How to verify book contract on CV?

[rouroboros]

I'm going to keep it vague for obvious reasons.  Given the recent study on fibbing on academic CVs, I'm suspicious of a colleague's CV that lists a book under contract for the past several years, with no obvious development of a book forthcoming (no listing in the press's catalog, for example). 

It's also a bit coincidental that this person's book went under contract during the tenure process, which was borderline at best without it.  Short of demanding to see the contract, is there any way to verify that the book is actually under contract?  Can I contact the press and expect that they'll keep my inquiry confidential?  Or should I just keep my nose out of it?

[fourhats]

Is there a reason that you need to verify the contract--i.e., is the colleague coming up for promotion, writing a grant proposal, etc.?

[Hegemony]

Would the lack of an actual book contract make an actual difference, or is it just a curiosity thing?  I gather the person now has tenure.  I can imagine it would make a difference in a merit review or the like.

Someone in charge could ask to see the actual contract, or to have a verifying email direct from the press.  I don't think a colleague has that standing. 

We've been burned on this kind of thing more than once, though sometimes it's that the person does have an actual book contract, but never turns the book in.  Our place recently changed the requirements — now for tenure you need to have an actual physical copy of the printed book.  Because, as you may be finding out, anything short of that sometimes results in no book.

[rouroboros]

I have no official standing to ask for verification.  I know that this person has been less than honest in other areas related to academic accomplishments in the past, which leads to my skepticism.  I suppose I'm bothered by the thought of someone earning tenure based on half-truths or falsehoods.

Is it standard practice for tenure committee chairs or department chairs to ask for verification from the press for book contracts?  If so, that would be enough to ease my mind.

[onthefringe]

Realistically, what would you do even with sure knowledge that the contract either fell through or never existed?

My vote is probably keep your nose out of it if you have no official standing to be involved. It is unlikely that (for instance) your chair and whoever is involved in reviewing annual reports and assigning raises (assuming these things exist at your place) have not noticed it, which likely means either there are extenuating circumstances you don't know about, or there's nothing that can be done about it.

[Ruralguy]

No, most chairs and P&T committees do not have the time to verify items on a CV. There might be some spot checking especially if there isn't much to check and the whole point is to see whether the three things listed are "enough."

I know journals have listings of "articles under review." Maybe some presses have such a listing for books under contract or books under review.

This seems like an MYOB issue to me.

How does it harm you if this person publishes the book 2 years from now?
"Because, standards" isn't a good enough answer.

If this person never publishes or is just lying, he'll eventually suffer the consequences.

Short of direct evidence that he or she is lying, I don't think you should say anything.

[artalot]

For my tenure package, I had to submit the contract and a copy of the MS. I was in press by then with a production schedule, but it was just standard practice for those who didn't yet have a physical copy of the book. That said, I have a colleague who submitted those things and the book still isn't out. There's really no way to be sure unless you require a physical copy. Of course, most academic societies in the humanities are now counseling against requiring a book for tenure due to the declining numbers of publishers.
I'd also vote for keeping your nose out of it, but you could suggest changes to the review process that would require a copy of the contract and/or MS, or you could open up your tenure requirements to consider alternative publications to the monograph.

[rouroboros]

To be clear, I don't have an issue with the book eventually coming out or it falling through due to extenuating circumstances.  But I do have a problem with is someone fabricating a contract and submitting it to take their tenure case over the finish line. 

While not exactly the same, there was a case a while ago of someone doctoring an offer letter to negotiate a raise at his home institution.  The thrust of this article (https://www.chronicle.com/article/Do-Most-Academics-Fib-on-Their/247376) is that the system can be exploited because everyone assumes everyone else is being honest.

It's probably true that there's little to be done, but it does seem that a desperate scholar with some photoshop ability could easily earn tenure if T&P committees never bother to check.  Their ability to advance would be stunted, but they'd still have tenure at the end of the day.

[mouseman]

Falsifying tenure documents would definitely be grounds for revoking tenure and immediate dismissal. So while I'm sure it happens, just like there are cases in which people falsify their credentials for hiring, being tenured does not protect somebody who obtained tenure by knowingly submitting falsified documents.

However, that is not your problem. As others have written, there are many reasons that a book takes a long time to move from contract to publication, and you would not be privy to any of them.

If you have enough time to snoop through your colleagues' credentials, perhaps you should be doing something more constructive with your time, like picking up a hobby.

[Ruralguy]

Yeah, sometimes people ask me stuff like "could you look through your documents or notes on X to verify if so and so really said such and such". If its just a curiosity request I say "who has time for that?" If its a Dean, I ask why they want it. If they don't tell me, I don't hand it over.

[Hegemony]

I have to say that if someone in my department had actually falsified their book acceptance or contract, it would infuriate me too.  It's on a par with plagiarism.

[youllneverwalkalone]

If you part of a hiring/tenure committee and the decision hinges on that particular item, I think you could request to see proof.

Whenever I have been involved in hiring decisions, I tend to focus on actual accomplishments rather than on envisioned ones. I am not in a book field, so this means I generally do not put much stock in lists of unpublished manuscripts (whatever their degree of completion), unless there is already a pre-print available somewhere.

[mouseman]

I have to say that if someone in my department had actually falsified their book acceptance or contract, it would infuriate me too.  It's on a par with plagiarism.

Unless the colleague has done other stuff which are not actionable because they have tenure, or they may be pulling other shenanigans, I would still leave it alone.  I don't think that i would like to work somewhere that is full of colleagues who spend their time going through each other's current resumes, looking for inconsistencies.

[mamselle]

It seems as if the key piece of info here is, "Is the OP on a committee for T&P or related oversight in which the credibility of the publication claim is germain to the OPs actions, decisions, or speech acts in meetings?"

If so, then the info must be confirmed. If not, let it go.

OP?

M.

[Hegemony]

Everyone who is recommending letting it go — would you recommend the same if you found out that in the past, since coming to your university, your colleague had plagiarized a publication?