Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. The Edited Collection
  • Cited by 8
Publisher:
Cambridge University Press
Online publication date:
April 2020
Print publication year:
2020
Online ISBN:
9781108683647
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108683647
Subjects:
Literature, Printing and Publishing History
Series:
Elements in Publishing and Book Culture
Information

Book description

Edited collections are widely supposed to contain lesser work than scholarly journals; to be incoherent as volumes, no more than the sum of their parts; and to be less visible to potential readers once published. It is also often taken as axiomatic that those who make decisions in relation to hiring, promotion, tenure, and funding do so agree. To publish in or edit an essay collection is thought to risk being penalised for the format before even a word is read. After examining the origins of this critique, this Element explores the modern history of the edited collection and the particular roles it has played. It examines each component part of the critique, showing that they are either largely unfounded or susceptible of solution. It proposes the edited collection as a model of one possible idea of scholarly community: collaboration, trust, and mutual obligation in pursuit of a wider good.

References

Bibliography

American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2015). ‘Trends in the price of academic titles in the humanities and other fields’, Humanities Indicators, retrieved 16 September 2019 from www.humanitiesindicators.org/content/indicatordoc.aspx?i=10965.
Anderson, K. (2012). ‘Bury your writing – why do academic book chapters fail to generate citations?’, The Scholarly Kitchen, 28 August, retrieved 1 January 2019 from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/08/28/bury-your-writing-why-do-academic-book-chapters-fail-to-generate-citations/.
Anon (2015). ‘Informa pays £20m for Ashgate Publishing’, The Bookseller, 29 July, retrieved 7 March 2019 from www.thebookseller.com/news/informa-pays-20m-ashgate-publishing-308308.
Anon (2017). ‘Germans edge towards the brink in dispute with Elsevier’, Times Higher Education, 7 December.
Anon (2018). ‘French say “no deal” to Springer as journal fight spreads’, Times Higher Education, 12 April.
Anon (2018). ‘Plan S “could prove fatal” for learned societies’, Times Higher Education, 25 October.
Anon (2018). ‘Plan S: shock or solution?’, Times Higher Education, 13 September, p. 15.
Arnold, D. N., and Fowler, Kristine K. (2011). Nefarious numbers. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 58(3), 434–7.
Bentley, M. (2005) Modernizing England’s Past: English Historiography in the Age of Modernism, 1870–1970. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berlin, I. (1969) Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berlin, I. (1994). The Hedgehog and the Fox. In Hardy, H. and Kelly, A. eds, Russian Thinkers. London: Penguin.
Bishop, D. (2012). ‘How to bury your academic writing’, BishopBlog, 26 August, retrieved 1 February 2019 from http://deevybee.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-to-bury-your-academic-writing.html.
Brennan, E. (2016). ‘Framing and proposing an edited volume for publication’, Manchester University Press, 17 February, retrieved 25 March 2019 from www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/articles/framing-and-proposing-an-edited-volume-for-publication/.
British Academy (2016). ‘British Academy responds to Lord Stern’s independent review of the Research Excellence Framework (REF)’, The British Academy, 4 April, retrieved 17 December 2019 from www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/news/british-academy-responds-lord-sterns-independent-review-research-excellence-framework-ref.
British Academy (2019). Open Access and Book Chapters. London: British Academy.
von Bülow, C. (2013). Mem. In Mittelstraß, J., ed., Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie, 2nd edn, volume 5. Berlin: Springer, pp. 318–24.
Carpenter, H. (1992). Benjamin Britten: A Biography. London: Faber.
Carrigan, M. (2013). ‘Some reflections on editing books and special issues while doing a PhD’, Mark Carrigan, 17 June, retrieved 20 March 2019 from https://markcarrigan.net/2013/06/17/some-reflections-on-editing-books-and-collections-while-doing-a-phd/.
