The Fontiff Returns!
Been a while since I got to use this icon. I've been a little busy.
Today's discussion is on the stuff that has kept me busy: the differences between a modest university press (where I now work) and a giant trade press (where I used to work).
The first major difference is on the editorial focus. A university press's mandate is to bring deserving works (almost always nonfiction) into print. These range from "trade" books that have some popular appeal, through scholarly works that have general library/research appeal and some classroom use, to monographs that are usually very focused on a narrow area of scholarship and are expected only to be read by other scholars in the field.
The mandate of a trade press is to make money.
Pretty simple difference, eh? That trade presses ever publish books of high mental power is a testament to the population of readers, really. And, funnily enough, that university presses ever publish books that sell thousands of copies is a testament to the same, really.
Like trade presses, university presses have editorial foci. A press that is known for their quality books on medieval history, contemporary economics, and botany is not likely to be approached by someone whose work discusses modern materials science. (Scholars seem to be better about that sort of thing than fiction authors, who often will send their gritty mystery to a romance publisher. Of course, scholars have mentors to guide them. Fiction authors with mentors don't make those mistakes either.)
Trade presses fund themselves. They make money by selling books and their subrights. University presses don't make money. They are not-for-profit. They gain operating funds from a variety of sources: selling books (obviously), funds from their associated universities, donations and endowments, and author grants.
That last is an interesting point. Certainly a worthy book that fits a publisher's niche but comes with no money should be published, but it does make the decision easier when the author also has a couple thou in grant money.
The decision-making process is similar in both sorts of press, though of course the evaluating metrics are entirely different. In both cases, proposed books are given by the editor to test readers. For university presses, these test readers are scholars in the same field as the author; the parallel in trade presses is the test readers are other editors, or perhaps someone in marketing...and of course the offering agent.
Assuming the book gets past the test readers, it's given to the next round of decision-makers. (Caveat: I don't know how it works at all university presses; I know how it works where I am.) In the case of my employer, the head of the press and the major managers read the readers' comments, listen to the editor's arguments in favor of the book, and decide if this seems both rational and affordable.
The equivalent in a trade press is the editor goes to the editorial committee and argues for the book. This committee is usually a mix of senior editors and high-up marketing people. (Sometimes there's a round with just editors before it goes to marketing people.)
My employer has one more step: the big board of important guys (their exact composition is still unknown to me--geez, it's only been two months!--but they control, and often fill, the coffers). They don't involve themselves in the day-to-day operations of the press, but they do want to hear about the books before contracts are signed.
Just like in a trade press, university presses have different degrees of scrutiny for authors at different levels. A new scholar who's publishing their first monograph for their Ph.D. will have a harder time of it than an established scholar with a dozen books to her name, who's the leading authority in her field. This is the same difference between newbie first-novelist and longstanding bestseller.
Well, this post has been general enough, hasn't it? I think I bored myself. Please ask questions! The Fontiff needs ideas for posts.