Peer review questions

[jerseyjay]

About a year ago, I was contacted by a press to do a peer review of a book proposal (a proposal, a table of contents, and a short introduction). I was enthusiastic about the proposal (which is close to my own research interests) and wrote a report that said I was "excited" about the proposal and listed some questions I had about the introduction. I recommended publication. 

Now, another publisher (a lesser one, according to my lights) asked me to review a book proposal (including an annotated table of contents but no introduction). It is the same book. The proposal is slightly different, but I assume that is because the requirements are slightly different. The synopsis of the chapters is slightly different, also, partly reflecting the questions that I had the first time around.

I do not think it is inappropriate for the press to send it to me, since the authors list me as an expert, which I am (the other experts are markedly higher market than I am). I am not sure if the original press told the authors who I was the first time around, so I am not sure it was bad for the authors to list me as a peer.

That said, I don't know what to do. I think I have several options: I can review the entire proposal (which is short) de novo without indicating I had reviewed it earlier. I can refuse.  I can accept the offer to review while noting I had already reviewed it elsewhere. I remain enthusiastic about the book and genuinely want it to get published. What would others do?

[ergative]

If you think it should be published, then I'd recommend giving it a glowing review whenever asked. The worst outcome (I assume? not really in a book field) is that the author gets competing publication offers, which is not bad as far as the author is concerned.

(Unless simultaneous submission is frowned upon in academic book publishing the way it is with articles?)

[Ruralguy]

You can shop a book proposal to multiple publishers, but once under contract, you shouldn't be fishing for better deals.

[Hibush]

If you think it should be published, then a supportive review to the new press is a good thing to do. I think it fair tell the editor that you reviewed a similar proposal for another press previously. That way, the information is out there if it matters, but I bet it doesn't.

[jerseyjay]

In my field, it is common to send proposals to different publishers, but if they ask to send the whole m.s. for peer review, then they have exclusivity while they are reviewing it. 

That said, I don't think this is the case for this. The proposal is slightly different and the estimated date of final submission is a year later (which is appropriate since it is now a year since I looked at the original). I assume the original press passed on the proposal--perhaps because it did not fit the scope of their list--but I don't know for a fact (and it isn't my place to ask).

I guess I will agree to review but indicate I have seen a different/previous form of the proposal elsewhere. I agree the publisher probably won't care. I do hope they find a publisher soon, though, because I don't want to keep having it sent to me.

[mamselle]

I wonder if a brief mention, saying that you were strongly in favor of publication when you reviewed it before, and remain so, would be a worthwhile point to be made in the book's favor within your review.

It could send an 'activating' message of "Those other fools turned it down, grab it while you can..." without saying so in so many words.

I do also wonder if you shouldn't at least try to find out if the previous publisher has an option on the book, just out of curiosity--you don't want to get the submitter into trouble, of course, but as you say, you gave it a good review so does that mean someone else didn't? Or the editor(s) just decided it wasn't their thing?

Hope it gets worked out.

M.   

[Parasaurolophus]

When I'm asked to referee a paper for which I've already given a positive verdict elsewhere, I just tell the editor and send my previous report along. I wouldn't do it for a negative verdict, because every paper deserves a new R2, but for a positive verdict I think it's warranted.

If it were me, I'd do the same here, with the book.

[mleok]

When I'm asked to referee a paper for which I've already given a positive verdict elsewhere, I just tell the editor and send my previous report along. I wouldn't do it for a negative verdict, because every paper deserves a new R2, but for a positive verdict I think it's warranted.

If it were me, I'd do the same here, with the book.

I have no qualms about sending a negative review to another journal when the author resubmits the paper without attempting to address any of the concerns I raised in my review, and I communicate that to the editor.

[hungry_ghost]

That said, I don't know what to do. I think I have several options: I can review the entire proposal (which is short) de novo without indicating I had reviewed it earlier. I can refuse.  I can accept the offer to review while noting I had already reviewed it elsewhere. I remain enthusiastic about the book and genuinely want it to get published. What would others do?

I assume that you were enthusiastic but other reviewers were not, and for whatever reason, this author is still shopping for a press. Here are all the possibilities I see:
If you got 2 proposals at the same time from different presses, then I'd assume that the author is doing simultaneous submissions of proposals. Simultaneous submission of a complete manuscript is not OK without explicit approval of the press, but simultaneous submission of just the proposal is not a problem at all. But, since this is separated by a year, I doubt that is what happened.

Other, likelier possibilities:

The proposal was rejected and the author is working their way down a list of possible presses.

The proposal was accepted, the manuscript was reviewed, and the book was rejected, and the author has regrouped and is sending the proposal to a new (set of) press(es).

If you're enthusiastic about the proposal, just review it. Why would you say "oh hey, I saw this before; seems like Slightly Better Press rejected it already?" Taint of rejection won't help this author get published.

If you do feel that you absolutely must mention that you reviewed it before (but WHY?), then I would simply add that you previously reviewed a very similar proposal for a different press (which you should not identify), and the proposal was already strong at the time and you enthusiastically endorsed it, and asked a few questions; these questions have all been resolved in the current proposal and you're thus even more enthusiastic about the book. 

[jerseyjay]

Thanks for all the advice.

I agreed to take on the peer review, and in my email to the editor I noted that I had seen an earlier version of the project, and while I remember I was positive about it, enough time had lapsed and the project had changed enough that I would give the new proposal a fresh look.

The editor wrote back saying that as far as they know the project is not currently under review elsewhere and that they had been working with the author to develop the project so it should be quite different than what I saw previously.

So in any case I will read the material and write a review.

[Hibush]

Thanks for all the advice.

I agreed to take on the peer review, and in my email to the editor I noted that I had seen an earlier version of the project, and while I remember I was positive about it, enough time had lapsed and the project had changed enough that I would give the new proposal a fresh look.

The editor wrote back saying that as far as they know the project is not currently under review elsewhere and that they had been working with the author to develop the project so it should be quite different than what I saw previously.

So in any case I will read the material and write a review.

It sounds as if you and the editor have a common and accurate understanding of the situation. Well done!