Carter Wood, J. (2018). ‘Collections in crisis?’, Obscene Desserts, 25 February, retrieved 24 April 2019 from http://obscenedesserts.eu/?p=36.
Chadwick, O. (1970). The Victorian Church: Part Two: 1860–1901. London: A. & C. Black.
Chapnick, A., and Kukuchka, C. (2016). ‘The pros and cons of editing a collection of essays’, University Affairs, 10 May, retrieved 1 March 2016 from www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/the-scholarly-edition/the-pros-and-cons-of-editing-a-collection-of-essays/.
Chapnick, A., and Kukuchka, C. (2016). ‘Choosing the right contributors’, University Affairs, 13 July, retrieved 22 April 2019 from www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/the-scholarly-edition/choosing-right-contributors/.
Clague, T. (2015). ‘Unbundling is over-rated: on the value of contributing to an edited book’, LSE Impact Blog, 5 March, retrieved 1 February 2019 from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/03/05/unbundling-is-over-rated-value-edited-books/.
Clark, G. N. (1945). The origin of the Cambridge Modern History. Cambridge Historical Journal 8(2), 57–64.
cOAlition S (2019). ‘10 Principles’, Plan S, retrieved 1 April 2019 from www.coalition-s.org/principles-and-implementation/.
Collini, S. (1999). Against Prodspeak: ‘Research’ in the Humanities. In Collini, S., ed., English Pasts: Essays in History and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 233–51.
Collini, S. (2006). Absent Minds: Intellectuals in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Collini, S. (2017). What’s Happening to Universities? Historical and Comparative Perspectives. In Collini, S., ed., Speaking of Universities. London: Verso, pp. 15–35.
Crossick, G. (2015). Monographs and Open Access: A Report to HEFCE. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Deegan, M. (2017). Academic Book of the Future Project Report. London: The Academic Book of the Future, retrieved 10 February 2019 from https://academicbookfuture.org/end-of-project-reports-2/.
Edwards, L. (2012). Editing academic books in the humanities and social sciences: maximising impact for effort. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 44(1), 61–74.
Erb, B. (2013). Beyond WorldCat: accessing scholarly output in books and edited monographs. The Charleston Advisor, 15(2), 62–6.
Evans, R. J. (1997). In Defence of History. London: Granta.
Farrell, G. (2018). For fairness, we need anonymous marking in the REF, too. Times Higher Education, 11 January.
Fischer, K. S., Wright, M., Clatanoff, K., Barton, H. and Shreeves, E. (2012). Give ‘em what they want: a one-year study of unmediated patron-driven acquisition of e-books. College and Research Libraries 73(5), 469–92.
Fitzpatrick, K. (2019). Generous Thinking: A Radical Approach to Saving the University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Goldie, M. (2008). Fifty years of the Historical Journal. Historical Journal, 51(4), 821–55.
Green, M. (2001). Adventure of Faith: Reflections on Fifty Years of Christian Service. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Guerin, C. (2014). ‘Journal article or book chapter?’, Doctoral Writing Special Interest Group, 1 May, retrieved 1 August 2018 from https://doctoralwriting.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/journal-article-or-book-chapter/.
Hacker, A. (2013). ‘In defense of the edited book’, A Hacker’s View, 3 December, retrieved 1 March 2019 from www.andreahacker.com/in-defense-of-the-edited-book/.
Harnad, S. (1986). On reviewing (and publishing in) edited interdisciplinary volumes. Contemporary Psychology, 31(5), 390.
Hinchliff, P. (1998). Frederick Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury: A Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Horowitz, I. L. (2017). Communicating Ideas: The Politics of Scholarly Publishing, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.
Institute of Historical Research (2008). ‘Teachers of history numbers’, Making History: The Changing Face of the Profession in Britain, retrieved 3 April 2019 from www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/statistics/teachers.html.
Jordanova, L. (2000). History in Practice. London: Arnold.
