University Presses /Academic Publishers

Please share your experiences working with these presses! Feel free to add other presses and publishers to the list. Please use "Heading 3" to format the names of presses or publishers. Use bullet points to add responses under each heading.

See Also: Association of American University Presses (List of Members)

University Presses

 Bucknell University Press

• Head of press was very interested in my proposal/idea; sent in the book, but then was told could not find any reviewers; sent to another press and, lo and behold, 2 reviews within months.

Cambridge University Press

• Fast, efficient, and thoroughly professional (working with the US office): prompt response to the proposal; all readers' reports delivered in four months; production process took around 7 months. All editors (acquisitions, assistant, production, etc.) respond to e-mails in 24 hours or less.
• Editor "misplaced" first copy of manuscript. I only discovered this three months in when I sent an inquiry about the current status of the review. I sent a second copy of the ms, as the editor requested. I started checking in every three months, then every six weeks. Every time, I was told the ms was about to be sent out for review. I finally pulled the ms from Cambridge after it had sat there more than a year with absolutely no movement and no external reviews. From what I hear, this sort of inaction is common with Cambridge (I worked through the UK office).
  • Did the editor ask for an exclusive review of your manuscript? There should be some accountability for such unprofessional conduct.
  • I had an equally bad experience with Cambridge's US office (Eric Crahan in particular) that very nearly cost me tenure. I submitted the ms in February 2010 at which point it was sent out to one reviewer. In May I received a "revise-and-resubmit" from the reviewer and a promise from the editor that he would send the ms to two reviewers after I revised it. I resubmitted an extensively revised ms a year later and was told that it was going out to two reviewers. Six months later, after having heard nothing, I sent an email to the editor checking on the status of the ms. The next morning he forwarded the second report from the first reviewer which now urged publication. Remarkably, for reasons that he didn't explain, the editor had never bothered to send the ms to a second reviewer. (To make matters worse, I latter learned from the first reviewer who agreed to reveal his identity that he had submitted his report in July which meant that the editor had it for four months without doing anything with it!) At this point, I very politely explained that my tenure timeline required a book contract by the coming spring. The editor promised to solicit a review that would be due by January 1. In March, the editor forwarded a "revise-and-resubmit" report from a reviewer who---based on her/his utter lack of knowledge of the topic and field---had no business reviewing the book and told me that---after two years of being jerked around---CUP were going to pass on the ms. I would strongly recommend caution with CUP.
• CUP took my ms. for review, had it for several months, stopped responding to my calls and emails. I know a guy who had his ms. out with them for over a year and they wouldn't email him back, then finally after a year rejected it and in the process mentioned that he had always been free to have it under considertation elsewhere. Beware.
• BEWARE indeed.  CUP had my manuscript for 2 years before they finally told me 'no'. I quickly took it to another excellent publisher and had a contract to sign within 6 weeks. At no point during the long-haul with CUP  did I feel that they were at all interested or concerned about what was happening. I would never go to them again. My promotion has been delayed by years because of them. Terrible.
• CUP took my proposal for a book on theatre  for consideration (after telling me to send it in) but despite numerous emails to the commissioning editor over 18 months I have never managed to get a response as to what they think about it. Have now got a contract with a commercial - rather than university - publishing house. I was warned not to bother with CUP but their name still has a certain cachet I guess.
• 2014 (summer): two colleagues just had books published through CUP. Reader reports were an issue for both, more due to nonresponsive reviewers than anything the press had done or not done per se, but the more disconcerting thing was that there was effectively no copy-editing at all done to the manuscripts. At least in my field, the general consensus is that CUP is for all intents and purposes the "acceptable" vanity press, but an especially good home for esoterica that you don't want too many people to read.

Central European University Press

• I have begun discussions with an editor about submitting a manuscript for the CEU classics series, and would welcome feedback/praise/complaints from anyone who has worked with them.

Cornell University Press

• Quick and polite rejection by mail. 
• Friend had a very bad experience with an editor here; extremely slow, then finally rejected the ms. after more than a year. 
• I have had a very good experience with the press. They responded within a week to my cover letter and sample chapter, and were prompt with getting me reader reports. I have heard that this press can be "mercurial" but I have not had this experience. 

Duke University Press

• Although a rejection, very professional and timely (x2).
• Oh please. Infamous.  They lost my ms/package (proposal and sample chapters), or so they say after repeated queries over 12 months. Resubmit and 8 weeks later a form letter rejection. Very feudal. If you dont have a personal connection then forget it. A very American pomo PC brigade.
• Had a terrible experience with "good cop/bad cop" reviews. The advice of the positive reviewer (who suggested publication and wrote glowing praise) was ignored, and I was asked to gut ALL the "theory" in the manuscript based on the advice of the second reviewer, who was hostile to the very premise of the project and clearly had an axe to grind. After pulling the book I had a very positive experience elsewhere.
• Rejection letter said that they are moving away from publishing books on literature in favor of cultural studies.
• Very professional attention to detail by my Duke UP acquisitions editor, Miriam Angress. I cultivated a relationship with this Duke editor over several years of having coffee at academic conferences, pitching my manuscript-in-progress, giving them cover letter, written proposal and brief sample chapter, and verbal progress reports. I also visited with the editor at adjoining UNC Press press booth. Both Duke editor and competitor expressed interest. (FYI: My project has broader than just academic appeal, is written in accessible language--20th & 21st c. history, cultural studies-y, offers theoretical glosses that structure the project and emerge organically from its historical presentation, so my book is propelled by narrative rather than being heavily theory-driven.) Both acquisitions editors told me to keep in touch and submit. I also contacted Duke UP series editors before submission (I encourage aiming for a series--smaller volume of submissions, more approachable colleagues who "get it," easy to explain how your project relates to series' sub-field). I also caught series editors' interest, and submitted. Prompt reply from Duke series editors--which is totally hit-and-miss, as I discovered in my previous submission to Stanford UP series editors 3 years ago. I still never received so much as a response from Stanford UP. Miriam then took over from series editors, ably walked my manuscript through 3-month first review stage. Outside reviewers were positive, but told me to cut word length, and Duke editor agreed, requiring 30% cut, a 6-months-long, painful process (my fault), but Duke editor's firmness on 100K-ish word limit (classroom sales appeal) definitely made it a better book. 2nd round reviews were prompt and positive. Duke UP editor was good with contract negotiation (though I only got one of my three requests), proposing book to Duke UP board, and offered lots of encouragement and guidance through every step as I prepared the book for final stages. Marketing team seems very dedicated. I had a very good experience. My advice: face-to-face meetings with both acquisitions editors and series editors, prior to submission to a series. Insist on dual-submission.

