Skip to content Skip to navigation

Connexions

You are here: Home » Content » Submissions and the Review Process

Navigation

Recently Viewed

This feature requires Javascript to be enabled.

Submissions and the Review Process

Module by: Lawrence McGill. E-mail the author

User rating (How does the rating system work?)
Ratings

Ratings allow you to judge the quality of modules. If other users have ranked the module then its average rating is displayed below. Ratings are calculated on a scale from one star (Poor) to five stars (Excellent).

How to rate a module

Hover over the star that corresponds to the rating you wish to assign. Click on the star to add your rating. Your rating should be based on the quality of the content. You must have an account and be logged in to rate content.

:
(0 ratings)

The total volume of submissions ranges widely from press to press. One press reported just 25 submissions during 2005, while another reported 400. Five presses said they received between 75 and 150 submissions during 2005.

One of the most striking findings from the survey of art history editors concerns the rates of manuscript acceptance at both the point of initial receipt and following formal review. By far the largest proportion of manuscripts (and proposals) is rejected at the stage of initial receipt; just 15% were sent out for formal review. Of those submitted for review, about 85% were accepted for publication. In other words, the winnowing process is very much "front-loaded." For every 50 manuscripts or proposals submitted, 8 will be sent for review; 7 of these will survive the review process and be published.

Few survey respondents offered any specific comments about the review process. Those who did tended to value it highly:

  • It is extremely time-consuming, but the mark of a serious scholarly press.
  • Qualified reviewers are often very busy, making it sometimes difficult to arrange appropriate peer review. I have been stunned by the erudition and insight most scholars bring to the review process. In my experience, peer review has contributed enormously to the scholarly worth and appeal of the books I published.

One respondent candidly stated that the purpose of the review process was not so much to winnow books out as to tighten them up: "Generally I think that the peer review process is fair and useful. It gives an editor/press a good idea of the importance of a project and its overall contribution to the field. That said, the process is to some extent 'fixed.' Editors will always go to those reviewers who are inclined to be sympathetic to the project and methodology. Even so, reviewers who are so inclined will still be critical and will offer useful feedback and critique to the author. I always choose scholars who are 'responsible' reviewers and who want to help the author and project. I will not work with reviewers who engage in vitriol and character assassination (which is, alas, not uncommon)."

Content actions

Give Feedback:

E-mail the module author | Rate module ( How does the rating system work?)

Rating system

Ratings

Ratings allow you to judge the quality of modules. If other users have ranked the module then its average rating is displayed below. Ratings are calculated on a scale from one star (Poor) to five stars (Excellent).

How to rate a module

Hover over the star that corresponds to the rating you wish to assign. Click on the star to add your rating. Your rating should be based on the quality of the content. You must have an account and be logged in to rate content.

(0 ratings)

Download:

Module PDF

Add module to:

My Favorites (?)

'My Favorites' is a special kind of lens which you can use to bookmark modules and collections directly in Connexions. 'My Favorites' can only be seen by you, and collections saved in 'My Favorites' can remember the last module you were on. You need a Connexions account to use 'My Favorites'.

| A lens (?)

Definition of a lens

Lenses

A lens is a custom view of Connexions content. You can think of it as a fancy kind of list that will let you see Connexions through the eyes of organizations and people you trust.

What is in a lens?

Lens makers point to Connexions materials (modules and collections), creating a guide that includes their own comments and descriptive tags about the content.

Who can create a lens?

Any individual Connexions member, a community, or a respected organization.

What are tags? tag icon

Tags are descriptors added by lens makers to help label content, attaching a vocabulary that is meaningful in the context of the lens.

| External bookmarks