Jubb, M. (2017). Academic Books and Their Future: A Report to the AHRC and the British Library. London: The Academic Book of the Future.
Kelsky, K. (2012). ‘Should I do an edited collection?’, The Professor Is In, 24 July, retrieved 1 June 2018 from http://theprofessorisin.com/2012/07/24/should-i-do-an-edited-collection/.
Keown, D., and Prebish, C. (2013). Celebrating twenty years of the Journal of Buddhist Ethics. Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 20, 37–9, http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics.
Kenyon, J. (1993). The History Men, 2nd edn. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Kerman, J. (1985). Musicology. London: Fontana.
Kremakova, M. (2016). ‘What’s so bad about book chapters? Nothing really’, The Sociological Imagination, 9 June, retrieved 17 December 2019 from https://web.archive.org/web/20170626034643/http://sociologicalimagination.org/archives/18684.
Larsen, P. O., and von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 84(3), 575–603.
Le Goues, C., Brun, Y., Apel, S. et al. (2018). Effectiveness of anonymization in double-blind review. Communications of the ACM, 61(6), 30–3.
Linehan, P. A. (1982). The making of the Cambridge Medieval History. Speculum, 57(3), 463–94.
Louis, W. R. (1998). Preface. In Marshall, P. J., ed., The Oxford History of the British Empire. Volume II: The Eighteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. vii–ix.
McKitterick, D. (2004). A History of Cambridge University Press: Vol. 3: New Worlds for Learning, 1873–1972. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mould, O. (2018). Against Creativity. London: Verso.
Moxham, N., and Fyfe, A. (2018). The Royal Society and the prehistory of peer review, 1665–1965. Historical Journal, 61(4), 863–89.
Muller, J. Z. (2018). The Tyranny of Metrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Nederman, C. J. (2005). Herding cats: the view from the volume and series editor. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 36(4), 221–8.
OAPEN Project (2014). ‘Researcher survey, 2014: report’, OapenUK, retrieved 30 September 2019 from https://web.archive.org/web/20161012055051/http://oapen-uk.jiscebooks.org/research-findings/researcher-survey-2014/.
Ossenblok, T., Guns, R. and Thelwall, M. (2015). Book editors in the social sciences and humanities: an analysis of publication and collaboration patterns of established researchers in Flanders. Learned Publishing, 28(4), 261–73.
Palgrave Macmillan (2019). ‘Editing an essay collection’, Palgrave Macmillan, retrieved 25 March 2019 from www.palgrave.com/br/palgrave/book-authors/your-career/mid-career-scholars-hub/editing-an-essay-collection/7487710.
Pedersen, S. D. (2011). Festschriftiness. London Review of Books, 33(19), 31–2.
Pohl, A. (2014). ‘Sammelband herausgeben: gelernt’, Übertext, 3 June, retrieved 22 April 2019 from www.uebertext.org/2014/03/.
Pontille, D., and Torny, D. (2014). The blind shall see! The question of anonymity in journal peer review. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media and Technology, 4, retrieved 26 March 2019 from https://adanewmedia.org/2014/04/issue4-pontilletorny/.
Ramsey, M. (1960). From Gore to Temple: The Development of Anglican Theology between Lux Mundi and the Second World War, 1889–1939. London: Longmans.
Reeve, A. (2013). ‘Making edited collections work’, Rowman & Littlefield, 22 August, retrieved 17 December 2019 from https://web.archive.org/web/20160306223845/http://www.rowmaninternational.com/comment/making-edited-collections-work-a-publishers-perspective.
Research Assessment Exercise 2008 (2006). Panel Criteria and Working Methods: Panel N, retrieved 17 December 2019 from www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2006/01/.
Research Excellence Framework 2014 (2015). Overview Report by Main Panel D and Sub-panels 27 to 36, retrieved 17 December 2019 from www.ref.ac.uk/2014/panels/paneloverviewreports/.
