I've been out of the book publishing loop for long enough that I know that I need a big refresh on "how it works". Might some of you who are writers of books share your recent wisdom?
We have 3/4 of a manuscript and it's time to start putting it out there, but it would be quite helpful to hear who are good houses, what is the expected timeline, or any other tips we wouldn't think to ask about in this brave new world.
It's largely social sciences based, if that helps, with a big dollop of history.
Thanks in advance!
Bookmarking....errr...following....
;-->
M.
Thinas are changing, I believe.
Over on CHE, there is an article by the publishing directors at Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press (https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Monograph-Is-Broken-Long/246384?cid=wcontentgrid_hp_6), two leaders in the academic publishing world.
Here is one eyebrow raiser: "The primary value of these [academic monographs] books is not that they are read from cover to cover or purchased in print; their value resides in their contribution to a vast corpus of vetted research.
This value is now expressed most effectively online; the primary utility of a monograph is best extracted via digital search and online research. This is not to discount those who do read (including on a screen) in a linear manner, but the reality of how these books are used must shape how monograph publishing evolves."
How do they view that author community? "Scholars in many fields don't as yet much concern themselves with the traits — interactivity, searchability, metrics, and digital preservation — that will determine whether the monograph takes flight once it fully emerges from its print cocoon."
Are you thinking about those traits?
Overall I think they are looking at enlivening scholarship by using more tools for engaging with the ideas people publish.
However, it also looks like tenure committees will be told what to do by the publishers. They are not going to be paying for the scholarly validation service much longer.
A number of publishers are adding e-texts to their services, and print on demand. Given the trends in library use, I think that's something to consider.
I'd not sign a contract without a provision for an e-version coming out simultaneously or close to it.
Aside from the obvious well known uni presses, I think what is a good press will be highly dependent on the subject of your MS. Is your book a monograph or an edited volume? Some presses these days love volumes and others won't touch them. It's also worth looking for good series at presses you might not otherwise consider.
Quote from: Hibush on June 06, 2019, 03:02:13 PM
This value is now expressed most effectively online; the primary utility of a monograph is best extracted via digital search and online research. This is not to discount those who do read (including on a screen) in a linear manner, but the reality of how these books are used must shape how monograph publishing evolves."
Wow. That's rich, coming from the purveyors of OSO.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 11, 2019, 05:51:21 PM
Quote from: Hibush on June 06, 2019, 03:02:13 PM
This value is now expressed most effectively online; the primary utility of a monograph is best extracted via digital search and online research. This is not to discount those who do read (including on a screen) in a linear manner, but the reality of how these books are used must shape how monograph publishing evolves."
Wow. That's rich, coming from the purveyors of OSO.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to defend the practice of reading.
OUP is prepared for that future world in which you the scholar have a bot create a manuscript based on AI extraction of the known (i.e. online machine-readable) literature based on some initial conceptual inputs by you. That publication is then extracted by other AI bots, and the extent to which they do is reported as your intellectual contribution to the field. Once you hit the threshhold set by your department, you are awarded tenure. The tenure notice will be an automated email with a thumbs-up emoji.
Quote from: Hibush on June 11, 2019, 06:00:02 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 11, 2019, 05:51:21 PM
Quote from: Hibush on June 06, 2019, 03:02:13 PM
This value is now expressed most effectively online; the primary utility of a monograph is best extracted via digital search and online research. This is not to discount those who do read (including on a screen) in a linear manner, but the reality of how these books are used must shape how monograph publishing evolves."
Wow. That's rich, coming from the purveyors of OSO.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to defend the practice of reading.
OUP is prepared for that future world in which you the scholar have a bot create a manuscript based on AI extraction of the known (i.e. online machine-readable) literature based on some initial conceptual inputs by you. That publication is then extracted by other AI bots, and the extent to which they do is reported as your intellectual contribution to the field. Once you hit the threshhold set by your department, you are awarded tenure. The tenure notice will be an automated email with a thumbs-up emoji.
As long as the bots never have to cite, they're golden.
Hi, all. I was on the old fora - some might remember me. This is my first post on the new fora.
I've published some of scholarly books, and am going through that agony again, now, so here's my two cents, for what it's worth.
From my experience, it seems academic publishers like complete or nearly-completed books. That helps in the review process (i.e., to have something substantial on which to comment).
Make sure you have a really good proposal. Should be thorough, since some academic publishers will go over that with a fine-tooth comb and even use that in making decisions.
I've tended to query first with an "elevator pitch," following a positive response with the proposal. But my understanding is that you can submit the proposal simultaneously to a few publishers; the typescript, though, should be with only one publisher at a time.
Start with university presses who publish in your area or sub-field. Some will reject you outright just from your query. Don't get discouraged. If you are looking at trade publishers (e.g., Norton), you will need an agent.
Then you can move down the rankings as you are comfortable, depending on what your promotion and tenure needs are, etc. In the old fora, there was always a lot of talk about different publishers. I found some of that talk mostly useless since not everyone is at a top tier research facility.