Duquesne University Press

• About six weeks after submitting a proposal for my medievalist book "Ogling Ladies" (since published with UP of Florida) to Duquesne UP, I received a friendly generic email from the editorial assistant Brock Bahler. The only problem was that the subject line of the email read: "Standard Rejection."

Edinburgh University Press

• Excellent team so far (2013)
• form rejection letter received from editorial assistant a month ago email query (2013)

Fairleigh Dickinson University Press

• very thorough readers reports,constructive and helpful.extremely judicious advise, indeed sage advise from a long experienced Director of the Press whom I have come to trust.
• FDUP published my book on an aspect of early modern culture in late 2013. The Director was patient and kind. And the editorial standards are really very high. The whole experience of publishing with FDUP was profoundly positive: I thoroughly recommend this thoroughly reputable, serious, responsible Press to any ambitious scholar.     
• FDU Press published my book. I agree the editorial standards are very high. I received a very careful and detailed editing process...very professional. 

Fordham University Press

• 29 June 2013 sent a detailed proposal (literary studies) and rec'd a response (negative) 5 July.
• Published a book with them, which wound up looking nice and am generally satisfied with it. But during the process, my efficiency was met with lags on their end, and I would learn of delays in the publication of my book through Amazon and other sources before I would hear anything from them (and I would hear from them only after I contacted them to ask about it). Overall, a mixed experience.

Harvard University Press

• Bad experience with Lindsay Waters, the Director. He seemed interested in my manuscript and requested 7 chapters (exclusively). 3 months later asked me for peer reviewer suggestions. 3 months later, after a bit of pushing and prodding, told me it was "best to drop" to manuscript as he'd taken on too much work and couldn't give me the attention my work deserved. Very annoying.

Indiana University Press

• Highest praise I can give them: after working with their editors, the book of mine that they published was a better book than the one that they initially accepted. Professional, highly competent, open-minded, and printed a stunningly beautiful book.
• I and one of the series editors wrote several emails to Rebecca Tolen (editor). Never received any response to a proposal.  Very annoying and humiliating. Forget this press. (2013)

Johns Hopkins University Press

• Received a prompt and polite rejection within days of email submission of proposal. Even though it was a rejection, I felt I was treated with respect and consideration, which is saying a lot!
• Never received any response to a proposal or follow-up email (both directed at the appropriate editor).
• The same thing happened to me (no response). Not cool, really.
• A piece of advice.  It's not unusual for JHUP or any press not to respond to "over-the-transom" book proposals, since they get so many.  I've worked with several editors at JHUP, and they've alwasy been very professional. The best thing to do is to try to have face-to-face contact with a press's editor.  If you're an academic, that menas speaking to them at such venues as the MLA book fair. And have a copy of your propsoal  with you to give to the editor after you've talked to him or her.
• I talked with acquisitions editor at a conference re: new series (edited by two of my grad school advisers, no less). Though my advisers were encouraging during dissertation process, after I submitted proposal, I never got a response. Humiliating.

Louisiana State University Press

• I can't say enough good things about LSU Press. Published 2 books with them and they were spectacular (really can't find a better word) from beginning to end.

Liverpool University Press

• While they rejected the proposal I sent in, they got back to me very quickly and explaining the reasons why and also suggested other publishers to contact. Granted I was disappointed with this news, but they were very professional to deal with.

Manchester University Press

• So far excellent experience. Fast and friendly, forthcoming about the way they work.
• An excellent publishing house.  They have good quality copy-editing and made me aware throughout what the process was, and they stuck to their timeline. And, best of all - I love the book jacket they designed for me.

McGill-Queen's University Press

• I've published two books now (one monograph, one edited collection) with MQUP, and the experience has been great. The acquisitions editor responds within hours -- if not minutes -- of my emails. (To be fair, my turnaround time is never that quick!) The only drawback is the extra funding that MQUP, like other Canadian presses, needs, since it is not subsidized by its parent universities in the same way as US presses. This adds a second layer of peer review (first for the press, then for the funder), which can be frustrating. But beyond that, I've been very pleased -- my books have been widely marketed and well reviewed.

Northwestern University Press

• I have a ms. under review here and am hugely impressed with the professionalism and promptness of the editors.
• I just put my book under contract with NUP, and I would second everything the previous poster says. In my experience, the whole process so far (from solicitation of manuscript to review to contract) has been marked by exemplary care and consideration on the part of the editors. (Summer 2012)

Notre Dame University Press

• Solid experience, if personally disappointing. Response for full ms. to unsolicited roposal came within three weeks; desk rejection with kind words just over two weeks after submitting ms. Very transparent process: quick and professional throughout. 

