But there were tricks that I learned about getting books from publishers. 2/x
I've gotten a few questions about this, so let me clarify and provide as much helpful information as this medium will allow.
To begin, both of my parents are MBA's and are assertive. They taught us four kids to be assertive. 1/x
Many underestimate the generosity of (most) publishers. I probably got $10,000 worth of free books during my 4 years in Durham by request exam or review copies. Sometimes, I just emailed a publisher and said, "I need this book, but I can't afford it. Can you help me out?"
— Stephen D. Campbell, Dr. theol. (@the_OT_Campbell) December 13, 2020
But there were tricks that I learned about getting books from publishers. 2/x
Some (like JHS) have no word limits, b/c they're online.
Some (like Vetus Testamentum) will happily publish 100 word reviews and 2,500 word review essays. 8/x
Fortress: Don't bother unless you get a review editor to get the book for you.
Routledge: I'm still waiting on them to reply to an email from 4 years ago. So I don't try. 11/x
Yale: They've made me jump through some crazy hoops to get books. I've had luck getting exam copies. 12/x
IVP: Not sure. They don't publish in Germany, so I've been able to get some ebooks, but nothing in print. 13/x
Westminster/John Knox: Not generous. You can sometimes convince them to give you a temporary digital copy.
OUP/CUP: You better know where the review will be published. If you do, then you have a good chance. 14/x
Eerdmans: They are generous, but their generosity has limits of how many exam copies you can get in a year. 15/x
Lexham: Very generous.
SBL: haven't tried.
Eisenbrauns: They are a very small press and not super generous. You have to be submitting to a high level journal. 16/x
Peter Lang: I don't bother asking anymore. They've always said no, unless it was the journal asking for me. 17/x
Mohr Siebeck: Also VERY generous. I've never been denied a request.
V&R: Less generous, but I've had recent luck since my PhD was completed. I told them exactly where the review will go. 18/x
Notre Dame UP: I stopped trying. I had luck once. But as I recall, they work very slowly.
Baylor Press: They are another small press that has to be careful with how many books they give away. Best to go through your review editor. 19/x
JPS: Never had luck with them either, unless the journal already had received the book from the publisher and the journal sent it to me.
Peeters: No luck there either. I suspect I'd have to go through the review editor. 20/x
More from Book
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?