Recently Rated:
Stats
Blogs: 172
Pages: 4
Memos: 113
Invitations: 1
Location: Kyoto and Auckland
Work interests: research, editing, science communication
Affiliation/website: National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka
Preferred contact method: Any
Preferred contact language(s): English, German
Contact: email = researchcooperative-at-gmail-dot-com
Favourite publications: Various, and especially the open access versions of older journals with effective review systems
Work interests: research, editing, science communication
Affiliation/website: National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka
Preferred contact method: Any
Preferred contact language(s): English, German
Contact: email = researchcooperative-at-gmail-dot-com
Favourite publications: Various, and especially the open access versions of older journals with effective review systems
Founding Member
Work: ethnobotany, prehistory, museum curation
Affiliations: 1996-present: National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka. 1995: Freelance editor, Kyoto. 1994: JSPS Research Visitor, Kyoto University, Kyoto. 1993: Research Visitor, Australian National University, Canberra. 1991: Visiting Researcher, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka.1990: STA Fellow, National Institute for Ornamental Plants, Vegetables, and Tea (NIVOT), Ano, Japan
Contact: National Museum of Ethnology, Senri Expo Park, Suita City, Osaka, Japan 565-8511
Biographical: Established the Research Cooperative in 2001
Favourite Publications: Various
Affiliations: 1996-present: National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka. 1995: Freelance editor, Kyoto. 1994: JSPS Research Visitor, Kyoto University, Kyoto. 1993: Research Visitor, Australian National University, Canberra. 1991: Visiting Researcher, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka.1990: STA Fellow, National Institute for Ornamental Plants, Vegetables, and Tea (NIVOT), Ano, Japan
Contact: National Museum of Ethnology, Senri Expo Park, Suita City, Osaka, Japan 565-8511
Biographical: Established the Research Cooperative in 2001
Favourite Publications: Various
Advice for authors and publishers: an editor speaks
Today (April 8, 2009) I attended a talk on "How to publish your manuscript" presented in English at the International Research Center for Japanese Studies, Kyoto, Japan.
The speaker was William M. Hammell, Editor, Harvard University Asia Center, Publication Program. He talked about the publication process for English-language academic books, from identifying publishers to approaching editors, submitting a proposal and a manuscript, and understanding the review process. His main aim was to give an insider's perspective on what scholarly publishers look for in a book proposal.
Attending were a small number of researchers (foreign and Japanese), a number of people involved in academic publishing in Japan, and one employee of a private publishing agency. Although the talk was mainly addressed to authors as potential book writers, there was much to be learned for publishers as well. Although the audience was small, we had a good mix of people and many questions were asked, including some by the speaker himself, about academic publishing in Japan.
Here, very briefly, are some topics covered in the talk and the questions that followed:
1. Authors should do serious background research on publishers who might be suitable for the book being written, and should be very selective about who to approach, and should be very careful to present a well designed proposal. Authors should also acquire an understanding of the intended or potential market for their book, and discuss the intended market in their proposal.
2. Publishers do not want to see a draft or completed manuscript at first contact by the author, but they are keen to learn about possible book projects. If they are not interested in the project, this does not necessarily mean that the editor reporting the decision thinks the proposal has no merit. There are many possible reasons for rejection that may be invisible to the author, and merely reflect the aims and circumstances of the publisher. If a publisher asks for a full manuscript, then the review process should not take more than two or three months ideally. Publishers depend on the goodwill of expert reviewers, and can only control the time required for review in a limited way. Financially well-off publishers are able to offer an honorarium to their reviewers, and this helps to encourage careful and prompt attention, but is not compensation for the full effort required for reviewing an entire book.
The ideal reviewer, from a publisher's point of view, is someone who:
(i) can understand the book and comment on the content,
(ii) has experience with publishing their own work in book form, and
(iii) has no close personal interest in the success (or failure) the proposed work (such an interest would conflict with task of providing an independent and objective review).
3. Authors who write in English as a second language must certainly have their work read and edited, to a large extent, before submitting it to a publisher for review. Publishers cannot provide editing services for early or unpolished drafts of a manuscript, and reviewers should not be distracted by problems in presentation. The role of a reviewer is to assess the substance of a manuscript, make a recommendation to the publisher about whether or not to publish it, and to provide substantive advice to the author if it is needed. The speaker recommended that authors ask colleagues and students to read manuscripts before they are submitted, to help the author with editing, or to employ free-lance editors.
