Abstract

To obtain the views of scholars on the so-called crisis of the scholarly monograph, a questionnaire was sent to 1,416 historians in doctoral/research universities asking about experiences in getting their books published and their opinions on a range of issues relating to publication. Included were questions on refereeing, on the changes they have encountered in the publication process since their first book, on electronic publishing, and on expectations of the future. Additional questions related to their practices as readers and buyers of books. Among the major conclusions were that the refereeing process is considered essential and that it accomplishes its purposes successfully; that there exists widespread reluctance to publish in a format that is available only electronically; that the emphasis on the bottom line in university presses has had an impact on the topics historians have chosen to investigate; that there is no agreement on the kind of books that history needs, although many would like to see more attention paid to what individuals who are interested in history but are not themselves scholars would like to read; and that the majority of historians are not finding it more difficult to get their books published than they did earlier in their careers.

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
1710-1166
Print ISSN
1198-9742
Pages
pp. 197-240
Launched on MUSE
2008-05-11
Open Access
No
Archive Status
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.