So there was a series of conferences and then they are doing a volume. I was not at the conference but study an area where not many folk write in English. They asked me to write a chapter. Good experiences all along until I see the table of contents. The region I studied is referenced with a strange name (think of one of the contested areas in many parts of the world where there is disagreement).
I write the editors back, they say they haven't thought about it much, etc. I don't hear from them and then see the proofs and the name they're using for the region is a kind of strange one where the editors don't seem aware of the background.
OK, so I write to them, and they give different rationales. They offer me the chance to write an author's note, but then they'll only accept the first sentence of it. I talk to the junior editor and he says I can add a footnote instead. I do that. They reject the footnote.
I'm trying to decide what to do here. I basically have several options:
1. Make nice (the main editor is a big name in some of my fields, and is probably already annoyed with me). Just write a really anemic "I'd prefer this name to the name the editors use." It's just a section heading.
2. Try to talk to the series editor, who I know, who may or may not have any power.
3. Ask to pull the chapter (this is what my spouse suggested). I don't even know if this is possible since I've already signed a release six months ago. I get that this is also a nuclear option. I am at the front of the book, so they would have to renumber the entire index (basically add 20 pages to every number).
Trying to feel this out. My position doesn't depend a whole lot on publication and I might get farther with this somewhere else. I guess I could also talk to my grad school advisor from 10+ years ago. Trying to think it through.
Anyone ever pulled a chapter? Trying to work this out. (I was a regular contributor to the forum in the old days but haven't checked in in a long time.)
Quote from: wanderer on April 16, 2021, 09:17:49 AM
So there was a series of conferences and then they are doing a volume. I was not at the conference but study an area where not many folk write in English. They asked me to write a chapter. Good experiences all along until I see the table of contents. The region I studied is referenced with a strange name (think of one of the contested areas in many parts of the world where there is disagreement).
I write the editors back, they say they haven't thought about it much, etc. I don't hear from them and then see the proofs and the name they're using for the region is a kind of strange one where the editors don't seem aware of the background.
OK, so I write to them, and they give different rationales. They offer me the chance to write an author's note, but then they'll only accept the first sentence of it. I talk to the junior editor and he says I can add a footnote instead. I do that. They reject the footnote.
I'm trying to decide what to do here. I basically have several options:
1. Make nice (the main editor is a big name in some of my fields, and is probably already annoyed with me). Just write a really anemic "I'd prefer this name to the name the editors use." It's just a section heading.
2. Try to talk to the series editor, who I know, who may or may not have any power.
3. Ask to pull the chapter (this is what my spouse suggested). I don't even know if this is possible since I've already signed a release six months ago. I get that this is also a nuclear option. I am at the front of the book, so they would have to renumber the entire index (basically add 20 pages to every number).
Trying to feel this out. My position doesn't depend a whole lot on publication and I might get farther with this somewhere else. I guess I could also talk to my grad school advisor from 10+ years ago. Trying to think it through.
Anyone ever pulled a chapter? Trying to work this out. (I was a regular contributor to the forum in the old days but haven't checked in in a long time.)
Some follow up questions. Is the contested name in the chapter title for your piece? Or is it just in the broader section title or whatever? Is the name you prefer to use in the title of your chapter? I assume you use the title you think is more appropriate in the actual text?
I guess I'm thinking that if your chapter uses the name you prefer, and it's just that the big section header is called "Issues in Myanmar" or whatever, probably nobody is going to think you're responsible. However, it depends on exactly how sensitive the issue is among people in your field and in the larger world.
These are good questions. So it is clearly the editors' section heading, but my chapter comes immediately after it. They're not requiring I change my chapter, but they're also not allowing me to explain why I think the section heading is [wrong-headed, offensive, ahistorical]. Other academics probably won't care a lot, but the local communities would be offended.
I don't think you should pull it. That probably puts you in breach, and they can charge you/sue you for the entire cost of re-doing the book. That probably won't be worth the mess, even if you eventually get them to not hold you responsible for the money.
If it means a lot to you , just continue the discussion with the powers that be for as long as you can.
Change your title to "The Heading Above This is Crazy: Should be ______"
Seriously, better to be a bit of a pain and maybe get a little change than to go nuclear or do nothing.
I doubt the series editors have much power at this point in the process. Does the press have a managing editor in charge of this book? They are the ones who could override the academic editors. You want to convince them that the chapter subtitle is offensive to the communities involved (but briefly because they may not read a long explanation). Then push for a short but clear author note. The managing editor is more likely to accept it if it can be squished in without the proofs needing major changes.
These are both helpful. Morden, I don't think space is the issue. I have a half-page at the bottom and because they are using endnotes it shouldn't affect indexing. The junior editor seemed amenable but the main editor is resiting.
