Don’t judge a book’s quality simply by its ‘packaging’
I hold a PhD in Sociology, and a few years ago, when my first book was published, I was thrilled about this milestone and decided to approach a professor within my network to share the good news. However, to my surprise, instead of congratulating me for this achievement (which is extremely important for an early career researcher), her first reaction was simply to say that “she had never heard of that publishing house before”.
I was puzzled and disappointed by that unexpected comment, which, initially, did not make much sense to me, and neither gave the due value to my work. But, subsequently, I came to realise that, in reality, the comment had not come out from thin air, and despite its inappropriateness, I don’t believe that she said that to purposely hurt or discredit me.
It was rather an automatic behaviour induced by an enduring and internalised belief in academia suggesting that books published by prestigious university presses inherently possess higher quality, value and status than those released from smaller or not well-known presses.
While the well-established university presses frequently enjoy stronger reputation, greater share-of-mind (i.e., the capacity of being easily remembered and recognised by the public), and have more resources, I argue that it is essential to challenge the assumption that they represent the sole bastion of academic rigour and the single legitimate source of knowledge.
As a matter of fact, I advocate that the blind belief in this unsaid and unwritten ‘rule’ of unquestionable superiority and status fails to give the due credit to many relevant and impactful works that are published beyond the pool of famous international university presses. Besides, not every single output from these high-profile publishers automatically become astonishingly impactful works. It is not that simple or a flawless rule.
Indeed, take the case of the following sample of just twelve book publishers:
- Viking Press (USA, est. 1925)
- Harper & Row Publishers (USA, est. 1817)
- Alfred A. Knopf (USA, est. 1915)
- Les Éditions de Minuit (France, est. 1941)
- A.C. Mc Clurg & Co. (USA, est.1844 and closed in 1962)
- Payot & Rivages (France, est. 1979)
- Minority Rights (USA)
- F. Cass & Co. (UK, est. 1957)
- Éditions du Seuil (France, est. 1935)
- Belknapp Press (USA, est. 1954)
- Unrast Verlag (Germany, est. 1990s)
- Vintage Books (USA, est. 1954)
Some of these publishers have gone out of business (e.g., A.C. Mc Clurg & Co.), others have been acquired by larger and more famous publishing groups (e.g., Harper & Row Publishers has become part of the world-famous HarperCollins Publishers LLC, and Alfred A. Knopf which is currently part of Penguin Random House), while others are still operating under the same name (e.g., Unrast Verlag).
Although, most probably, the readers might have not heard of many of them, they all share a striking point in common that not every famous university press can display. All of them have published authors who, over time, became extremely relevant voices and influential thinkers in their areas of expertise, as shown in Figure 01.
Besides, when one considers the impressive number of citations reached by several of the titles displayed in Figure 01, it provides a very clear and objective indication of the impact and relevance of works published even many decades ago. The list does not have the ambition to be exhaustive, but even so, given the stature of the names displayed, they provide an excellent perspective of the argumentation developed in the present article.
Having said that, I really doubt that today someone would dare to question the quality of works published by authors such as Frantz Fanon, Pierre Bourdieu, Simone de Beauvoir, Grada Kilomba, Edward Said, Anani Dzidzienyo, and so forth, just because their seminal or distinguished work was released by small or less prestigious publishing houses.
Naturally, one can disagree with any author’s arguments, theories, and ideas because that is how knowledge evolves. That is not an issue. But disagreeing or defending a diverse point of view is very different from challenging the relevance and influence of their work simply because they do not carry the stamp of famous university presses (or at least not in the original edition, since some of the titles above have been republished by university presses in subsequent editions or translated versions).
Indeed, unless one is really interested in keeping track of every single publisher’s release, people will normally be much more focused in what the authors have to say, their arguments, the theories they have developed, their key findings, and so forth. Everything else beyond these aspects is marginal and of reduced relevance.
Then, whether a given academic book will become highly impactful, influential, and relevant over time depends on many variables, but certainly, its quality, depth of critical analysis and line of argumentation play a decisive role, and these attributes are not exclusivity of university press publications.
Otherwise, the world would most probably have been deprived of so many incredible thinkers, as the aforementioned sample displayed in Figure 01 makes evident.
Thus, a more nuanced perspective should acknowledge the diversity of the academic publishing landscape. Smaller and/or independent publishers are also perfectly capable of publishing ground-breaking research that contributes significantly to their respective disciplines and areas of specialisation (even if some established scholars, such as the one I approached, are not fully acquainted with them).
Besides, it is also possible to notice that smaller or less famous presses frequently foster a more experimental and interdisciplinary approach, leading to innovative and thought-provoking scholarship. Moreover, the peer-review process, a cornerstone of academic quality control, is not an exclusivity of prestigious university presses. Instead, this process is also present across a wide spectrum of publishers, ensuring that rigorous standards are maintained, even among the small ones. After all, they also take their work as seriously as any other large and well-established university press and take good care of their emerging reputation.
In this sense, who could possibly cast doubts on the quality and depth of the work of authors of the stature of the ones displayed in Figure 01, claiming that their output did not undergo any sort of rigorous assessment prior to publication? I believe that it is an unthinkable possibility.
Therefore, the works of the sample of authors displayed in Figure 01 did not become less qualified, relevant, or impactful just because they were released by small or less prestigious publishing houses.
As a matter of fact, their work became reference in their areas of expertise because their true value lie in their ideas rather than in their ‘packaging’. Otherwise, we fall in the trap of continuing to foster, reinforce and naturalise limiting stereotypes and prejudicial inversion of attributes that do not do justice to people’s hard work.
It is crucial to evaluate books based on their intellectual merit, originality, and contribution to knowledge rather than solely on the publisher’s brand. By focusing on these attributes, scholars and society can appreciate the value of a much wider range of academic outputs.
While prestigious and well-known university presses undoubtedly play a vital role in disseminating knowledge, they should not be hailed as the exclusive gatekeepers of academic quality and the sole reliable source of wisdom.
Consequently, by challenging this narrow-minded perspective, we can foster a more inclusive and equitable academic publishing ecosystem, allowing the emergence, existence, and the recognition of a much broader range of voices and ideas to be heard, valued and respected.