Ohio State University Press

• Beware! I'm not sure what's happening there, but I and two colleagues in my department have had very negative experiences with them in the past year. I worked with Sandy Crooms, who solicited my manuscript for a series. My two colleagues also worked with her and found her utterly unprofessional. My experience: After receiving two enthusiastic R&R letters, Sandy indicated that the changes should be easy to make and that she hoped to be able to get the manuscript to the board promptly. Then, when I submitted the revision, everything went awry. Instead of sending back to one of the original readers, she said she was sending it to someone new. Okay. It sat for three months, then she said she'd placed it with a reader. Two months later I got a rejection in the mail with no warning, and it included two readers' reports. I still have no idea why there were two. One recommended acceptance and one rejected. The reader who rejected hadn't read much of the manuscript and made bizarre comments about the field. Neither letter referenced the revisions I'd made at the request of the first two readers. Since then, I've learned that OSUP apparently treats R&Rs as new submissions, so they don't give the second-round readers your letter explaining revisions or the first two readers' reports. What a waste of readers' time and a spectacular waste of valuable pre-tenure time!
• I had the opposite experience with OSUP. I submitted my manuscript in June. Sandy Crooms kept me posted about when she'd received it, when she'd placed it with a first and a second reviewer, and when she thought she'd get the reports back (October). I sent my revisions back to them by January and they published it within a year from the editorial board approval in February. The whole process was very efficient and smooth, and I felt well-informed throughout. The book has been well-reviewed and I also appreciate how they continue to promote the book even a few years out. 
• Quick rejection with helpful suggestions for other presses. Personally disappointing but professional and kind-hearted: this is better treatment than I've gotten elsewhere.
• I have a book forthcoming with OSUP.  Sandy was extremely professional throughout the process.  Although the reviewers were quite slow, she handled it very well!
• I know that academic books aren't written for the royalties, but the OSUP terms seem especially meager. No royalties on the first 1000 clothbound copies and the 2000 paperbacks sold, then 2% thereafter. Most academic books won't ever reach those thresholds. Other university presses offer much more generous royalties.

Oxford University Press

• Summer 2014: Took 3 years to get a contract thru the NY office, have burned through 4 assistant editors, and the press' choices in editors were not appropriate for the subject matter (reader reports were utterly useless, but that's not wholly Oxford's fault of course). The press still has a certain cachet amongst university adminstrative types, however, so even will all this it might be "worth it" for the book to have been held up.
• Spring 2014: One editor in the American section was kind and polite, the second was horrid. Arrogant and angry it seemed. I would not waste my time with a press that is publishing based on attractive rather than good or needed topics.
• Spring 2014: very positive experience. Though the process was long--about a year from query to acceptance--I was provided excellent readers' reports that improved the book immeasurably. Editorial team was thorough, responsive, and helpful.
• Summer 2013 - rejection with no reader reports; explanation that "there's too many books to publish so we can't possibly publish them all" (paraphrased)
• August 2012--My experience (Americanist) with the press has been fanastic. From initial query to manuscript submission was a month; from submission to readers reports was four months. Reports were positive, thorough, and very helpful.
• Sept. 2012--Excellent experience, start to finish. Editors are very on top of things and respond quickly, get good reports. Ask for a good copyeditor, though, some that they use via contract are substandard.
• 2011 - query to UK office produced snooty response that OUP unlikely to publish book based on a PhD dissertation
• Terrible, tenure-threatening experience. Generally wouldn't respond to my calls or emails. Didn't send the ms. for review for many months, I later learned, despite what they led me to believe. After more than a year, I pulled it because they were moving so slowly that I feared I wouldn't get tenure.
• No response at all to my proposal/sample chapters after nearly a year.

Penn State University Press

• Very positive experience so far. There was a very short wait from the submission of the book proposal to its acceptance. The review of the manuscript was a bit longer than I expected - it took almost one year from submission of the manuscript to delivery of the reviewers' reports. I had two recommendations with major revisions. The reports were quite useful. I had to work hard on my revisions, but it paid off and the manuscript was officially accepted after the second round of reviews. For the second round they also secured a third reader who was enthusiastic about the project. Overall I think that the process has helped me much in improving the manuscript.

Rutgers University Press

• I have had a very good experience with Rutgers.  The initial response to my proposal was a little slow, but since then everything has moved at a brisk pace, with quick review turnarounds and prompt responses to all of my questions.
• Makes no sense to me. I contacted them because they publish in the field in which my book fits - but in response to my query they said they don't publish in that area. Duh?

Stanford University Press

• Was not impressed that proposal was misplaced - in fact it appears from the correspondence received that it was never sent out for any review at all. Granted these presses get many proposals, but there are ways to stay organized.
• Series editors encouraged me to submit my proposal, said my project would fit well with the series. I submitted proposal and sample chapter three years ago, but never heard back, not even a rejection letter.
• I was very impressed with the speed with which SUP got reports from readers and with the efficiency of my editors. It took about 1.5 years from submitting my proposal to seeing the book in print. When I had questions about the process, I heard back quickly. And compared to a friend's experience at another, equally reputable UP, I felt I was treated very well (given some choice about the cover, not nickel-and-dimed over small changes at the proof stage). It's a small press but my sense is it is very well run.

Syracuse University Press

• So far my experience has been absolutely horrendous. It took them over 2 years to accept a ms., and the current projected pub date is 2014, over 2 years after submission of the final ms. I would strongly advise against dealing with this press for anyone under time pressure to publish.
• A hot mess.  Save yourself while you still can.  See third point under Cambridge U:  virtually my experience at Syracuse.  Perhaps the editor has two part-time jobs.
• I'm sorry to read the above.  My experience was very different, but there have been some major shake-ups at the press since my book came out (2009).

