Editor's Report

The year 2010 was the first year in the five-year publishing agreement between Cambridge University Press (CUP) and the Medieval Academy of America on behalf of Speculum, volumes 85 (2010) through 89 (2014). As might be expected, the conjointure of an eighty-five-year-old journal and a publishing house of more than five hundred years crossed many a traditional line and some new ones. For example, every contribution to the journal now has to be copyrighted, even this report and those that accompany it. One crucial matter is the distinction between subscribers and members. Subscribers are institutions that pay for and receive Speculum, while members are individuals who receive Speculum as a perquisite of membership in the Medieval Academy (along with other perquisites). In other words, CUP manages institutions; the Academy still works with individuals.

The working relationships with CUP have been excellent. When under the agreement the original typesetter for Speculum was not meeting expectations, CUP and the Academy worked out a smooth transition to a new typesetter. When publishing deadlines for CUP and the Academy did not quite mesh, an accommodation was achieved. Open lines of communication have been a feature of the relationship with even sometime CUP visits to the Academy over the year.

Speculum has received other benefits from the relationship with CUP. Editorial Manager, which is an online manuscript submission system, came to Speculum gratis, thanks to CUP. Most of those who have used Editorial Manager have mastered its interface, but occasionally there remain problems such as those encountered by a presumptive contributor who submitted his article three times within one week. Editorial Manager has otherwise kept a good inventory on submissions, but perhaps its major assist to the enterprise is its requirement that contributors submit abstracts of their papers. It is likely that the availability of Editorial Manager is behind the 35.8 percent spike in submissions to Speculum. Before Editorial Manager, those submitting had to send three copies via conventional mail. From Europe (and indeed within North America) such a mailing could be expensive. Now contacts are a nanosecond away, or so it seems, and free if one has access to a university e-mail address.

CUP has also created an online directory of members, available free to members off the main page of the website, and produced a hardcopy version (available from the Academy postpaid for $20). The Academy and CUP are now working on ways to improve the directory.

The financial arrangements remain the same. The Academy will receive a royalty from sales of institutional subscriptions-guaranteed 85 percent of projected sales-and $35,000 for editorial support. (For the second year of the agreement the editorial support has received a 2 percent raise.)

The year 2010 saw a remarkable increase in institutional subscribers (a net gain of 1,527), all presumably due to consortia or to "bundling"; CUP's marketing plan has proven successful. A wide range of costs associated with the publication has moved off the Academy's ledger and onto Cambridge's: warehousing, printing costs, mailing. Office workload has decreased because CUP will manage all subscribers (but not members!). As those attending the 2010 meeting know, CUP sponsored a reception and made available various tokens of remembrance; this year it has supported a reception. As already announced, members of the Academy receive a 20 percent discount on all CUP titles. For the strategic future CUP has made Speculum's entry into online publication possible and opened the journal to wider distribution through an international marketing plan.

Cambridge Journals Online serves as the source for the online version of Speculum, should an institution subscribe, and is the source for back issues.

Now to some stats: The number of pages printed in Speculum in 2010 was 1,078, 72 fewer than in 2009. We devoted 523 pages to reviews and brief notices, a decrease of 46 pages in comparison with 2009. The number of pages devoted to articles was 488 in 2010, 502 in 2009, 530 in 2008, 548 in 2007; the number of articles was comparable, 16 in 2009 and 2010, 15 in 2008, 17 in 2007. The costs for printing and mailing the journal were $4,285 in 2010, compared with $95,459 in 2009, $90,357 in 2008, $85,663 in 2007 (cf. $109,778 in 2006).

I am happy to note that Speculum on JSTOR yielded a payment of $23,443 in 2010; $23,092 in 2009; 2008, $16,956 (corrected); 2007, $13,206; cf. 2006, $12,420; 2005, $10,578; 2004, $9,803. The CUP agreement does not dissolve the Academy's relationship with JSTOR.

Despite the changes and adjustments the Academy staff has soldiered on brilliantly. Let me cite the staff and their responsibilities as a function of Speculum: Jacqueline Brown, associate editor with special responsibilities for editing and production; Sheryl Mullane-Corvi, effectively business manager; Mary-Jo Arn, book review manager; Chris Cole, manuscript traffic; and Lisa Fagin Davis, special editorial projects.

I am grateful to the Speculum Editorial Board for their continuing good advice on submissions, practices, and policy questions, which I have enjoyed for nearly five years. They have received Editorial Manager as the editorial helpmate that it is now and will be. I thank Rachel Fulton, Roberta L. Krueger, James Masschaele, Thomas F. X. Noble, Maura Nolan, Monika Otter, Conrad Rudolph, and Elaine Treharne.

The book review editors for Speculum support a key function as well. Let me acknowledge with thanks the book review editors for 2010-11: Rebecca A. Baltzer, Renate Blumenfeld-Kosinski, Brian A. Catlos, Theresa Coletti, Maria Dobozy, Anthony Kaldellis, Stephen E. Lahey, Josef W. Meri, Joseph Falaky Nagy, Lawrence Nees, Frederick S. Paxton, H. Wayne Storey, David Townsend, and Barbara F. Weissberger.

Respectfully submitted,
Paul E. Szarmach, Editor