It took five emails over two months and three phone calls to get the honorarium processed. It is almost nine weeks from the time I turned in the review and I have still not received the honorarium [and apparently the author as STILL not gotten the word].

Now, look: I understand $100 is pretty darn petty. And you know, it's not about the money. It's about asking me to "hurry up and review" and then seemingly dithering around when the author is probably nervously waiting for a book deal for tenure. It's about an obvious attitude at this press toward scholars. If I'm treated with a "thanks for nothing" attitude, I can only imagine how the author feels about working with this press and this editor. I wouldn't be posting this pettiness if it were it not the first time I was involved with this publisher. I was working with some editors on an earlier, edited project that folks at [Naughty Publisher] requested to review. They sat on it for six months and, though the reviews were positive, they decided to "pass" on the book, to the frustration of the many authors involved and, of course, the editors.

So my message for today's blog is this: [Naughty Publisher]? Just say no! Spread the word. And share your bad experiences with [Naughty Publisher] if you have them. (Sorry for y'all who are working with them currently, but, I think they suck.)

Finally, I cannot dis' a publisher without complimenting another: the University of Alabama Press. My book is with them, and they were absolutely a delight to work with. The editors were attentive and friendly, and they've promoted the heck out of it. I know for some of you tenure requires an "A+" press like Chicago, Harvard, Duke, and so on, but if your dean is not gonna hem and haw about that, and if your book is rhetoric-ish in some way, I would highly recommend Alabama. Plus, for the Rhetoric and Social Critique series they've hired a top-notch design person, so the book covers are pretty (check out Barry's book cover).

I'd be interested to hear what positive and negative experiences readers have had with publishers. Perhaps we should create lists of good presses and editors and bad ones to circulate among us? Just knowing the name of an acquisition editor that is a nice person would help a lot of our friends finishing up dissertations.