University of Alabama Press

• My experience with this press has been wonderful.  They respond quickly at all stages, send the ms. to two established scholars for review, and always keep in touch.  They also don't obligate you to publish your next book with them, which many presses do.  However, I am going with them for my second book, since my first experience was so good.
  • Just FYI, the contract I was offered on my first book (with a different press) had the clause requiring me to give them right of first refusal on my next book. I asked them to take that clause out of the contract, and they did without hesitation, so don't be afraid to ask them to take out parts of the contract you don't like!
• I'm in the discussion phase with them on my second book, and I've been very pleased with my interactions as well.  Very prompt, very professional.
• Editor was helpful, courteous, and very responsive to emails, but reviews ended up taking 7 months instead of the 3-4 promised. I have very strong suspicions that one review had been hastily done over a weekend after sitting on someone's desk(top) for several months. Frustrating process but yielded some constructive suggestions for revision.

University of California Press

• Pretty disorderly over there, from my perspective: Had face-to-face meeting at conference with an editorial assistant. Submitted proposal, all acc. to guidelines. Then nothing for 4 months, so I wrote to him. Seems that the relevant editor departed and the new one has not yet come on board. He apologized for his failure to inform me of this. So I humbly asked him to place it on the new person's desk when she arrived. Another 4 months went by, nothing. So I contacted the new editor. She said she never got it. So I re-submitted.
• Had face-to-face meeting at conference with acquisitions editor Reed Malcolm. He told me point-blank that they don't really like historically-driven books. In looking at their list (at least in my field, Religious Studies), they do seem heavy on contemporary treatments.
• I'm considering submitting a book manuscript to UC Press, but I've heard through the grapevine that they are really slow in publishing humanities book manuscripts (I'm in history). One friend had a book that was supposed to go into production in late 2011 and still hasn't come out yet. Can anyone confirm or deny extreme lag at UC?
  • My sense is that this is quite variable; I know of at least two books published in the past 18 months which made it through production very quickly and the authors were happy with their experience overall, but YMMV.

University of Chicago Press

• Received a fast and professional rejection (art history). Much preferred to not hearing anything for a year.
• Ditto to the previous post. I received a rejection hours after submission, saying that they only publish certain types of art history books & suggesting other presses that might be interested in my project. The editor probably didn't even read my proposal & sample writing, but the speed & courtesy is appreciated.   
• Same here. Sent my introductory letter as body of the email with a proposal and CV attached, and heard back (negative) within a few hours. Much better to know that it just isn't the sort of thing they have room for on the list than to be left hanging for months on end.
• I met with an editor at a conference after arranging a meeting via e-mail. Editor was very pleasant and professional. They were interested in the project, so I sent a prospectus. But, they moved very slowly compared to other presses, and I wound up withdrawing it in favor of a contract elsewhere. I tink they reject quickly but are backed up quite a bit for projects they might be interested in. Not terrible, but if you have a clock ticking on your project, you might be better served by another press.
• Tried to talk with editor at conference. He seemed disinterested. I submitted proposal, which was promptly rejected with form letter.

University of Delaware Press

• Great experiences, both with a rejection and an acceptance. The first was handled with gentleness and understanding; though they passed on the project, their readers helped improve it immensely. In the case of the second, their Board decided to solicit another reader after a cranky, hostile reader responded caustically and with little hope that any literary study could have value. Their commitment to the book was impressive.

University of Georgia Press

• Great experience, very fast, always responding, helpful reviewers, good editing.

​

University of Minnesota Press

• Responded to query for a conference meeting promptly. Subsequently reviewed prospectus quickly (within 2-3 months of submission). Worked with me to arrange an editorial process that would suit the particular project.

University of Missouri Press

• Polite rejection received within weeks of query submission.

University of Pennsylvania Press

• Terrific to work with, very good to their authors. And Jerry Singerman may be the best scholarly-press editor working in the humanities.
• Be careful. After five months of review time the editor (not the same as above) led me to believe the manuscript was moving toward an invitation to respond to positive reports. Got a rude shock a week or so later. Instead of the invite he emailed an apology for being delinquent with the process and declined to invite a response even as he presented a second positive report. I have no idea what transpired between him and the series editors but this experience left me with a poor impression of the press and the two series editors.
  • Q. ^^^When was this? Which series?
• I had almost precisely the same experience as the person who wrote the above "Be careful" post. Singerman was courteous, kind and yet entirely melba toast in the face of his mercurial series editors.
• Editor rejected my proposal, but did so in a considered, timely fashion. That shows respect to authors, unlike what transpires at some presses I could name (I'm looking at you, Hopkins and Oxford...)
• Had a great experience with Penn Press. 6 weeks from initial submission of manuscript to receipt of readers' reports. Best readers I could hope for. Acceptance within weeks and publication about 15 months later.
• Absolutely terrific press! Robert Lockhart in particular is a terrific editor who prides himself on working very closely with first time authors. Even at the best presses editors can be quite distant, but Lockhart is warm, timely, encouraging, rigorous, and incredibly helpful. Better than I could have hoped for!

University of Toronto Press

• send your ms if you are willing to jeopardize your tenure by dealing with a very long and unclear process, extremely strange peer-review system (that may include a change of reviewers mid-course), and possible contract termination on the grounds of 'not being able to wait (!) any more' after you wait for years to get the process moving, as I have heard of one case. Not to mention the nightmare of the SSHRC funding process.
• very frustrating process for a large co-edited collection with two dozen contributors. everything took forever. Canadian academic presses basically only publish books if they get SSHRC funding for them. this means that after initial blind peer review process (which took 6+ months for us), there is an entire second round of similar peer reviews set up through SSHRC (another half year). basically, publishing with them takes about twice as long as with many American presses. something else to consider: University of Toronto Press has some of the most conservative and restrictive copyright contracts for their books. the absolute opposite of open access.
• The funding process of Canadian presses is more complicated than that of US presses, as the comment above makes clear. But my experience with UTP has been very different in every other respect. The acquisitions editor has given me great feedback on my proposal (for a monograph rather than an edited collection), and we've strategized about how to find the funding necessary for publication. (There are more options than just SSHRC.) I'll be submitting my manuscript in August, and we'll see how the review process goes.
• I strongly advice against sending your ms to UTP, especially if you are in Early Modern Studies. They are very unprofessional and do not respond to inquiries in a timely manner.
• Send your ms if you are willing to wait for years before you see it published (with a questionable peer review process). 
• Interesting -- in response to the two above that advise against UTP, I want to say the response times for me have been very quick (perhaps because I met the acquisitions editor at a conference first), and the peer review process has been rigorous, even tough. But I'm in film/TV studies, not early modern studies. 

