Felice Mosca is an independent scholarly press committed to rigorous peer review, genuine editorial partnership, and a royalty model that treats authors as collaborators — not content providers.
ROYALTY
50% of net receipts, all formats
REVIEW MODEL
Two-stage, minimum two external reviewers per stage
GOVERNING STANDARD
AUPresses Best Practices for Peer Review, 2022
→ What We Publish
Is your book right for us?
Felice Mosca publishes scholarly monographs, edited volumes, and critical editions. Named for Giambattista Vico’s eighteenth-century Neapolitan publisher, the press has a clear intellectual character: we are looking for books that take seriously the challenges and possibilities of living and thinking in a world transformed by technology, ecological crisis, and the redefinition of the human.
Our focus is rigorous but not narrow. If you are uncertain whether your project fits, write to us — an informal query is always welcome and costs nothing.
Intellectual Misfits.
Scholarly and creative engagements with thinkers whose ideas were untimely, but are of contemporary relevance.
Humanism and Posthuimanism.
Inquiries into how the contours of what it means to be human are being eroded and reshaped as we gain a more complete understanding of our relationships to nature, technology, each other, and ourselves.
Philosophical Fiction.
Literary works aimed to introduce general readers to philosophical concepts through compelling and creative narratives.
The Vico Library Series
Our flagship series publishes critical and scholarly works at the intersection of Vichian thought, Italian intellectual history, and their contemporary resonances. At least one reviewer per stage holds recognized expertise in Vico scholarship. Proposals for the series should include the Vico Library Supplement to the standard proposal form.
Who can Submit?
Felice Mosca welcomes proposals from scholars at all career stages and institutional positions — including independent scholars, early career researchers, and scholars whose work crosses disciplinary or linguistic borders. We do not use institutional affiliation as a criterion for evaluation.
→ Before You Submit
Getting Ready.
The best first step is an informal query. A short email describing your project — its argument, its stage of completion, and its intended contribution — allows us to assess fit quickly. If the project seems promising, we will invite a full proposal. A query imposes no obligation on either side and does not trigger the peer review process.
What a Complete Proposal Includes
01 | The completed Felice Mosca Book Proposal Form
02 | Your curriculum vitae
03 | At least one sample chapter or substantial writing sample (20–30 pages)
04 | A draft introduction, if available
05 | A complete table of contents, if the manuscript is substantially drafted
Simultaneous Submissions
We accept simultaneous submissions at the proposal stage. Please disclose in your proposal if the project is under consideration elsewhere. Once we invite a project to peer review, we ask for exclusivity for the duration of the review — usually four to twelve weeks. You may withdraw at any time before a contract is offered.
How to Submit
Send your proposal to proposals@felicemosca.com as a PDF or Word attachment. Use the subject line: Proposal — [Your Last Name] — [Short Title]. We will acknowledge receipt within five business days.
→ The Editorial Process
From submission to publication.
1
Initial Editorial Review
2–6 weeks
Every proposal we receive is read by the editor. We are assessing whether your project is a credible fit for the Felice Mosca list — not just in subject matter, but in intellectual character and scholarly approach. We may ask for additional materials before deciding whether to proceed.
→
Nothing beyond being available to answer questions. We will write to you with our decision.
2
Proposal Peer Review
2–6 WEEKS
If your proposal passes initial review, we send it — along with your sample chapter and CV — to a minimum of two external peer reviewers selected for their scholarly expertise and independence from you. They assess the originality and coherence of your argument, your engagement with the field, the likely readership, and whether the project fits our list. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to you.
→
We notify you before review begins. Once reports arrive, we share them with you in full along with a covering letter from the editor.
3
Author Response & Editorial Decision
4 WEEKS FOR YOUR RESPONSE · 2–4 WEEKS FOR OUR DECISION
When you receive the peer reports, you will be invited to write a response memo — a document in which you address the reviewers’ substantive points, explain what revisions you plan to make, and where appropriate make the case for your own approach. The editor weighs your proposal, the reviews, and your response together before making a decision.
→
Write a considered, professional response to the reviews. You do not need to accept every suggestion — but you do need to engage with each substantive point honestly. The editor is available to discuss the reviews with you before you draft your response.
4
Contract
NEGORIATED UPON POSITIBE DECISION
If the decision is to proceed, we will offer you a publishing agreement. Standard terms include a 50% royalty on net receipts in all formats, an agreed delivery date for the complete manuscript, a description of editorial and marketing support, and a clause confirming that the full manuscript will undergo a further round of peer review. Rights and other terms are negotiable.
→
Review the agreement carefully and ask questions. Once signed, you will have an agreed deadline for your complete manuscript.