But while we are on the subject, if it means anything, take a look at this Wiki of responses by academics toward publishers: https://humanitiesjournals.fandom.com/wiki/University_Presses_/Academic_Publishers
There's also the Sense ranking of academic publishers: http://www.sense.nl/gfx_content/documents/ABCDE-indeling%20Scientific%20Publishers%20SENSE_approved_May_2009.pdf
However, I'd take some of this with a grain of salt, depending on your situation. I know others here will disagree with me. Okay. Yes, if you can get published by a uni, of course, and try to exhaust your possibilities there, first. Be realistic without selling yourself short.
As you might know, don't pay a publisher. Others here might disagree, since it depends on where you publish (some Canadian publishers, I've heard, often ask for subvention) and in which field or how (some open access venues want subvention).
Hope that helps for now. Congratulations on the book, and best of luck in placing it. We used to have a manuscript writer's thread - is that still here? Zinoma!
Very helpful.
Thank you.
I'm not up for tenure, but I want my work to go to respectable places if at all possible.
So I'll be interested in those online lists in particular.
And good for you!
M.
P.S.--No, I don't think there is a MS writers' thread....we could start one, if not...
I'm delighted and unsurprised by the high quality of help, thank you all very much!
Okay, I'd like to personalize my previous response, a bit, without revealing too much. A couple of stories (not the long versions) concerning two of my books.
1. Some years ago I submitted a book manuscript (essentially finished) to a university press, and the editor liked what was there. I was asked to supply a list of potential readers. So I compiled the top scholars in the field. A few weeks later I received a discouraging email from the press editor saying that no one wanted to review the book, so the offer was withdrawn. My guess is that I chose readers who did not have an inkling of my work and/or who were too busy. The book was a departure for me, and I had not published journal articles in that area, so the reviewers I listed were rightly caught off guard, perhaps. Though I don't know why the press editor did not tell them the nature of the book and how it was in their field. Whatever. Just be careful in compiling your reader list.
2. More recently for a book that is now under contract, I submitted previously to a sampling of university and commercial presses. Furthermore, I targeted specific series where the book would likely fit. The responses were, probably not surprising to those who have been down this road, polar opposites. In one case a reader wrote so nicely about the book that I can use that language for promo. (Unfortunately that reader was in a group of three; two supported the project, but it was shot down by the third reader. Incidentally, the acquisitions editor for this press read the first chapter and said s/he was "hooked.") Then, at another press, I was surprised to get a response from the series editor no more than one week after I handed over the whole book for review. There was one report of about one hundred words that did not comment on the book in any substantive or constructive manner. Rather, the reader said that s/he would never buy or recommend a book like mine.
I think after this book project I'm done with the academic publishing. I understand what a few commentators say about the contract. In my experience, contracts have varied widely, and the publishers know that most of us will take almost anything because it translates to tenure and promotion. I don't know, though. Roughly speaking, for my academic books, publishers have garnered about $90,000. How much of that do you think I've made? Not even $600. Do the best you can.
Getting back to the OP's original question, in light of what I relate here, check for series; don't discount big commercial publishers (like Routledge); university presses can be very picky (well, so can some big commercial publishers); try to line up the right readers and prepare yourself in advance for promotion; try to line up people who will actually review the book (not that I'm suggesting you stack the deck - just get some reviews, which are often hard to come by for those of us working in the trenches without big names); start at the top and work your way down; if you don't want to do that, which can be time consuming, mix your target publisher list with top university presses and some commercial outfits; if you are in a department where others are publishing, get some advice; if you are in an association of social scientists, try to get some advice from them about series/publishers for your specific topic/field.
Wishing you luck. No regrets here, especially if my mistakes can help others do better. /z
Boy, I've never heard of a publisher rejecting a manuscript on the grounds that they couldn't find anyone to review it. In my experience they just go further down their list. That is very peculiar.
I'm new to book publishing (published 8+ articles) but want to publish my book manuscript, so piggy-backing on this thread. I had a friend who published with X University Press take a look at my proposal before I sent it; just received a letter yesterday from X UP to say that they decline the manuscript. Reason given is that it doesn't fit with editorial agenda (new humanities editor there too). Feeling pretty bummed, and little bereft-- that's all the feedback you get if the full manuscript isn't requested? At least with articles I had a sense of whether to substantially rewrite or fix before sending to a new journal. For those of you who've published book manuscripts, how many University Presses did you ultimately contact and pitch a proposal to? I'm fortunately that at my SLAC I don't need a book for tenure, and I've already met their publication requirements, but I do want to publish my book. Looking for some perspective, because the process seems so opaque to me!
This is called a "desk reject" and is quite common. If I remember correctly, the majority of academic manuscripts get a desk reject somewhere along the line, because authors do not do very much due diligence in figuring out if the press they're submitting to is suitable for the work, and sometimes the author cannot guess the future directions of the press. It's called a "desk reject" because the editor sits at her desk and writes you back without sending the MS or proposal out to reviewers, a step which would waste everybody's time.