University of Washington Press

• submitted a book manuscript to a series run by the press January 2011. I had been in contact with the series editors previously, and had been encouraged to submit a full ms. Received two positive reader reviews November 2011 with an invitation from the acquisitions editor to submit a plan for revision. I submitted that quickly and moved ahead with the revisions, which were fairly minor. Resubmitted late January 2012. Received email acknowledgement from a different acqusitions editor saying the previous one had retired, and that I would receive a full response soon. Heardnothing for two months. Emailed in April 2012 and three days later received a response telling me that the manuscript was now rejected. No explanation whatsoever. No communication from the series editors, whom I know personally. What happened?
• Alarmed and very sorry to know about your disappointing experience with UW Press. How unfortunate that authors have no protection against such callous work ethic. Matters seem to be taken seriously only when a contract is issued but we all know authors spend enough time and resources before the contract. For many their tenure clock ticks away and is catastrophic if they were to have the UW Press experience above. Will keep this post in mind when I look for a press for my next manuscript. Thanks. Regarding the silence--my experience shows that some (not all) editors are initially (very) polite and inviting. After receiving the manuscript and proposal, they change gears and move into an "automated reply" mode or the "ignore and keep mum" mode. Initially this was annoying now it is predictible, and makes me laugh and strategize accordingly.

University Press of Florida

• Contacted the acquisitions editor with a query letter and she informed me that the press had a keen interest in publishing an edited volume.  After submitting a CFP based upon my query, then presenting a proposal to the press adhering to the outline in the query, the editor then informed me that the press had no interest in reviewing the volume in the present form and that I would need to expand the volume's focus to include a wider range of texts.
• I have had a couple of great experiences with this press (monograph and edited collection). The acquisitions editor I worked with was exceptionally friendly and helpful, the review process is really thorough but still moved quickly, and they were supportive and helpful with getting permissions for photos and other things. It took about a year in each instance from submission of final manuscript to book publication. 

Wesleyan University Press

• My experiences with them have been extremely positive, and I have been very impressed by every aspect of the books recently published by them (especially the production quality). As a manuscript reviewer, they were very responsive and helpful, and unlike some of the larger presses don't have the same employee turnover problems; the editors know the market well, and will only take books they feel confident in. Perhaps not the best choice for a pre-tenure book if you're at a R1 (no fault of their own, just the realities of promotion committees), but I'm hoping to publish my next manuscript with them.

Wilfrid Laurier University Press

• Had conversation with editor at a conference; submitted proposal. The next year, at the same conference, saw editor again, and they assured me the proposal was in her bag to review on the plane. Two years later, the book is coming out with another press--and I still haven't gotten a reply to either my submission email or the note I sent pulling the book from consideration!
• I would love to send a copy of your book to the Wilfred Laurier Press editor and say it dropped from her bag. Although I am one-book old in the book publishing game, my experience so far: (a) when editors embrace the book proposal with enthusiasm, don't take them too seriously. Chances are once you submit your manuscript and/or sample chapters they are either "out of office" or suffer amnesia; (b) several editors do not disclose details of the review process--ask them and they demure or curtly retort along the lines that it is none of the author's business; (c) no matter when you submit your manuscript, for editors there never is a good time to submit a manuscript for peer review: Jan and August submissions are definitely bad timing because faculty are busy with the start of the new semester. June-July is also not helpful because faculty are pursuing their own research plans. This leaves the rest of the year: faculty teach large classes and have complicated schedules. (d) Well, now lets say the review returned two positive responses. Hold your horses, those reviews don't mean a thing. The editor might casually inform you there have been some unexpected developments and decline the manuscript or she/he might blame the marketing department for not being enthusiastic. Most might wonder why the marketing folks were not consulted before the long drawn review began. At this point of rejection and dejection don't hold hopes of a meaningful dialogue. The editor's decision is final and they are not courting you any more. It is in your best interest to rein-in your lost time and hopes, and seek another publisher. A well-published academic once advised me, "keep your cards close to your chest" i.e., have an interested publisher firmly in place before any rejection.

Yale University Press

• Though my proposal was rejected, the editor was kind enough to suggest other presses who might be interested.
• I was also impressed with Yale's efficiency and professionalism (2011-2013).

Other Academic Publishers

Academica Press

• Published both monograph and edited collection here. Easy to work with, and the director is responsive and helpful. Nicely produced books, and in hundreds of academic libraries.

Ashgate Publishing

• Not good experience. Editor looked at proposal and sample chapter, it took months to hear back. AFter prodding, they requested the full manuscript for review. Another year passed, I get practically one 'revise and resubmit' , generally positive review that was enthusiastic about the project but suggested some revisions. At this point editor decides that ms does not contribute enough to the field and rejects it (despite the reviewer commenting that 'it does contribute to the field') . Why they bother to send the ms to review if they disregard those suggestions, is beyond me. And why waste over a year of my life in the process. Not happy.
• At proofing stage for monograph & so far, so good. Excellent communication throughout, useful reports from external reader. Has adhered to all promised turnarounds to date
• Fair and professional. I decided to work with a UP Press instead, but the peer review process was transparent and helpful. They clearly explained to me how they worked.
• Excellent support, quick turnaround. Gave me freedom to choose jacket design resulting in a highly professional-looking book.
• Same good experience here as mentioned above. Excellent editorial support and professional and timely communications. (Musicology)
• Same as above: excellent support and peer-reviewing process (Security Studies), and they got top-notch researchers in the field to write advance praises. There was a 3-month delay in the publishing of the book, but I guess that is rather common.
• Bad experience. My proposal was initially looked at by the theology editor, but was passed onto the history editor - who failed to answer or acknowledge any of my emails. Lost in the trash bin perhaps?
• Excellent experience. They have an remarkable team of highly qualified editors who will promote your book once they acquire it. I thoroughly enjoyed publishing my book with them and would do it again in a heartbeat. 
• Ashgate is a decent publisher, but since they too have abandoned copyediting and proofreading, many of their books, espeically by first time authors have several typos.