Unfortunately, mutual support for preparation of manuscripts is not widespread among Japanese academic writers. I am not confident that it is widespread anywhere, but in Japan especially, there appears to be a general hope or expectation that publishers will provide the editing required (see our note on editing in Japan). The speaker noted that some publishers may explicitly require that most editing be undertaken by the author, with the help of free-lance editors if needed. My own comment here was that it is also better -- from the point of view of the author -- for the author to be responsible for editing, because this gives the author more control.
4. How are Japanese academic publications in English rated outside Japan? This was the question raised by one Japanese researcher present. At this point, I interrupted and claimed that such publications are often invisible outside Japan, and therefore cannot be rated. From my own observation of institutional, academic publishers in Japan (over the last twenty years), there is not enough effort to market and distribute academic publications effectively outside the country. Partly because of my interruption, the real point of the question was not actually answered during the meeting, so I would like to ask it here again.
Members of the Research Cooperative are invited to respond!
How are Japanese academic publications in English rated outside Japan?
(To comment, please contact the present author, Peter Matthews, or use your own blog page inside the Research Cooperative. Thanks)
The speaker was William M. Hammell, Editor, Harvard University Asia Center, Publication Program. He talked about the publication process for English-language academic books, from identifying publishers to approaching editors, submitting a proposal and a manuscript, and understanding the review process. His main aim was to give an insider's perspective on what scholarly publishers look for in a book proposal.
Attending were a small number of researchers (foreign and Japanese), a number of people involved in academic publishing in Japan, and one employee of a private publishing agency. Although the talk was mainly addressed to authors as potential book writers, there was much to be learned for publishers as well. Although the audience was small, we had a good mix of people and many questions were asked, including some by the speaker himself, about academic publishing in Japan.
Here, very briefly, are some topics covered in the talk and the questions that followed:
1. Authors should do serious background research on publishers who might be suitable for the book being written, and should be very selective about who to approach, and should be very careful to present a well designed proposal. Authors should also acquire an understanding of the intended or potential market for their book, and discuss the intended market in their proposal.
2. Publishers do not want to see a draft or completed manuscript at first contact by the author, but they are keen to learn about possible book projects. If they are not interested in the project, this does not necessarily mean that the editor reporting the decision thinks the proposal has no merit. There are many possible reasons for rejection that may be invisible to the author, and merely reflect the aims and circumstances of the publisher. If a publisher asks for a full manuscript, then the review process should not take more than two or three months ideally. Publishers depend on the goodwill of expert reviewers, and can only control the time required for review in a limited way. Financially well-off publishers are able to offer an honorarium to their reviewers, and this helps to encourage careful and prompt attention, but is not compensation for the full effort required for reviewing an entire book.
The ideal reviewer, from a publisher's point of view, is someone who:
(i) can understand the book and comment on the content,
(ii) has experience with publishing their own work in book form, and
(iii) has no close personal interest in the success (or failure) the proposed work (such an interest would conflict with task of providing an independent and objective review).
3. Authors who write in English as a second language must certainly have their work read and edited, to a large extent, before submitting it to a publisher for review. Publishers cannot provide editing services for early or unpolished drafts of a manuscript, and reviewers should not be distracted by problems in presentation. The role of a reviewer is to assess the substance of a manuscript, make a recommendation to the publisher about whether or not to publish it, and to provide substantive advice to the author if it is needed. The speaker recommended that authors ask colleagues and students to read manuscripts before they are submitted, to help the author with editing, or to employ free-lance editors.
Unfortunately, mutual support for preparation of manuscripts is not widespread among Japanese academic writers. I am not confident that it is widespread anywhere, but in Japan especially, there appears to be a general hope or expectation that publishers will provide the editing required (see our note on editing in Japan). The speaker noted that some publishers may explicitly require that most editing be undertaken by the author, with the help of free-lance editors if needed. My own comment here was that it is also better -- from the point of view of the author -- for the author to be responsible for editing, because this gives the author more control.
4. How are Japanese academic publications in English rated outside Japan? This was the question raised by one Japanese researcher present. At this point, I interrupted and claimed that such publications are often invisible outside Japan, and therefore cannot be rated. From my own observation of institutional, academic publishers in Japan (over the last twenty years), there is not enough effort to market and distribute academic publications effectively outside the country. Partly because of my interruption, the real point of the question was not actually answered during the meeting, so I would like to ask it here again.
Members of the Research Cooperative are invited to respond!
How are Japanese academic publications in English rated outside Japan?
(To comment, please contact the present author, Peter Matthews, or use your own blog page inside the Research Cooperative. Thanks)