5
Full Manuscript Peer Review
2-6 WEEKS
When you deliver the complete manuscript, we conduct a brief preliminary review to confirm it is ready for external assessment, then send it to peer reviewers — who may include one reviewer from the proposal stage for continuity alongside at least one new specialist. Reviewers evaluate whether the manuscript fulfills the promise of the proposal, the strength of the argument across all chapters, the quality of the scholarship, and the readability of the prose.
→
Deliver a complete manuscript — all chapters, notes, bibliography, and any illustrations or appendices — as close to publication-ready as you can bring it.
6
Revision
4–16 WEEKS DEPENDING ON SCOPE
You will receive the manuscript reports along with a covering letter from the editor explaining what is required. In most cases, some revision will be requested — from minor clarifications to more substantial reworking of particular chapters. You will prepare a response memo alongside the revised manuscript.
→
Engage with the reviews seriously, specifically, and professionally. Where you disagree with a reviewer, say so and give your reasons. Once the revised manuscript is accepted, the book moves to production.
7
Production & Publication
4-8 MONTHS FROM FINAL ACCEPTANCE
Your manuscript goes into production: professional copyediting, typesetting in Baskerville to Felice Mosca house style, cover design, metadata preparation, and distribution through Ingram Spark. You will review typeset proofs before the book goes to press. We will work with you on a tailored marketing plan — including advance review copies, conference presence where appropriate, and social and email outreach.
→
Return proof corrections within the agreed timeline and share your knowledge of your field’s scholarly community. You are our best guide to who should know this book exists.
On Timelines
These estimates reflect typical experience. Reviewer availability, the scope of revision required, and the complexity of a given manuscript all affect actual timelines. We will always communicate delays proactively and will not allow the process to stall without explanation.
What Decisions Look Like
Possible outcomes.
At both the proposal and manuscript stages, editorial decisions fall into four categories. It is worth understanding what each means before you enter the process.
✓
Accept
The project proceeds as submitted. At the proposal stage this means a contract offer; at the manuscript stage, clearance for production. Unconditional acceptance is relatively rare — most books benefit from at least minor revision.
◎
Accept with Revisions
A contract or production clearance is offered contingent on specific revisions the editor sets out in writing. These are typically focused and achievable. Once the editor is satisfied, the project moves forward.
↺
Revise and Resubmit
The project has merit but requires more substantial work before a contract or clearance can be offered. The editor will explain precisely what is needed. A revised submission may be sent for a further round of review.
✕
Decline
The project is not suitable for the Felice Mosca list at this time. A decline at the proposal stage may reflect fit, timing, or list balance — not necessarily the quality of the scholarship. The editor will always explain why.
On Reviewer Disagreement
Peer reviewers sometimes disagree. When they do, the editor’s judgment is what matters — not a majority vote. A negative report from one reviewer does not automatically result in rejection. What matters is the editor’s overall assessment of the project’s merit and the weight of the complete record.
Peer Review
What to expect from the review process.
Peer review is what distinguishes scholarly publishing from trade publishing. It is also, for many authors, one of the more uncertain and emotionally demanding parts of the process. Here is what we want you to know.
Who Reviews Your Work
We select reviewers for their scholarly expertise in your field, their independence from you, and their ability to provide constructive, specific feedback. We will not use reviewers who have a conflict of interest — recent co-authors, close colleagues, or scholars with a public stake in your argument.
You may suggest up to three potential reviewers in your proposal form, and identify scholars who should be excluded due to a conflict of interest. Your suggestions inform but do not determine our choices.
The Anonymity Model
Felice Mosca uses single-blind peer review, standard practice in scholarly book publishing. Reviewers know who you are and have access to your CV. You do not know who the reviewers are, unless they choose to identify themselves in their reports.
This asymmetry is intentional. Reviewers need to assess not just the manuscript but your authority to write it — your scholarly profile and credentials relative to the argument you are making.
Receiving the Reports
We share peer review reports with you in full, accompanied by a covering letter from the editor contextualizing the feedback. Reading a critical report is never comfortable, even when the overall recommendation is positive. Read the reports, set them aside for a day if you need to, then return to them with one question: what is this reviewer actually asking me to do?
Reviewer Compensation
Our reviewers give their time and expertise without financial reward. Every reviewer receives a copy of the book they reviewed upon publication, plus one additional Felice Mosca title of their choice. We also offer to write to their department head or dean to acknowledge their contribution to scholarly publishing.
We look forward
to hearing from you.
Publishing with Felice Mosca is a more personal experience than publishing with a large university press. The person who reads your proposal is the same person who will shepherd your manuscript through review, negotiate your contract, supervise your copyediting, and help you market your book.
proposals@felicemosca.com