Berghahn

• I submitted a proposal, and never ever got a reply. 
• Fantastic to work with the editorial staff. Published my first book with them and found them efficient and professional. They also get paperback editions out fairly quickly after the hardcover.

Boydell & Brewer

• Submitted a proposal that was initially lost (while the publisher's staff were in transition), but was later found.  Communication since then has been excellent, as the editor has tried to make up for the initial issue relating to misplacing my proposal.  I submitted the monograph shortly after and received a reader report from a reader who was happy to provide his name.  I was pleasantly surprised to see that he is one of the leading scholars in my field.  Received a contract after minor changes were made, and the final product will take around 10 months (which is typical).  There were a number of images used in the book, so I was required to pay a subvention fee, but the editor assisted in trying to attain subvention from outside sources.
• Quite a bad experience. An almost complete lack of communication. Editor did not answer any emails. A sub editor of some sort would reply assuring me that the editor was going to look but to have patience. I suspect they have a very small staff and can only give attention to well established authors.

Brill

• Excellent experience so far (November 2014), contract signed a mere two weeks after initial enquiry; prompt replies to most emails.  
• I've had a book published with them. Overall, very good experience, though they have abandoned copyediting and proofreading in the traditional sense. Authors are the only eyes that will see it, unless you hire out someone to do it (which is too expensive for newbie scholars not in a professorate). As such, a few typos made it through.  
• I submitted a proposal, which was initially accepted (in less than two weeks). After I submitted the whole manuscript I didn't hear from them for a few months. I asked about the future of the book, and then I received a document with 10 reviews. Majority were positive and favourable (asking for minor revisions in the introduction study, only), however, there were two negative reviews, and these reviews made no sense. However, these reviews were taken into account, and I couldn't publish the book with then. 
• I was approached by a series editor who had heard about my book project. We met at small conference and discussed my project, which was essentially complete but very long (the published book came to 700 pp., including front and back matter). Queried on the latter point, the editor drew himself up and declared, "Brill is not afraid of long manuscripts!" I got only one reader's report, which was detailed and very positive ("wonderfully rich book") but pointed out the need for an index. I spent about a year on final revisions and a detailed index, working with a very helpful and quick to respond editor--but they only check format, no copy editing in the old sense. Author submits a camera ready copy or a PDF file. I felt just a little pressure to hurry up toward the end of the process. The book appeared within a couple of months after that. My only complaint would be that they didn't seem much interested in getting the book reviewed.
• I've had an excellent experience so far. Aquisition editor contacted me immediately. Sent my proposal to the series editor straight away. I got a favourable reply two months later informing me that my proposal was going to be peer reviewed. I got my reader's report about three months after that. I had six months to get a manuscript ready. Final decision made by the series editor was positive and a contract was issued. Pity about the high cost of the books, but very professional, speedy and thorough in the review process. Given previous experiences with some publishers not even answering emails, etc., very impressed.

Cambria

• Fantastic PRess. Quick, good, kind, professional.
• Has anyone had any experiences with Cambria? They appear to be doing some really innovative things with their publishing platform, but I'd be interested to hear from people who've worked with them.
• I was a contributor for an edited collection that they recently published. Much to the dismay of the collection's editors (who misunderstood the terms of the contract), it turns out that Cambria does not give out any contributor copies for edited collections.

Cambridge Scholars

• Pleasant working experience with CSP - although no editorial service is offered. Gratis copies for authors. Black & white and color illustrations. The price of books is reasonable (compared with Brill...). CSP is particularly useful for publishing edited volumes (including conference proceedings), but perhaps not for monographs. 
• Wonderful to work with, fast and simple. This is a relatively young but promising publisher.
• Is this publisher legitimate or a glorified vanity press? I've heard mixed things.

• They're legitimate in that they don't charge for their services (the definition of a vanity press); they don't even have a subvention fee, which is more than can be said for several other academic presses. They also don't consistently peer-review, however; it seems the editorial team has maybe a bit too much faith in their own judgement, and only makes recourse to reviewers reports when they have some doubt about a manuscript. On the upside, they have a quick publication turnaround, and are much more pleasant to work with than Peter Lang (who always seem to want to hit the author with huge typesetting fees at the last moment).
• The first question is really two questions, First, does a book from Cambridge Scholars count toward promotion at your current job? (You can find out the answer by asking.) Second, would a book from Cambridge Scholars help you get some other job that you want down the road? (You can get a sense of this by looking at departments where you'd like to be and seeing where people there have published their books.)
• I recently received two unsolicited emails from CSP--one at my work email; the other at my personal email. Both messages requested my interest in writing about a "forthcoming" conference that I am supposedly organizing for next year. First, the title the sender mentioned was not a conference but a panel that I chaired. Second, as is implied by the previous sentence, the conference is not forthcoming but has already passed. Third, acting as panel chair was my only role in the conference. I simply introduced the speakers and let them have the floor. In addition to this mixture of inaccurate information, I am puzzled as to how the sender even discovered my role in the conference. The website that once included the program is no longer active. I have only listed my role as chair in the "Service" category of my CV, which is not available online. Finally, with the exception of Academia (which does not include my academic service), I do not use social networking sites. All in all, I am not impressed with CSP. Maybe I am old-fashioned, but unsolicited emails do not count as a call for publications.

