Question about peer review of book

[jerseyjay]

I am a historian and have just been asked to review a book proposal. I have just published a book that looks a similar topic that overlaps the one of the proposal, although it is not the same topic.

Having read the proposal (which comprises a 10 page description of the proposed book and an annotated table of contents) I have the following thoughts.

First, I think that the project is interesting and would make a good book. (I have some suggestions for sources, and some thoughts on the organization of the proposed manuscript, but none of that takes away from the fact that this could be a good book.)

Second, I have substantial criticisms of the argument that the proposal puts forward. Obviously in a ten-page proposal, the proposal largely asserts what it is going to argue instead of proving it. (So I reserve the right to change my mind after reading the full book.)

To underline, even if the book is published making the argument the author outlines in the proposal, if the author has done the research the proposal indicates, the book would still be a valuable addition to the historical literature, even if I disagree with its conclusions. There is no other book on this topic (there is a PhD thesis from 40 years ago) so the book will, regardless of its argument, break new ground in the literature.

My question is, is appropriate to state upfront I think that the proposal warrants publication, but that I have following criticisms of the argument that I would hope that the author would deal with. (Since my recent book makes counterposed arguments, I would also suggest that the author look at my recent book.) I wouldn't want the author to drop their argument and agree with mine, but I would like the author to at least deal with counterarguments.

I do not want my criticisms to overshadow the fact that I think the project as a whole is worthwhile, but I do not want to burry my criticisms. Ideally I would want my criticisms/thoughts to help the author as they develop the project into a book.

(The publisher sent me the proposal with the author's name attached, although it is up to me whether the publisher would share my identity with the author.)

[Parasaurolophus]

That seems fine to me. I would only add that I think you should make it very clear that

even if the book is published making the argument the author outlines in the proposal, if the author has done the research the proposal indicates, the book would still be a valuable addition to the historical literature, even if I disagree with its conclusions. There is no other book on this topic (there is a PhD thesis from 40 years ago) so the book will, regardless of its argument, break new ground in the literature.

(I've reviewed one proposal and one full book for two different presses.)

[Hegemony]

Sure, that sounds fine.

[pedanticromantic]

Yes, I think the author would appreciate the chance to deal with criticisms at this stage rather than later.