Alison Syring recently took over responsibilities for acquiring and editing titles in Mormon Studies at the University of Illinois Press! She was gracious enough to answer a few questions for JI. You can follower her on Twitter @AlisonSyring.

JI: What is forthcoming on Mormon Studies from UIP?

AS: Right now, because we are working on our Fall 2021 list, I am most excited about launching our series Introductions to Mormon Thought. The first books in this series are moving toward production and should be out around this time next year. I think this series is so exciting for a few reasons. Books in this series are about not only those traditionally considered Mormon intellectuals, but also those on the periphery. I think these books will be useful to those long interested in Mormonism and Mormon studies, but they could also potentially attract an audience of people who know little about Mormonism and who are interested generally in intellectuals and intellectual history. They may find themselves discovering or rediscovering people for whom they did not know Mormonism played an important role. For example, one of our first books is on Vardis Fisher, a novelist who grew up Mormon but left the faith after college. A contemporary of writers like William Faulkner, Fisher wrote Western literary novels that often had themes of faith. Though I focused on twentieth-century American literature in college, I had never heard of Fisher. Like myself, I think many non-Mormons don’t realize the degree to which Mormon intellectuals are involved in American life, and this series might help to reveal that with short biographies on writers, political thinkers, and other public intellectuals.

JI: Where do you see the future of Mormon Studies/History going in the next decade?

AS: I’m really excited specifically about where Mormon studies can go at Illinois. We have a long-standing commitment to this field, which has really been reinvigorated in the last few years. I am eager to continue this energy with books that are both a reflection of the exciting developments in the field and also complements to Illinois’s diverse publishing commitments. For example, we’ve had an interest in feminist Mormon studies, which matches a commitment to feminist studies more broadly. Similarly, I am interested in global Mormonism historically and contemporarily, and we continue to have interest in books with transnational scopes.

In terms of new areas of acquisition in Mormon studies, we have published a number of books on Mormon history, which I continue to be interested in, but we haven’t published as many that touch on contemporary Mormon issues. I would be very interested in Mormon studies books that explore the twentieth century or even engage the current moment. I’m also interested in projects that expand beyond history into related disciplines or methodologies, like anthropology and ethnography.  

I also think there is an opportunity to expand into Mormon studies that might touch on some of my other areas of acquisition. I would be very interested in Mormon studies books that focus on a region, such as the Midwest or Appalachia. There is exciting work being done at the intersection of religion and digital humanities, and I would be excited to consider Mormon studies projects with DH elements. I also want to continue to support marginalized communities with my acquisitions work, which includes not only topics that may be marginalized, but also scholars who may be marginalized. I think sometimes the most exciting work is being done in areas that we don’t even see, and I’m excited to hear from and support scholars doing that work.

JI: What advice do you have for someone publishing their first Mormon Studies book?

AS: I think I would give the same advice to someone publishing their first book in any discipline: this is really your first big step into academia in your own right. There are potentially hundreds of considerations to make when you are thinking about publishing a book, but consider what is most important to you. Friends, colleagues, and mentors can share their experiences, but no matter what, yours will likely be different. What matters most to you? Maybe you are concerned with a press’s prestige in the field, or maybe you want to have control over the marketing strategy. You might be most concerned with finding an editor who can provide developmental support, or, on the other hand, you might want an editor who is more hands-off. Feel empowered to talk about your priorities with presses and their editors.

On a personal note, I hear a lot from scholars who are looking to publish their first book, but know nothing about the process. It’s been my experience that scholars don’t have a lot of support on navigating scholarly publishing beyond the anecdotal. I am always excited to talk to early career scholars who just want to know what publishing a book is like, either in a group setting or one-on-one. While I can’t necessarily speak for the entire industry, I am happy to talk about what publishing your first book at Illinois could look like. Scholarly publishers are often seen as “gatekeepers,” and so it is very important for me as an editor to make this process as transparent as possible from the first conversations I have with authors.

JI: How do you work through peer review for Mormon Studies? Do you send the book to two people in the field, or to one person in the field and one person in an adjacent historiography?

AS: Illinois is known for having a rigorous peer review process, and there are some standard practices for each project. For example, we always send a proposal or manuscript to at least two scholars for a first-round review. But at the same time, I like to see the peer review process as a collaboration between the scholar and myself. The press needs certain things from peer review, of course, but those priorities should not eclipse the scholar needing useful feedback on their work. If the project is interdisciplinary, I always want to find a pair of scholars who will bring a breadth of disciplinary knowledge to the project. Because Illinois publishes so many interdisciplinary books, and because most of the fields I specifically acquire in, while history based, are interdisciplinary, I think it’s a great strength of ours that we are able to reach across disciplines to find the right scholars to review each project.

I also tend to do more work with projects on the front end. I don’t want to send a project for outside review if I already know what a reviewer will say, especially if those critiques will be something I am well positioned to work on with an author, like the organization or the argumentative through-line. I want to create the smoothest process for authors, so I like to get as much done before peer review as possible, so that reviewers can focus on the disciplinary elements like sources and argument. I’ve found that this often provides the most useful reports for authors, and the smoothest process forward to—ideally!—contracting.