Mellen

• Mellen suing librarian who questioned quality of Press - academic freedom concerns raised (Inside Higher Ed, Feb. 2013)
• Chronicle of Higher Ed article on Herbert W. Richardson, the founder of Edwin Mellen Press: April 15, 2013 "Herbert Richardson v. the World"
• Changed terms of previous signed contract without any prior notification; sent me a "new" contract just when my ms was at their office, requiring all authors to now pay a fee ($1000/volume, $5 for every page over 100) to offset loss of reveniue due to ebooks.

• I had the same experience with Mellen. The original contract was violated with a " "new" contract.
• Me too. I suppose they are trying to offset their losses resulting from the boycott imposed by US librarians on account of the Press's rush decision to sue the librarian who questioned the quality of its books...

Modern Language Association

• Edited collection with pedagogical focus started with proposal and CFP in 2006 and moved through two reasonable years of abstracts, writing, revisions, but then came the brakes. There's a backlog in their (otherwise excellent) copyediting dept, which resulted in a very long delay. There was talk that it would be out in 2010, 2011, and just got the same promise for 2012. Here's hoping.
• submitted query for Approaches to Teaching World Literature series to scholcomm@mla.org on Nov 6, 2013; no response as of Nov 11. Any thoughts regarding how long worth waiting or whether it would be a better idea for me to contact someone I know on the editorial committee about this? My general sense from dealing with other MLA journals/publications (like Profession) is that they do not respond to queries.

Palgrave Macmillan

• They rejected our proposal quickly and, therefore, there were no delays that would ruin our prospects to publish the book with someone else. However, they sent it to one reviewer, and they disclosed our names as editors, but we do not know who the reviewer was. The person is either not working in the field, or it was someone who knows us in person, and abnormaly hates us. The reviewer said, for example, 'I don't understand why they did not include chapters on the EU's role in xy since there is a large number of books, chapters and articles dealing with that issue.' Hello? There is a large number of books, chapters and articles dealing with the issue and, thus, we have to do it too while at the same time answering Palgrave's questionnairre stating why our book presents a contribution to the field, and what is new in the book. Also, the reviewer expressed some really strange comments about the structure (i.e. we should not have it divided into sections, but put it all together, etc.), and the editor from Palgrave rejected it saying that we should publish it as a special issue of some journal. 
• i had exactly the same experience.  rejected my proposal based on one review (even though the editor herself seemed quite enthusiastic) by a reviewer who acknowledged they weren't an expert in the field but who still felt ok making some extremely negative (but not useful) comments and others that were quite strange, like "it would have been better if it was based on three countries rather than two" and also suggested it would be better published as a journal article....
• quick rejection for a translation on the grounds that "they do not publish novels" (2011); this was a work of scholarship, so the grounds for rejection seemed rather odd.
• Sent in proposal for edited anthology. Received reader's report quickly, which was generally favourable, but suggested re-write. Proposal was accepted very quickly after re-write, even though we only had abstracts, no finished chapters. Editors have been very friendly and helpful.
• Publication process moved quickly, with the MS sent to one reader report who recommended some changes. In all, it was 8 months between sending in a proposal and signing a contract, then 8 months from submitting a final manuscript to having the book in print. The copyediting and production was a bit haphazard, though; an author needs to have a good eye for detail since I've seen other Palgrave books with mistakes in them. There's also Palgrave's tendency to publish scholarly books only in expensive hardcover editions. Even a well-received book may not get re-issued in paperback. I decided to take my second book to a university press, which gave me a much more favorable contract and had better attention to detail in the production process. Palgrave's only advantage was in speed (which for an Assistant Professor can be the most important factor).
• I agree with the poster above about the friendly, helpful editors, and the poster who made the comment about speed. I am on the job market so the speed factor is important to me, as I have been having issues with some academic presses' very slow response time. Palgrave has been professional, helpful, prompt (for me, proposal to contract was about 4-5 months), and my colleagues have had similar experiences. I suggest researching carefully to see what the press has published in your field and how those books have been received.
• My experience with PM (UK) has been nothing short of exceptional. From ms to monograph, it took about 1 year for the hardcover to be published. I was allowed the maximum freedom to work the ms in the way I thought best and given full freedom to design my own cover. They also had a very good copyediting team (although a couple of typos in the ms still missed all our collective eyes) and although, I don't know whom they sent the ms out for review, the reports by the reviewers were overall, positive and with constructive feedback. [posted Oct. 2012]
• Great experience with my first book. Proposal to acceptance was rapid. The editorial team showed considerable patience when I had to renegotiate deadlines due to personal and work circumstances. I submitted the manuscript in February 2012 and the book was out in early December. The copyediting process was very thorough. Dozens of copies have been sent out for review. Palgrave have also sent me two manuscripts to review in the last year, so it looks like the beginning of a fruitful relationship ...
• Horrible experience with Palgrave!  Sent proposal in June, first editor enthusiastic about the project, sends it for review which comes back mostly positive, recommending publication and praising the project for its originality, insightful readings, etc. with some changes suggested. Dilligently revised the Book proposal and the Intro., including a title change-very significant in my rather niche-field! First editor then has to hand on some of her/his projects to second editor who, probably swamped under the extra burden, claims he cannot 'get hold' of the first reviewer, normally the one to take on a second round of reviews, as the revised work was based on his/her initial suggestions. Finally, second editor manages to find a second reviewer (who saw no sample chapters at all) and who, as I realized (and I must confess to my shock) was actually sent the first version of the Intro. and  Book proposal, the unrevised one (I could tell that because the title of the monograph was the same with my original title which the first reviewer suggested should be changed). Second reviewer recommends 'treading carefully' and specifiying the ideal audience, for the book, implying publication. Both reviews disclosed my name to the reviewers (my name appears on both reviews), so there is not double blind-reviewing process in Palgrave (or there was not any, in my case!) Sent an email to both editors, presenting my case and hoping for a fair hearing, and a word of apology, have heard nothing since...Do not think I ever will. The whole process took seven months and it DID cost me tenure! Really beware of Palgrave!
• Sent a polite and simple email query (with clear subject line) to a series editor, since my project seems to (but does not quite) fit. Just wanted to know if submitting a proposal would be a waste of everyone's time. No response, so I take that as a no (or is it a tacit invitation to submit the proposal for review?). Unprofessional attitude. Sent an email to the director of another press asking if simultaneous submission of proposal would be acceptable - no response. 
• My experience with PM has been good, very much along the lines of the positive posts above. I've just signed my fourth contract with them and have found the editors that I've dealt with in this and the three previous books consistently professional, helpful and prompt.
• My contract pays 0% royalties on the first 500 copies sold, then 2% thereafter. The book's initial run was 500 hardcover copies, priced at $75; it took four years for almost all of those copies to sell and a paperback to be published, and now, five years later, I'm finally seeing some royalties.