Research Excellence Framework 2021 (2019). Guidance on Submissions, retrieved 17 December 2019 from www.ref.ac.uk/publications/guidance-on-submissions-201901/.
Rhodes, P. J. (1999). The Cambridge Ancient History. Histos, 3, 18–26.
Rice, C. (2013). ‘Three simple distinctions your government should eliminate from its research financing system’, Curt Rice, 7 November, retrieved 30 January 2019 from http://curt-rice.com/2013/11/07/3-simple-distinctions-your-government-should-eliminate-from-its-research-financing-system/.
Rojas, F. (2011). ‘Let’s talk about edited collections’, orgtheory.net, 28 July, retrieved 1 March 2019 from https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/lets-talk-about-edited-volumes/.
Sayer, D. (2014). Rank Hypocrisies: The Insult of the REF. London: SAGE.
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314, 498–502.
Smith, M. E. (2007). ‘Why are so many edited volumes worthless?’, Publishing Archaeology, 26 August, retrieved 1 May 2019 from http://publishingarchaeology.blogspot.com/2007/08/why-are-so-many-edited-volumes.html.
Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178–82.
Soble, A. G. (2003). Review of ‘Fact and Value: Essays on Ethics and Metaphysics for Judith Jarvis Thomson’. Essays in Philosophy, 4(1), article 5, at https://commons.pacificu.edu/eip/vol4/iss1/5/.
Swords, D. A., ed. (2011). Patron-Driven Acquisitions: History and Best Practices. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Tanner, S. (2016). An Analysis of the Arts and Humanities Submitted Research Outputs to the REF2014 with a Focus on Academic Books. London: The Academic Book of the Future.
Thompson, J. B. (2005). Books in the Digital Age: The Transformation of Academic and Higher Education Publishing in Britain and the United States. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Thomson, P. (2012). ‘Is writing a book chapter a waste of time?’, Patter, 27 August, retrieved 1 September 2018 from https://patthomson.net/2012/08/27/is-writing-a-book-chapter-a-waste-of-time/.
Thomson, P. (2013), ‘Two big hassles in editing and what you can do about them’, Patter, 9 September, retrieved 22 April 2019 from https://patthomson.net/2013/12/09/two-big-hassles-in-editing-a-book-and-what-you-can-do-about-them/.
Tulving, E. (2007). Are There 256 Different Kinds of Memory? In Nairne, J. S., ed., The Foundations of Remembering: Essays in Honor of Henry L. Roedinger, III. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 39–52.
Tyrrell, I. (2005). Historians in Public: The Practice of American History, 1890–1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vidler, A. (1977) Scenes from a Clerical Life: An Autobiography. London: Collins.
Waddell, B. (2019). ‘Historians, PhDs and jobs, 1995–96 to 2017/18’, The Many-Headed Monster, 7 March, retrieved 3 April 2019 from https://manyheadedmonster.wordpress.com/2019/03/07/historians-phds-and-jobs-1995-96-to-2017-18/.
Webster, P. (2013). ‘On the invisibility of edited collections’, Webstory, 14 January, retrieved 1 October 2019 from https://peterwebster.me/2013/01/14/on-the-invisibility-of-edited-collections/.
Webster, P. (2015). ‘New British Library metadata for theology and church history’, Webstory, 4 June, retrieved 3 April 2019 from https://peterwebster.me/2015/06/04/new-british-library-metadata-for-theology-and-church-history/.
Weiler, J. (2016). ‘On my way out – advice to younger scholars III: edited book’, Blog of the European Journal of International Law, 5 October, retrieved 1 March 2019 from www.ejiltalk.org/on-my-way-out-advice-to-young-scholars-iii-edited-book/.
Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E. et al. (2015). The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Zeitlyn, D., and Beardmore-Herd, M. (2018). Testing Google Scholar bibliographic data: estimating error rates for Google Scholar citation parsing. First Monday, 23(11), https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/8658/7607.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.