Professional and Academic Books & Bible Resources
Concordia Publishing House (CPH) is the publishing arm of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. We develop, produce, and distribute (1) resources that support pastoral and congregational ministry, and (2) scholarly and professional books in exegetical, historical, dogmatic, and practical theology.
Our books are faithful to the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, promoting the rich theological heritage of the historic, creedal Church. We aim to provide quality resources for congregations, church workers, seminaries, universities, and colleges.
Sarah Steiner
Editorial Assistant for Professional and Academic Books
Concordia Publishing House
3558 S. Jefferson Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63118-3968
sarah.steiner@cph.org
(314) 268–1108
CPH currently offers two ways to publish a manuscript:
Process for Development Projects
Process for Peer Reviewed Projects
Documents for the Peer Review Process:
Peer Review Guidelines
Peer Review Style
Process for Development Projects
This process is usually used on large team projects such as reference works, book series, or other special projects. Development projects begin with a CPH development editor. The development process typically uses work-for-hire contracts. Each project is pre-approved by the CPH Board of Directors before writing and editing begins.
The CPH editor typically acts as a general editor to identify authors or translators, approve author submissions, and prepare consistent content. Writers and translators who are interested in contributing to a development project should submit their names and credentials to the CPH development editor.
The CPH book team will unify the style of the work from different contributors (consistency of argument, fact checking, grammar, spelling, etc.). On some special projects, an outside editor acts as the general editor (e.g., the new series of Luther’s Works).
Current CPH development projects include:
The Concordia Commentary: A Theological Exposition of Sacred Scripture
Christopher W. Mitchell, Concordia Commentary Editor
Luther’s Works (Series Extension)
Benjamin T. G. Mayes, Managing Editor
Theological Commonplaces of Johann Gerhard
Benjamin T. G. Mayes, General Editor
Process for Peer Reviewed Projects
This process is suited for smaller projects (e.g., a single book) by an individual author or a small team. It uses royalty contracts. It is similar to the peer reviewed process or “refereed” process used to publish professional or academic journals. It is especially well suited for producing a textbook from an existing manuscript.
Step 1: Submitting an Email Proposal. For all proposals, authors are encouraged to submit the following proposal package via email. Each item may be a separate attached file (MSWord or PDF):
- A cover message. This brief email message introduces the topic/thesis of your manuscript, your qualifications as author (current position, degrees earned), the intended audience for your book, and the significance of the subject.
- A curriculum vitae or résumé.
- An abstract. In one page, summarize your proposal or the content of your manuscript. Highlight your original contribution for church workers or scholars.
- An outline or table of contents.
- A chapter in standard manuscript format (8.5" x 11"; double-spaced; Times font preferable).
- Names, credentials, and contact information of two potential peer reviewers. (1. The reviewers should be published authors of books or have extensive experience with journal publications; please provide publication information. 2. The reviewers must have credentials appropriate to the proposed project, such as knowledge of languages involved in the proposal. 3. At least one reviewer must be from outside your institution. 4. The reviewers must not be relatives. 5. CPH retains the option of appointing an additional peer reviewer.)
Do not send a complete manuscript until requested. Do not mail to us finished artwork, photographs, or slides until requested.
We do not publish theses or dissertations, which are typically made available through other means (e.g., Theological Research Exchange Network; UMI Dissertation Publishing). An author wishing to turn a thesis or dissertation into a marketable book should consult From Dissertation to Book by William Germano (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing).
Step 2: Initial Review. The CPH team will consider the proposal together with the proposed peer reviewers. A CPH book editor, or a reviewer appointed by the senior editor, will carefully review your proposal and consult with colleagues. Our editors will focus on the quality of writing, the quality of content, the credentials of the peer reviewers, and the significance of the topic for the book market, especially for the Lutheran Church. A CPH editor will typically respond to your proposal within six weeks after acknowledging receipt of the proposal or manuscript.
You will receive one of two responses from a CPH book editor:
- Your proposal or manuscript is of interest to us. (The consensus of CPH development editors is that you have a viable project.)
- Or, the proposal or manuscript does not fit with our current publication plans (i.e., you should seek another publisher).
This initial review process does not involve a contract or any publishing agreement. If the review states that CPH is interested in your manuscript, you may still pursue publication of the manuscript with another publisher. Also, a positive review does not obligate CPH to publish a manuscript of interest. (Project approval is formally indicated when CPH issues to you a contract. (See step 4 below.)