Peter Lang

• Very positive experience. It only took two months to hear back about my manuscript and it was published in less than three months. The production costs were covered by a grant from my university so that wasn't an issue in my case.
• In Europe, Peter Lang is considered as a decent publisher, from what I know. I published an edited volume with them, and I had to pay for formatting. Other than this, I had an outstanding experience with them. My emails were answered promptly, and when I had some issues and asked for assistance, they were friendly and cooperative. The book was published in less than 3 months (contract says in 3 months), and I received copies, as promised. When review of my book was published, they sent me a copy of it via email. Generally, a very, very pleasant experience. 
• Make sure that your department and university count a Peter Lang book toward tenure before you decide to publish with them. Some schools do, but others do not.
• Unless you are prepared to provide camera-ready copy, Peter Lang will ask for a subsidy to cover publication costs, as do some other university presses. It will  charge for editing, composition, etc. (What it calls "Vendor Services"). Peter Lang's promotion is comparable to some other university presses, but don't expect a great deal of money to be spent on advertising your book.

• Re: the above, I have certainly never been asked for a subsidy by a university press, let alone by a "top" press. Peter Lang books are reviewed in some leading journals, but not at the rate of the best presses. Peter Lang books are generally only advertised in the catalogues and emails they send out.
• A colleague of mine published a book with PL while on the T-T. Turns out that enough people in our College (Arts and Sciences) knew about the (*ahem*) "subsidies" mentioned above, and as a result this colleague didn't accumulate enough scholarship to earn tenure. This happened in 2011-2012. I've asked around, and folks all over our region (southeastern U.S.) are aware of this. Nothing wrong with getting published by Peter Lang, but if you're counting it for tenure you should ask around first.

• A friend of my mine published with them and told me he had to pay a subvention fee. He was able to publish his thesis without any changes (other than changing 'thesis' to 'book', ect.). They still seem to have a reputation as a legitmate scholarly press, but they seem to be verging into vanity press territory if you ask me.

Rodopi Press

• Recently acquired by Brill.
• Experience with them has been very good so far - efficient series editor, quick reviews (3 in all), and responsible in-house editor

Roman and Littlefield

• Wonderful experience throughout, at least when I published my book with them in 2003. Fast, friendly, professional through the review, contract and publishing process. I loved my editor and copyeditor. Fantastic experience. I am writing my second book now, am considering sending the proposal to them again.

Routledge

• Worst experience ever. Rude, tardy, and simply money hungry.
• Awesome experience with Routledge. Within two months of sending the ms, I had a half dozen reader's reports and a contract. Book sped through the process and into print in less than a year from my initial proposal.
• Ditto. I have a ms under contract and the editor was prompt, enthusiastic, quick in producing four external reviews of the proposal and thoroughly professional. I have also sent a query for another book manuscript to Routledge and that editor too has been prompt and professional. I am told their production time is eight months.
• I had an incredible experience at every stage. Readers reports came through quickly, I had so much help and support from the editorial staff while I made revisions and prepared the manuscript, and the final book looks amazing. I would work with them again in a heartbeat. 
• Very positive experience here. The three external reader reports on the manuscript were thorough, rigorous, and quite helpful. It took about 10 months from submitting the initial proposal through revisions and add'l materials to obtaining contract.
• This is like the Mc Donalds or IBM of presses.  They could give a crap about the production of your book but they will get it out there and distribute it widely because they have a global reach that few if any more prestigious presses exceeed. They are everywhere.  That is a good thing. They wont promote it or offer it for a decent price (over-priced) but will get it in libraries. I had overall a decent experience with them.  They farmed out reviews to proper academics.  Very slow but steady from their own end. A big old for-proft company so it takes some time to even find all their editors/series--poor web front. But yes totally worth chekcing out and submitting to. 
• Very quick and professional. Rejected my proposal but, nonetheless did not make me wait more than a few weeks.
• I have very bad experiences with Routledge (social science division). I was waiting seven months for the peer review to finally get very unprofessional "review". The general conclusion of this "review" was "I would be very suspicious because I don`t know the author in person. The manuscript is goo but It is strange".  Unprofessional attitude! 
• Quite poor production values; expect to pay out-of-pocket if you want a cover or internal graphics. Copyediting for books submitted to the US office is done overseas and is often abysmal. But certain series are well edited, and certain acquisitions editors are excellent with communications and follow-through. 
• Contacted Routledge over a year ago for a book I was finishing - never even responded (and the book is soon coming out with another press, ha, ha); I have a new proposal and contacted a different editor at Routledge (foolish me), and guess what - no reply at all (yet).