If the book is not in the field or the angle they're publishing, they've saved everyone a lot of time by not reading your complete manuscript. Just think of the scenario if they had. They've altered direction to publish only on Basketweaving & Science, but your manuscript is on Basketweaving & Art History. Nevertheless they take your manuscript, recruit two busy academics to read it, those two academics promise to have it back in 3 months but take 6, the press pays them each $200. The first ignores the press direction and says that you should expand on chapter 1 and rewrite your conclusions, and that your footnotes are confusing. The second abides by the press direction and says that to qualify for this series you need to take out all the Art History. The press then sends you a note that says, "Actually, we no longer publish in Basketweaving & Art History." Now the press has paid $400 for pointless commentary and you get confusing feedback that is not relevant to the next press you want to send it to.
The advice I heard was to send the proposal out to 4 publishers at a time, or 2 if you're in a field with few publishers. If they all reject it, get it looked at by someone senior you know, revise accordingly to advice, and send it to the next 4 or 2.
As for how many publishers look at it before one accepts it, the first publisher might take it (probably a minority of cases, but not unknown), or it can be many. I had six rejections once before I got good advice from someone and rewrote my proposal in a much different way. I had then used up my six most preferred presses, so I went with a lesser press which nevertheless did things well. My first book I think had three rejections. Another book, the first press took it.
Quote from: Hegemony on September 25, 2019, 04:52:54 PM
This is called a "desk reject" and is quite common. If I remember correctly, the majority of academic manuscripts get a desk reject somewhere along the line, because authors do not do very much due diligence in figuring out if the press they're submitting to is suitable for the work, and sometimes the author cannot guess the future directions of the press. It's called a "desk reject" because the editor sits at her desk and writes you back without sending the MS or proposal out to reviewers, a step which would waste everybody's time.
If the book is not in the field or the angle they're publishing, they've saved everyone a lot of time by not reading your complete manuscript. Just think of the scenario if they had. They've altered direction to publish only on Basketweaving & Science, but your manuscript is on Basketweaving & Art History. Nevertheless they take your manuscript, recruit two busy academics to read it, those two academics promise to have it back in 3 months but take 6, the press pays them each $200. The first ignores the press direction and says that you should expand on chapter 1 and rewrite your conclusions, and that your footnotes are confusing. The second abides by the press direction and says that to qualify for this series you need to take out all the Art History. The press then sends you a note that says, "Actually, we no longer publish in Basketweaving & Art History." Now the press has paid $400 for pointless commentary and you get confusing feedback that is not relevant to the next press you want to send it to.
The advice I heard was to send the proposal out to 4 publishers at a time, or 2 if you're in a field with few publishers. If they all reject it, get it looked at by someone senior you know, revise accordingly to advice, and send it to the next 4 or 2.
As for how many publishers look at it before one accepts it, the first publisher might take it (probably a minority of cases, but not unknown), or it can be many. I had six rejections once before I got good advice from someone and rewrote my proposal in a much different way. I had then used up my six most preferred presses, so I went with a lesser press which nevertheless did things well. My first book I think had three rejections. Another book, the first press took it.
Thanks for your reply, and good to hear about your experience. I think it feels disheartening because I did think it was a good fit for X UP, and had a section on "Press Fit" in the proposal that showed how recently published books by the press demonstrated fit. :/ Ah well. I knew it was a desk reject, and a form letter, so I wasn't sure how to take the 'press fit' (do all rejected proposals get told the same thing, even if, say, the press isn't convinced that Professor P is the best person to write the book and that's really the basis for the decision?). Perhaps then it just means exactly that, and not necessarily that the interventions and methods of the manuscript weren't clear, etc.
I had assumed that your MS really wasn't a good fit for their direction. But if you mean you got the boilerplate language about "not right for the press at this time," then that would probably indicate that something was amiss with the proposal. (I'm assuming you sent a proposal and not the complete MS?) You might get a senior colleague who's published several books to look at the proposal and give you suggestions on how to make it stronger. Writing a persuasive proposal is an art in itself, and since we read very few proposals, it's generally not something that comes naturally on the first try. So if you just got the boilerplate rejection, rather than it being a genuine mismatch, the good news is that a proposal is fairly easy to revise and improve.
Quote from: Bookworm on September 25, 2019, 02:57:22 PM
Feeling pretty bummed, and little bereft-- that's all the feedback you get if the full manuscript isn't requested? At least with articles I had a sense of whether to substantially rewrite or fix before sending to a new journal.
In my experience, yes, book editors often provide little feedback about proposals. The "fit" issue is a pretty standard one to cite, although I also received a couple of more tailored rejections about the marketability of my first book project (one Oxbridge press rather condescendingly suggested that I focus on writing articles rather than a book--bad advice that would have prevented me from earning tenure had I followed it).
It sounds to me as though you just ran into bad luck. The new editor at X UP is taking things in a new direction, and there's no way that you could have known that based on their previous slate of publications and your friend's advice.
Regarding feedback from editors, I have found it very helpful to arrange meetings with editors at major conferences in my field. For both my first and second book projects, I was able to secure an advance contract after a sit-down meeting with the acquisitions editor or series editor. I could also easily tell which presses were less interested in the project, and that allowed me to focus on other presses instead.