Step 3: Plans for the Manuscript. If CPH expresses interest in your proposal or manuscript, follow up (via phone call or email) with the editor who sent the review to you. The editor will explain to you how to move forward in the publication process with CPH.
You will likely receive a set of comments from the review process that will evaluate the readiness of your proposal or manuscript. You may also receive comments describing how the proposal or manuscript may be adapted to better fit the book market. If you have questions or concerns, discuss these matters with the editor who returned the comments.
Before resubmitting a proposal or manuscript, you should address any concerns or suggestions recommended by the editor. The author should revise the manuscript as needed and submit it to the appointed peer reviewers. After the peer reviewers go over the manuscript carefully, they should send their comments to the author and to the CPH editor. If the author and editor agree on the final form of the manuscript, the author may complete the project and submit a clean, ready-to-publish manuscript for formal approval.
As in peer reviewed journals, the author of a peer reviewed book is responsible for the final content and style of the book. A CPH editorial assistant will provide an MSWord book manuscript template and a style guide to direct the author (our house style is comparable with The Chicago Manual of Style). The author may not change the format of the template or the style.
Step 4: Project Approvals. When a CPH editor is satisfied that your manuscript is ready for publication, the editor will request approval for the project at CPH. You will receive an Author Information Form to complete and return. The CPH team will use the form to prepare product specification and cost estimates.
All book proposals must receive CPH House Executive Board approval and Board of Directors approval. The CPH book team will guide the proposal through these in-house processes. Depending on circumstances, the approval process may take up to six months. A contract for a peer reviewed manuscript is issued only after the project is approved by the Board of Directors.
Each manuscript must also go through the doctrinal review process of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Your editor will guide the manuscript through the Synod’s review process.
Download the Concordia Publishing House Stylebook for Authors and Editors
Thank you for participating as a peer reviewer. Your service will greatly bless the author and those who would read the proposed book. Please find below what the process entails, a sample letter upon completing a peer review, and some examples of comments provided in a peer review format.
- Read the manuscript thoroughly.
- Provide specific corrections and recommendations based on the enclosed samples.
- Provide a brief cover letter/email summarizing your experience with the manuscript and its strengths.
- If you cannot confidently support the publication of the ms (with improvements as recommended) please indicate that in your report.
- Return the review to the author by email attached file; copy your message to the editorial assistant: sarah.steiner@cph.org
Sample Cover Letter/Email
Dear [author name],
Greetings in Christ. I have finished reviewing your manuscript and believe it will be an asset for scholars in your field and for interested church workers. The reading level is likely too challenging for most lay people. Your treatment of recent debate on the topic was especially stimulating.
Please find attached my notes on corrections and recommendations for improvement. When these matters are addressed, I can confidently support publication of the work.
[signed]
The Review
Include general comments of introduction
Include specific corrections and recommendations (examples follow). Notes that include “Recommend” are suggestions for improvement. Notes that do not include “Recommend” are regarded as necessary changes.
p. ix. Recommend: An abbreviations list at the front after the table of contents to aid the reader with all your organizational acronyms and most frequent cited works (e.g., Kolb-Wengert, LSB, etc.). Cf Concordia Commentary series, vol. 69 of Luther’s Works, and Mission from the Cross
p. 3. Consult style guide. Use consistent rules for capitalization of divine pronouns and key theological terms, treatment of translations/transliterations, treatment of dates and/or historical terms, and use of acronyms and organizational names. See pp. 3, 23, 34, 35, 65 for examples of inconsistency.
p. 12. Footnote 3. Your author/title citation differs from other notes in the manuscript. Please make them consistent.
p. 33 Paragraph 2. Recommend. In addition to the Gospel passage you cite to support your point, it would be beneficial to consider the parallel passages in the other Synoptics and also the OT background.
p. 47. Paragraph 3. Recommend. Have you read Tormundson’s article on Genesis 22? He addresses the problem you describe.
p. 67. Paragraph 2. In this context, exsero should be translated “show,” not “exert” (Oxford Latin Dictionary, 3).
p. 118. Paragraph 1. Recommend. You could also mention that Melanchthon addresses this topic in AC III 3.
pp. 127–130. In this long Ibid string, will the reader know which author/title you are referencing? Best choice in current publishing practice is to avoid Ibid in favor of repeating author/title information in a shortened form. Consult style guide.
Closing comments, if necessary.
