Element contents
The Edited Collection
Pasts, Present and Futures
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 April 2020
Summary
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.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781108683647Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 04 June 2020
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.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Anon (2017). ‘Germans edge towards the brink in dispute with Elsevier’, Times Higher Education, 7 December.Google Scholar
Anon (2018). ‘French say “no deal” to Springer as journal fight spreads’, Times Higher Education, 12 April.Google Scholar
Anon (2018). ‘Plan S “could prove fatal” for learned societies’, Times Higher Education, 25 October.Google Scholar
Anon (2018). ‘Plan S: shock or solution?’, Times Higher Education, 13 September, p. 15.Google Scholar
Arnold, D. N., and Fowler, Kristine K. (2011). Nefarious numbers. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 58(3), 434–7.Google Scholar
Bentley, M. (2005) Modernizing England’s Past: English Historiography in the Age of Modernism, 1870–1970. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, I. (1994). The Hedgehog and the Fox. In Hardy, H. and Kelly, A. eds, Russian Thinkers. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
von Bülow, C. (2013). Mem. In Mittelstraß, J., ed., Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie, 2nd edn, volume 5. Berlin: Springer, pp. 318–24.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
Carter Wood, J. (2018). ‘Collections in crisis?’, Obscene Desserts, 25 February, retrieved 24 April 2019 from http://obscenedesserts.eu/?p=36.Google Scholar
Chadwick, O. (1970). The Victorian Church: Part Two: 1860–1901. London: A. & C. Black.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
Clark, G. N. (1945). The origin of the Cambridge Modern History. Cambridge Historical Journal 8(2), 57–64.Google Scholar
cOAlition S (2019). ‘10 Principles’, Plan S, retrieved 1 April 2019 from www.coalition-s.org/principles-and-implementation/.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Collini, S. (2006). Absent Minds: Intellectuals in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collini, S. (2017). What’s Happening to Universities? Historical and Comparative Perspectives. In Collini, S., ed., Speaking of Universities. London: Verso, pp. 15–35.Google Scholar
Crossick, G. (2015). Monographs and Open Access: A Report to HEFCE. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
Edwards, L. (2012). Editing academic books in the humanities and social sciences: maximising impact for effort. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 44(1), 61–74.Google Scholar
Erb, B. (2013). Beyond WorldCat: accessing scholarly output in books and edited monographs. The Charleston Advisor, 15(2), 62–6.Google Scholar
Farrell, G. (2018). For fairness, we need anonymous marking in the REF, too. Times Higher Education, 11 January.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, K. (2019). Generous Thinking: A Radical Approach to Saving the University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Goldie, M. (2008). Fifty years of the Historical Journal. Historical Journal, 51(4), 821–55.Google Scholar
Green, M. (2001). Adventure of Faith: Reflections on Fifty Years of Christian Service. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (1986). On reviewing (and publishing in) edited interdisciplinary volumes. Contemporary Psychology, 31(5), 390.Google Scholar
Hinchliff, P. (1998). Frederick Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury: A Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Horowitz, I. L. (2017). Communicating Ideas: The Politics of Scholarly Publishing, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Jubb, M. (2017). Academic Books and Their Future: A Report to the AHRC and the British Library. London: The Academic Book of the Future.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Linehan, P. A. (1982). The making of the Cambridge Medieval History. Speculum, 57(3), 463–94.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
McKitterick, D. (2004). A History of Cambridge University Press: Vol. 3: New Worlds for Learning, 1873–1972. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moxham, N., and Fyfe, A. (2018). The Royal Society and the prehistory of peer review, 1665–1965. Historical Journal, 61(4), 863–89.Google Scholar
Muller, J. Z. (2018). The Tyranny of Metrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nederman, C. J. (2005). Herding cats: the view from the volume and series editor. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 36(4), 221–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Pohl, A. (2014). ‘Sammelband herausgeben: gelernt’, Übertext, 3 June, retrieved 22 April 2019 from www.uebertext.org/2014/03/.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
Ramsey, M. (1960). From Gore to Temple: The Development of Anglican Theology between Lux Mundi and the Second World War, 1889–1939. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Research Assessment Exercise 2008 (2006). Panel Criteria and Working Methods: Panel N, retrieved 17 December 2019 from www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2006/01/.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
Research Excellence Framework 2021 (2019). Guidance on Submissions, retrieved 17 December 2019 from www.ref.ac.uk/publications/guidance-on-submissions-201901/.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314, 498–502.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
Swords, D. A., ed. (2011). Patron-Driven Acquisitions: History and Best Practices. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Tyrrell, I. (2005). Historians in Public: The Practice of American History, 1890–1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
- 8
- Cited by