Academic publishing is a predatory industry that does not benefit authors in any way. This is such a universally understood truth in academia that it unfortunately didn't occur to me that someone else wouldn't know about it. But why would you? You have my apologies for this assumption.
Although a small number academic publishers (generally university presses supported by enormous private and federal grants) release affordable paperback editions, the vast majority of academic monographs are printed in hardcover editions of less than 500 copies (250 copies is common) and priced to be sold to university libraries. That is the case with this book:
If you were to spend $144.87 on an academic monograph that the press has made no effort to render accessible to a wider audience (note the lack of an appropriate cover illustration, for example), the author would receive no royalties or other compensation of any kind.
The authors of these books are paid a flat fee on submission of the manuscript (usually between $500 and $900), which is meant to help compensate them for what they paid for the service of a professional copy editor, whom they will have had to find themselves. In addition, the author will receive between one and five copies of the actual book, which they can then send to academic journals to be reviewed. Because the print run is so limited, there are no royalties.
Professors publish books because their tenure promotion depends on the publication of a book. If they can't publish a book, they will not be promoted (and might even be fired). Academic publishers know this, so they often force the author to bear the financial burden of publication by requiring that the author provide what are called "subvention grants" of $2000 or more. The professor's university will sometimes help with this, but it's far from guaranteed. Routledge is especially bad about requiring subvention grants despite (or perhaps because of?) being one of the largest and most well-respected academic publishers.
This is not the case with every academic book, obviously, but it's what's going on with this one in particular.
I'm all about supporting authors, but no one will benefit from you spending a ridiculous amount of money on this book except for what is an extremely predatory press and the terrible industry practices that enable it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2020-02-05 02:21 pm (UTC)Although a small number academic publishers (generally university presses supported by enormous private and federal grants) release affordable paperback editions, the vast majority of academic monographs are printed in hardcover editions of less than 500 copies (250 copies is common) and priced to be sold to university libraries. That is the case with this book:
If you were to spend $144.87 on an academic monograph that the press has made no effort to render accessible to a wider audience (note the lack of an appropriate cover illustration, for example), the author would receive no royalties or other compensation of any kind.
The authors of these books are paid a flat fee on submission of the manuscript (usually between $500 and $900), which is meant to help compensate them for what they paid for the service of a professional copy editor, whom they will have had to find themselves. In addition, the author will receive between one and five copies of the actual book, which they can then send to academic journals to be reviewed. Because the print run is so limited, there are no royalties.
Professors publish books because their tenure promotion depends on the publication of a book. If they can't publish a book, they will not be promoted (and might even be fired). Academic publishers know this, so they often force the author to bear the financial burden of publication by requiring that the author provide what are called "subvention grants" of $2000 or more. The professor's university will sometimes help with this, but it's far from guaranteed. Routledge is especially bad about requiring subvention grants despite (or perhaps because of?) being one of the largest and most well-respected academic publishers.
This is not the case with every academic book, obviously, but it's what's going on with this one in particular.
I'm all about supporting authors, but no one will benefit from you spending a ridiculous amount of money on this book except for what is an extremely predatory press and the terrible industry practices that enable it.