Ruralguy, I think the main thing is that the main editor sure seems dug in and has sole discretion. This is with a small university press that publishes via a bigger publisher. There is a series editor and an editor of the main press (also a faculty member at the university), but I don't know what they would do. The publication agreement I signed doesn't include any penalties, etc., and I think they'd be hard pressed to do anything about that. At the same time, I probably can't stop them from publishing as is.
Part of what's annoying is that I basically either want them to remove 5 words or let me write 50, and they aren't allowing either. My only negotiating tools, beyond politely asking and writing emails, are talking to folk at the press or trying to pull the chapter. I don't know what to make of it.
Quote from: wanderer on April 16, 2021, 11:09:32 AM
These are both helpful. Morden, I don't think space is the issue. I have a half-page at the bottom and because they are using endnotes it shouldn't affect indexing. The junior editor seemed amenable but the main editor is resiting.
Ruralguy, I think the main thing is that the main editor sure seems dug in and has sole discretion. This is with a small university press that publishes via a bigger publisher. There is a series editor and an editor of the main press (also a faculty member at the university), but I don't know what they would do. The publication agreement I signed doesn't include any penalties, etc., and I think they'd be hard pressed to do anything about that. At the same time, I probably can't stop them from publishing as is.
Part of what's annoying is that I basically either want them to remove 5 words or let me write 50, and they aren't allowing either. My only negotiating tools, beyond politely asking and writing emails, are talking to folk at the press or trying to pull the chapter. I don't know what to make of it.
Is the editor's decision about politics. I guess I'm asking if this is more like Israel/Palestine where the name used makes a clear political statement being made that is familiar to lots of people. Or if it is more like Myanmar/Burma where there are politics at play but not ones you'd expect an editor to be particularly invested in?
Quote from: wanderer on April 16, 2021, 11:09:32 AM
These are both helpful. Morden, I don't think space is the issue. I have a half-page at the bottom and because they are using endnotes it shouldn't affect indexing. The junior editor seemed amenable but the main editor is resiting.
Ruralguy, I think the main thing is that the main editor sure seems dug in and has sole discretion. This is with a small university press that publishes via a bigger publisher. There is a series editor and an editor of the main press (also a faculty member at the university), but I don't know what they would do. The publication agreement I signed doesn't include any penalties, etc., and I think they'd be hard pressed to do anything about that. At the same time, I probably can't stop them from publishing as is.
Part of what's annoying is that I basically either want them to remove 5 words or let me write 50, and they aren't allowing either. My only negotiating tools, beyond politely asking and writing emails, are talking to folk at the press or trying to pull the chapter. I don't know what to make of it.
Unless you are tenured and don't care about adding a line to your c.v., you should let your chapter be published.
I assume the geographic location is referenced correctly in your chapter.
This depends--for example, someone wanting to work or do more research in the Arabian Gulf might have problems in some of the most conservative countries if they wrote a chapter in a book with a subheading of "Politics and Sociology in the Persian Gulf: containing Arab Aggression," notwithstanding what their chapter said. And that's far from the most controversial possibilities. This is tricky, and I would reach out to people above the recalcitrant editor, pointing out that local communities are likely to be offended
Quote from: spork on April 16, 2021, 01:39:04 PM
Quote from: wanderer on April 16, 2021, 11:09:32 AM
These are both helpful. Morden, I don't think space is the issue. I have a half-page at the bottom and because they are using endnotes it shouldn't affect indexing. The junior editor seemed amenable but the main editor is resiting.
Ruralguy, I think the main thing is that the main editor sure seems dug in and has sole discretion. This is with a small university press that publishes via a bigger publisher. There is a series editor and an editor of the main press (also a faculty member at the university), but I don't know what they would do. The publication agreement I signed doesn't include any penalties, etc., and I think they'd be hard pressed to do anything about that. At the same time, I probably can't stop them from publishing as is.
Part of what's annoying is that I basically either want them to remove 5 words or let me write 50, and they aren't allowing either. My only negotiating tools, beyond politely asking and writing emails, are talking to folk at the press or trying to pull the chapter. I don't know what to make of it.
Unless you are tenured and don't care about adding a line to your c.v., you should let your chapter be published.
I assume the geographic location is referenced correctly in your chapter.
Tend to agree. Another way to think about it. I can think of a few examples where the use of a term would be so offensive to me that I would want nothing to do with the publication. If I had an article about some aspect of the Civil War in some edited publication and the subject heading was "The War of Northern Aggression," I would withdraw the article. It wouldn't matter to me if they let me put in an author note saying that I didn't agree with the heading. The term is connected to racism and Neo-Confederate ideas and I wouldn't want to be associated with it in any way.
If your concern can really be addressed with a note in a way you'd feel comfortable with, I think that means it doesn't rise to that level and you should probably be ok with them publishing it without the note.
