Edited Collections

[Ancient Fellow]

What in everybody's opinion is the value of chapters in edited collections? If you were asked to contribute, would you contribute or not, and why? If its depends, what would it depend on? Since so many things are field specific, can those answering specify what area they work in?

[polly_mer]

Generally, in my fields (chemical physics, physical chemistry, engineering-related VVUQ), an article is worth considerably more than a chapter unless the chapter is in something prestigious like Annual Review of <topic>.  People asked to contribute a chapter to one of those collections are already very busy being at the top of the field.  Whether I contribute to one of those strongly depends on my current tasks and how pleasant working with those involved was last time I did it.

Other collections are worth practically nothing because the situation is usually relative newcomers working in somewhat more tangential possibly-up-and-coming areas hoping to get things published that can't go into more prestigious or more visible venues.  I likely would not contribute to these unless I already had something in the hopper that I wanted to publish, knew would be a hard sell in better venues, and was a perfect fit for this call.

[Puget]

I'm in psych/neuro. We don't really have edited collections the way I think some none-science fields mean it. We do have edited handbooks and advanced textbooks on various topics, where each chapter is contributed by an (invited) expert on a particular sub-topic and written like an extended review article, and the editors generally write an intro and sometimes a discussion at the end.

I've done a few of those, a couple as the lead (invited) author, and a few during grad school and postdoc with my PIs. There are pros and cons, and I'd accept them when the pros outweigh the cons given the particular constellation of topic, publisher/editor, career stage and time available.

Cons:

1. They are generally a LOT of work. Way more than I naively think at the start of each one (sure, no problem, I've written lots about this before, won't take long to update it. You'd think I'd learn. . .)

2. They are worth a lot less than peer reviewed papers to most P & T committees, hiring committees etc. Not nothing, but a lot less. A possible exception to this is being the invited author on chapters in well-known (e.g., been through multiple editions) go-to handbooks with well-known and respected editors, as those signal something about recognition of your own expertise.

Pros:

1. Can be good for increasing your visibility and reputation as an expert in the topic if the book gets well-distributed. Actually, the book distribution matters less and less, since readers tend to find my chapters through Researchgate and request the PDF from me. I have no compunctions about thwarting the publishers exorbitant prices for these books in this way (I never post publicly though-- that could lead to copyright trouble).

2. Can be good networking, especially if the editors are well-known/connected in your field (e.g., I just presented in a symposium  at one of our main conferences which was put together by the editor of a book I contributed a chapter to).

3. Can be a good way of forcing yourself to keep up with the literature on a topic and really work through and synthesize it. Sort of an independent study seminar (even better if you involve grad students as co-authors and use it for training them too).

4. Can be useful for teaching from if there isn't something similar already available (in which case, why are you writing it?).

[hungry_ghost]

Humanities.
Standard wisdom I've been told is that a chapter in an edited collection is worth half a journal article for T&P purposes.

The other question--equally important if not more so--is what venue is likelier to have a higher impact and to bring attention to your work.
Quality of edited collections varies widely and wildly. If the collection is not good, being included won't make you look good. But some edited collections are very well done, are widely distributed, and because of their topical nature, may reach people who would not encounter that same work as a journal article. (For example, someone who studies Ugaritic might not normally read journals with contributions from Sanskritists, but might read an edited collection on "Inscribing Underwater Baskets in Antiquity".)

It now seems common for publishers to make individual chapters available digitally, so in some ways, availability can be similar to that of journal articles.

Collections can also be good for networking, particularly if the volume starts with a conference, which gives contributors the opportunity to interact and respond to each others' work. If there is no interaction among contributors, you'd better hope for a very good editor. Contributors' names end up being associated together, even if they never meet each other and never read each others' work until the volume is published.

I've agreed to contribute to an edited collection 3 times. Once was an "invited author for a chapter in a a well-known go-to handbook" and I am thrilled about that, but the other two times I have only regrets. One was such a disaster that I eventually pulled the paper and sent it to a journal, and the other has already been more work than it's worth.

I also co-edited an edited collection and that was a pile of work.

[saladdays]

I'm in the humanities, and agree with the general state of what hungry_ghost says.

I don't contribute to many edited collections, but when I do, it tends to be (a) because I like and would like to be further involved with the people who are editing the volume; and/or (b) because the volume itself is very directly in my very specific sub-sub-sub-field of research, has other well-known contributors and looks like it will be published with a respected press. In the latter case, the point is just to attach my name to that tiny sub-field, especially if it's a new or emerging field.

I also tend to treat chapters in edited collections as outlets for a different kind of research than journal articles. I agree they're worth about half as much, so I'm careful to only put about half as much work into them. As a result, I often use book chapters as outlets for interesting research I've done, especially archival research, that I can't quite fashion into a sufficiently showy argument to be publishable in a good journal. My chapters in these collections tend to be more narrative-driven, rather than argument-driven, and tend to lay out information I've found, rather than mounting a substantive theoretical case. I do find them useful as outlets for this otherwise unpublishable kind of work, especially when one of the two above conditions is met.

[Vkw10]

Social science field.

Edited collections are generally considered equivalent to a lower ranked journal article, unless they are part of a specific highly-respected series in my field. I've contributed a couple of papers that focus on methodology issues in my specialty. These papers aren't appropriate for good journals, but are relatively easy to write and fairly well-cited in excellent journals. I only commit to contribute when I know the editor is highly capable at motivating others to meet deadlines. It's fairly common for edited collections to be delayed a year or more due to missed deadlines.

[Systeme_D]

I'm in the humanities, and I will (almost) never commit to placing an article in an edited collection when it's something that could be published in a decent journal. 

