RESONANCE publications publishes material in the field of political psychology with the intention of building bridges between specialist studies and the general public.
The target audience and readership ranges from post-graduate and higher education to general interest appeal. This means that accessible language and communication rather than obscure specialist vocabulary need to be prioritized in the presentation of any text we consider. Technical terms are welcomed as long as they are explained for a general interest professional and vocational readership.
We are currently also looking for joint or collaborative publications, not only between authors but also across different disciplines that include a psychological edge. Multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary writings are given particular consideration. We also consider works for translation into English.
If you would like to submit an m/s, please provide an initial 1’500 word (maximum) summary of the proposed book title, in addition to chapter headings and brief outlines of each chapter content, the intended target market or readership, and author(s) bio.
In Cult Fictions (1998), the Jungian historian and scholar Sonu Shamdasani revealed the gross ethical deterioration of standards in research and scholarship that remained unchecked by established academic publishing houses. One aspect focussed on was the theft of research ideas and materials at the stage of book proposals from new authors, which can be almost impossible to prove legally. As a result of this continuing practice of plagiarism by reviewers of books at academic publishing houses, using enough minor changes to avoid any legal challenge, RESONANCE publications ensure that all book proposals that are reviewed by outside sources and experts are on the basis of the contractual and legally binding obligation of a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). In their NDA, all reviewers are required to guarantee there will be no replication, or appropriation, or over-similarity hidden by sleight-of-hand minor changes, of material submitted to them as a book proposal. The reviewer will have to forego claims to originality of their own research if it coincides with the material they are examining (or refuse to undertake the review if conflicts of interest in intellectual property could occur) OR cite the author whose material they are evaluating as a colleague also working with the same ideas, concepts or research material in the field, whilst openly naming the proposal as a source, where such similarities occur. We hope this adds to the ethical safety of publishing proposals in the submissions process.