This is not at that level of offense, but part of what's annoying is I would like to be able to do a short note, "I object to using the War of Northern Aggression for A, B, and C reasons." And instead they are only offering "Author's note: Ohioans object to using the 'The War of Northern Aggression" without explanation.
I am tenured and I don't really need this chapter, so that's part of the moral calculus on this.
Quote from: wanderer on April 16, 2021, 02:55:53 PM
This is not at that level of offense, but part of what's annoying is I would like to be able to do a short note, "I object to using the War of Northern Aggression for A, B, and C reasons." And instead they are only offering "Author's note: Ohioans object to using the 'The War of Northern Aggression" without explanation.
I am tenured and I don't really need this chapter, so that's part of the moral calculus on this.
Still, as you describe it, there are various people it would annoy. I'm not sure the distinction between you having a short note that makes it clear you don't like the title and a long note where you explain why, is really one that is worth causing a kerfuffle over, but obviously that's your call.
I was recently in a volume with a similar issue. I said, "This volume is going to get slaughtered on Twitter. I mean as soon as social media gets hold of what you've done in this title, they are going to go to town on how offensive it is. This is not the kind of publicity you want for the book. No one is turning a blind eye to offensive names or phrases any more. Trust me, I have seen what can be done to people who aren't sensitive about these matters, and we really do not want to put this book in the line of fire." I posed this to both the book editor and the press editor, and they changed the title.
I'm inclined to agree with Caracal even if there is no clear penalty for pulling the chapter.
But also agree with Hegemony...try contacting the series editors or others to see what can be done.
Thanks all for your responses. I remember some of you from my grad school days many years ago--ruralguy, spork, and I think hegemony.
I think maybe I'll make one more stab at my one sentence author's note and see if they can accept a little more agency in it. I will also add that some have encouraged me to pull the article, which is true. I also wrote to my advisor and will see what he says. In the end, this may also become its own article, writing about the challenges of this for scholarship.
Withdrawing the chapter is capitulating to those who use terminology you feel is wrong. Why do that? Then you perspective is completely suppressed.
Stand your ground and make the case that your statement on the terminology is necessary for academic rigor.
It's a little frustrating because basically the only leverage I have at this stage are (1) trying to pull the chapter, or (2) going above the editors to the press. It's also very possible they'd just publish my chapter (they have the publication agreement for it) or steamroll the press.
Quote from: wanderer on April 17, 2021, 07:32:44 AM
It's a little frustrating because basically the only leverage I have at this stage are (1) trying to pull the chapter, or (2) going above the editors to the press. It's also very possible they'd just publish my chapter (they have the publication agreement for it) or steamroll the press.
Given the brevity of the editor's response, it sounds as if the conversation has barely begun. You are not at the end.
The editor and you have a mutual goal of publishing a good chapter and book.
Would it be possible to telephone the editor to ask for a more complete explanation? You may find additional considerations that you had not included. Then you can also ask how the editor will address the considerations that concern you. In the worst case, the editor does not budge, at least you know a bit more.
Someone once said to me, "Don't get on a negative power trip."
I think they meant, don't go down the slope of assumptions that start with the idea that you have no power and no agency and the only way out is down so you might as well self-immolate to begin with (to mix destructive metaphors).
I don't have enough experience from my own perspective, but I've worked for people who did things like turn all the reviewer's objections around by the end of the week, and saw their piece out before the rival lab on the other coast.
So it might be worth it to stay in the game longer--you can't talk anymore to someone you've hung up on.
M.
Part of the challenge is the timeline on this is so short. So it went:
1. Get proofs and respond (10 days ago). We were given one week to correct proofs.
2. Offered short author's note (8 days ago)
3. Editors only accept first 10 words of author's note
4. Talk to one of the editors on phone (he was pretty sympathetic, but he doesn't seem to be the one making the decision). At this point, we realized there is space for a longer footnote and it wouldn't affect proofs much. (7 days ago)
5. Write footnote and submit with corrected proofs (3 days ago)
6. Footnote rejected, and as we only have a week with the proofs, he's pushing for a quick response on the really short (10 words) editor's note (3 days ago)
If I still had a month to work this out, it would be a different situation, but I kind of have the feeling this is going to be finalized early this week. From their end, they're putting together two big projects in the next week or two, so I can see how it seems like a minor detail.
"Pick up the phone" is good advice I've gotten in the past here. We're probably all a little more stuck in our heads in this year and less face:face. I do feel like one of the editors understands me, but I think he's kind of the underling to Big Name.
I'm hoping they'll accept the slightly punchier note and this may really be an anecdote I use in future work on this subject. I'll follow up with how it works out.
On my end it's also been a reminder that part of my job is a commitment to this topic. It's great to no longer be junior, where I would definitely have to "go along to get along." Lately I've been using that new expression "AITA" and it helps me here also. As an editor, I would definitely offer more flex, but the senior editor may be thin skinned on this. Thank you all again for letting me think out loud here.