I just gave permission for my most recently published article to be included in an edited collection, so now it will have a second life there.

So my advice to folks in my field (especially if they're going up for tenure or promotion) is always journal first, edited collection later... unless it's a super prestigious edited collection for which one could make a compelling argument that it was a tremendous honor to be invited to contribute.

[hungry_ghost]

Following up, I find all of these insights very good and wise in terms of strategy. Such good advice on this board!

I agree they're worth about half as much, so I'm careful to only put about half as much work into them. As a result, I often use book chapters as outlets for interesting research I've done, especially archival research, that I can't quite fashion into a sufficiently showy argument to be publishable in a good journal.

I'm in the humanities, and I will (almost) never commit to placing an article in an edited collection when it's something that could be published in a decent journal. 

I only commit to contribute when I know the editor is highly capable at motivating others to meet deadlines. It's fairly common for edited collections to be delayed a year or more due to missed deadlines.

[nescafe]

I'm in History, and most of what has been said tracks to my field. Book chapters are generally additive in terms of P&T; they don't count against a candidate, but they don't stand in for books or refereed journal articles. They are "extra."

Because book chapters are "extra" work, I usually will write one if a) the outlet, contributors, or general niche of the volume is something I believe in and b) I have already ticked the various boxes for P&T consideration.

One thing to think about, too, is how risky publishing in an edited collection can be. These volumes are notoriously known for publication delays, reversals, and other sorts of publishing bad news. Three years ago I wrote a piece for a volume that was "weeks from finished" (my chapter was a last-moment addition to others mostly compiled, and I was told the whole process would be swift). The contributors/editors were quick workers, but now the press is lagging. Just this week, the publication date was pushed again to late 2020. So that's a lesson.

[aside]

One thing to think about, too, is how risky publishing in an edited collection can be. These volumes are notoriously known for publication delays, reversals, and other sorts of publishing bad news.

Yes, I had a bad experience many years ago in which I was invited to contribute to a volume, did so, and then the volume never appeared because the editors reneged on the deal after a couple of years of hounding authors for their contributions.  I was able to place the article in a top journal, yet several years later than it would have appeared otherwise.  I have had much better experiences with two other edited volumes, in which my work appears alongside top scholars in my field.

I am at a stage in my career where I am less concerned about how things count for my c.v., just that my work is being made available to those who might be interested in it.  I am choosy about edited volumes, though, and will only participate in those put together by editors I can trust and which contain contributions from significant scholars.  I have two other invited pieces forthcoming in edited volumes that have suffered delays, yet placing them there may have freed up a couple of slots in journals for earlier-stage scholars for whom the journal/volume difference is more significant.

[Parasaurolophus]

Humanities (but barely). Edited collections vary a lot in my field. Some are super-prestigious, and a chapter in one of those counts for as much as (or more than) an ordinary paper, even in an otherwise top subfield journal. For a few subfields, the top specialist outlet is an edited volume in a serial collection.

I have a couple of collection-pubs. Neither were invited; I wrote and sent the chapter out for review in response to a call for papers. Neither is in one of these hyper-desirable collections (although one is close). They're both on a side topic I occasionally work on, but which isn't really connected to my main research areas. Even though both were peer-reviewed (masked), they were still much easier pubs to get than ordinary journal articles, since I didn't have to compete with hundreds of other people for three or four slots. It was totally worth the time I put in, even if they're counted as half-pubs, because I didn't put in a ton of time. I just saw the call, was interested, dashed off a short paper in a week and sent it in, and then fixed it up when the reports came back. It was an easy way to boost my research productivity for the year.

[mamselle]

In a very tiny part of the world of medieval musicological research there are several volumes, including festschrifts, which (for all I know--i.e., I have used the articles and know people involved but was never asked to contribute) are well-done, seem to run on budget and on time and are sometimes the only gathered materials on topics in that field.

I believe the editors and contributors have all worked together for several decades, now, so they know each other and have a working M.O. that functions well. But I can imagine how rare that might be elsewhere, too....

No ideas how they count for tenure. Most of these folks aren't watching that metric at all, I'm guessing.

M.

[Any Questions?]

So looking at this from the perspective of the reader, I am a librarian and I value edited chapters over journal articles for my undergraduate students because there is usually a bit more explanation for the clueless.  That's were the more-work-for-you comes in for the author, but my students have no good subject context early on in their academic careers for journal articles.  And now that many more of the chapters are electronically available, that's a huge bonus for access and readership that they might not have had in paper form.   

[Cheerful]

And now that many more of the chapters are electronically available, that's a huge bonus for access and readership that they might not have had in paper form.

Do you mean they can access the chapters from the library's electronic copy?  I've had bad luck with attempts to access my library's electronic books but haven't tried in a couple years. Maybe things are better now?  There were limits on access, print function didn't work well, couldn't easily scan/save high-quality resolution of chapter for future use, etc.

Wish students could purchase individual chapters of edited volumes from publishers.  Is that becoming a thing yet? 

As researcher and instructor, I find edited volumes extremely useful.  However, the utility of chapters in a single volume varies.  I often want a class to read just one chapter which I'll scan and load to Blackboard.  More chapters is a copyright violation.  I avoid requiring a book if students are required to read less than half for class.

[pink_]

Valuable for what?

I have a couple pieces in edited collections. Two were rookie mistakes which I published very early in my career. I call them mistakes because they're good but because their not great presses, they generally don't ever see the light of day. I have another in a peer-reviewed collection by a well-known press that it a much better placement.

All three counted towards my tenure and promotion, but I'm at a teaching-intensive institution without major research expectations. If I were at a research-focused school, they wouldn't help at all except the third one, and even then, I'd have been better off publishing in a higher-profile journal.