Prospective contributors should plan to survey a coherent field of inquiry, especially the current scholarship, with non-specialist readers foremost in mind, e.g., undergraduates, graduate students, secondary school teachers, and college and university faculty who are not experts in the history of technology. In addition, monographs should be designed to be useful to historians of technology looking for an overview of a specialty different from their own.
Although authors should never ignore significant relevant subject matter, coverage of every conceivable subtopic is less crucial than thematic coherence. Each monograph should present a broadly informed synthesis of the best work on the topic and the most salient historiographic interpretations. Each should impart an understanding that social and cultural issues are embedded in material artifacts and technological designs.
Monographs may be conceptualized to challenge accepted typologies in the history of technology. They may address large regions and broad time frames or focus more closely on some critical historical development.
They may range in length from 40,000 to 50,000 words (including footnotes and bibliography). An effective complement of illustrations is essential. For a more complete picture of possible range and content, prospective contributors are advised to survey the monographs in print and consult with the Series Editors.
Please note that these guidelines are intended to be suggestive, not restrictive. We encourage authors to shape their narrative and analysis according to their own best judgment.
In terms of structure, successful proposals should include the following:
Prospective authors should send the complete proposal (plus CV or CVs) directly to the Series Editors Pamela O. Long and Asif Siddiqi. Once the editors review the proposal (sometimes consulting other scholars), they may recommend revisions. Once the Series Editors agree that the Proposal is worth pursuing as a published monograph, they will then formally submit a recommendation to Johns Hopkins University Press for publication. At that point, JHUP, after consultation with the Series Editors will make a decision on whether to sign a contract with the author(s). The contract will include a mutually agreed schedule for submission of the manuscripts.
Upon completion of the manuscript, the author(s) submit the text to the Series Editors who ensure that the manuscript matches the expectations of the initial proposal. The Editors then forward the manuscript to the Press who then sends it out for review. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed in a blind but not double-blind process—that is, reviewers are apprised of the identity of the authors of proposals because their body of published work is relevant. At that point, the author(s) respond to the peer reviews as well as additional suggestions from the Series Editors. The author(s) then submit a revised manuscript according to a mutually agreed upon deadline.
Once the revised manuscript is accepted by all parties, the manuscript then moves to the copy-editing stage. The author(s) provide appropriate images accompanied by relevant permissions.
To send a proposal by e-mail, please contact the Series Co-Editors, Pamela O. Long and Asif Siddiqi.