Writing for historical journals

[MattMedia]

Has anyone actually published in a historical journal?

I've done some textbook work, but have yet to submit to a journal. I'm curious to know what the pay rate tends to be for something like The Historian or Journal of American History vs. smaller, more specialized journals.

Thanks!

[sandyvanb]

I'm submitting a journal article tomorrow so I don't have an answer for you. Hopefully, someone else here will be able to answer your question.

[Safferz]

I have one article published in a smaller journal, and I wasn't paid for it. I'd be surprised to hear if any academic journals do this.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Safferz

[oryantin]

Do you have any ideas on how important an applicant has a published article or presented his/her paper at a conference?

[sandyvanb]

Do you have any ideas on how important an applicant has a published article or presented his/her paper at a conference?

I really think that it helps. I have a published book review, and I'm working on conference proposals but I'm not going to get a chance to go to a conference before applications go out. I would like to get this article published because I really think that it does make my CV stronger.

[Henry Hudson]

Has anyone actually published in a historical journal?

I've done some textbook work, but have yet to submit to a journal. I'm curious to know what the pay rate tends to be for something like The Historian or Journal of American History vs. smaller, more specialized journals.

Thanks!

I've yet to publish, but my profs generally tell me that there is no pay, it's part of the job (and for us, for establishing ourselves).

even scholarly books profs write are not generally significant income generators.

[borderlands]

As Henry Hudson suggested, there is no substantive money in academic writing for articles or books. There is some money in textbook publishing particularly if it's for a major publisher who's been contracted for California or Texas k-12 standards. I believe there might be more substantive money outside of an academic press e.g., Norton and Vintage. Some historians do publish with these presses but it is typically after tenure (having published at least one or two with peer-reviewed academic press) has been secured and with a broader much larger audience in mind. Alan Taylor has written a couple books for Vintage that are really good. It is rare to have an academic press best seller. Probably the most recent best-seller would be Eric Foner's The Fiery Trial published by W. W. Norton & Company.

[TMP]

A pay rate? You don't become a historian to make money. Nobody gets paid to do these things. You only get paid for the recognition of your work.

As you probably already know, it's a very long process to get your article published from scratch to published.

[natsteel]

A pay rate? Nobody gets paid to do these things. You only get paid for the recognition of your work.

I thought the same thing when I first read the post. However, it's not entirely true that you don't get "paid." Of course, there is no cash payment, but, if you consider that publishing those articles is a required part of your tenure-track job, then, in a sense, you are getting paid to publish articles just like you are for being in the classroom or advising students in your office or doing committee work in the department conference room. And, if publishing those articles leads to getting tenure, then there certainly is a "pay-off" if not a direct "payment."

You don't become a historian to make money.

Sad but true, tmp.

Edited July 14, 2011 by natsteel

[pudewen]

You don't become a historian to make money.

I mean, actually you do. At least, the reason all of us are participating in essentially the same formalized training and certification process to receive PhDs in History is because it allows us to be paid for researching and teaching history (even if, barring unlikely and massive success, the amount of money isn't very large). You might not become a historian in order to make the most money you can possibly make, but the reason anyone wants to become a Historian, rather than merely someone who spends lots of time reading historical scholarship and takes their vacations in archives is to get paid for it.

Edit: Actually, to be fair, becoming a Historian rather than an amateur practitioner of history also allows access to the remaining social prestige of academia. Conceived of most favorably, this makes it easier to do the sort of research we want to do, conceived of less favorably, it means we can belong to the world of the elite (again, if we're lucky enough to have the level of success necessary for a professorship at a major research university) despite not being paid like it.

Edited July 14, 2011 by pudewen

[MattMedia]

I agree with Pudewen here. The idea that "you don't become a historian to make money" is somewhere between naive and adorably noble. We are not spending years of our lives in difficult graduate programs that make you jump through hoops just to be allowed to study to be hobbyists. Being a historian is a profession, and it's by no means silly to ask where you can and cannot expect to be paid for things. As someone who's literally made about 90% of all his income ever doing history work, I find the assertion ticklemepink makes pretty, well, goofy.

[natsteel]

The idea that "you don't become a historian to make money" is somewhere between naive and adorably noble [. . .] I find the assertion ticklemepink makes pretty, well, goofy.

I find that people are taking ticklemepink's statement literally somewhat "goofy." She obviously meant that people don't become historians as a way to get rich, not that we shouldn't be expected to be paid for our efforts (except journal publishing, of course).

After all, when you consider that those lucky enough to finish a PhD after 6-8 years of the hardest work of their life (about half) AND find a full-time job (no more than 1/3 of that half) can expect to make around $45,000 per year, I think her comment is quite accurate and prescient.

[TMP]

MattMedia, you just made yourself sound like you resent academia (aka the Ivory Tower) for getting paid to do nothing but research/write in exchange for teaching or receiving grants. Given your rebuttal, why did you ask how much you would get per journal article in the first place or frame your post question that way? It is a privilege itself to be published in an academic journal, whether it's a research article or a book review.

That said, you don't have to like or agree with what I have to say. I respect that.

Edited July 24, 2011 by ticklemepink

[MattMedia]

I don't see in what way I made it sound like I resented academia for getting paid to do nothing but research/write...

I generally think people should get paid for their writing if that writing is useful, and was asking what the pay rates were.

[Batavi]

If you'd like to earn money writing, continue with your studies, get the MA or PhD you want, and become a professional author. They earn 'some' money, but I reckon you're 'safer' off trying to become a full time academic and getting things published like that. Of course, you can try do the two together.....

[aspiringhistorian]

If you'd like to earn money writing, continue with your studies, get the MA or PhD you want, and become a professional author. They earn 'some' money, but I reckon you're 'safer' off trying to become a full time academic and getting things published like that. Of course, you can try do the two together.....

I agree. Many authors- even if they are successful- are employed elsewhere and are often based in academia. I think it often helps to elevate the credibility of the writer while also serving as a net in case the writing doesn't work out. However, journals are not the place to look for money... That really is about building the historian's active reputation in the field and not about contributing to one's income. At least not directly.

[MattMedia]

Thanks, folks!

[natsteel]

Just to add a footnote... Historians are sometimes remunerated for other types of writing, one I can think of off the top of my head is encyclopedia entries.

[runonsentence]

An interesting, if tangential, note from my days as a production editor for a publisher of academic journals: editors themselves are hardly paid for running journals. The editorial department awarded small honorariums to the editors-in-chief, which could not have been more than a couple thousand, and those on the editorial board performing the work of peer review, of course, received nothing at all....