Publishing a book, part 2: proposals and manuscript review

In my first post in this series, I outlined the main steps of the book publishing process, beginning with book proposals all the way up through acceptance of the final manuscript and the production process. I decided to begin this series because, as you can see from the summary, the process is a whole lot more complex that you might think. Because so much of the process came as a surprise to me--and I was uncertain at many points of how to best proceed--I thought readers might find a series on the "ins and outs" of the book publishing process helpful. I hope it is!

In today's post, I am going to focus on the book proposal and manuscript-review parts of the process.

The Book Proposal

In an earlier, aborted attempt to start this series, I examined some of the details regarding soliciting interest from publishers and sending out book proposals. Allow me to briefly revisit some of the points I made their, as well as provide some additional information.

There are broadly two ways to solicit interest in your book manuscript from an academic press:

1. Meet in person with an editor at a professional conference (e.g. the APA)
2. Submit a query letter and/or full proposal by email.

Aside from being contacted by an acquisitions editor in advance, there is one primary way to accomplish #1: you can simply walk up to representatives of academic presses at a conference (e.g. at the APA's Book Exhibit) to see if one of their acquisitions editors is at the conference! If they are, you can either immediately strike up a conversation and/or try to set up a formal meeting. However, a few suggestions: First, don't be shy (acquisitions editors in my experience are always looking for new authors--so, don't hesitate to send them an email during the conference to see if they might be willing to meet). Second, it's a really good idea to be well-prepared before you meet them (e.g. have a full book proposal printed out and ready to go! Third, unless you're super well-established, you should really have a book manuscript substantially written before approaching a publisher (since, if they like it, they will ask to review either the whole manuscript or a significant portion of it!). In my experience, acquisitions editors play a really important role in the entire process--in advocating for your project to the editorial board, etc. So, you really want to show up prepared, ready to discuss your book/proposal in detail, and develop a good rapport.

The other main way to solicit interest in your book is to contact acquisitions editors by email. Exactly how you should contact them really differs from press to press--so it's important to follow instructions. Some presses ask for a full proposal and other materials from the get-go. Other presses simply instruct one to contact one of their acquisitions editor with a query letter (a brief cover letter introducing yourself and the book), stating explicitly not to submit other materials. Obviously, since you want to get off on the right foot, it's really important to follow directions! It's also important to be forthright when you submit a letter or proposal, letting the editor know up front whether your proposal is under review elsewhere, whether your manuscript is under review elsewhere, and whether you have agreed to a "right of first refusal" at another press (more on this in my next post!). Generally speaking, editors are okay with you submitting proposals elsewhere simultaneously, but it's important to make sure--and, in my experience, only some editors will consider a proposal if your full manuscript is under review at another press. So, be up front!

A couple a further points about approaching editors with proposals:

1. Some presses may be interested in publishing dissertations, but others not.
2. Some presses may consider publishing a manuscript containing previously published work (e.g. chapters comprised, in whole or in part, by work you have published in a journal), but others may not--and those that do will typically only allow a couple chapters to be previously published. In any case be clear and up front in your proposal about this (on the very first page, where you list the length of the book and how much is written).

Next, which publishers should you send proposals to? Here's a good list. Here again, however, things are not simple. First, since your book project may change over time, and you may or may not fare well with publishers in your first attempt at approaching them (some appear to want "established authors"), it may be advisable to only approach a handful at first (say, a few top-ranked presses, and a few further down the list), to see how you do. If you strike out on all of them, maybe it's time to publish more articles to raise your profile, revise the proposal, etc., before approaching more. On the other hand, if you get a bite from one or more presses (they ask to review the manuscript), then good for you! But, you may now have a decision to make, since not all presses may be willing to review your manuscript while others are doing so. Second, and this is really important, it might be a very good idea to only send your proposal to presses that you would be happy to commit to, should one of them want to review your manuscript. For, as I will explain shortly, agreeing to have your manuscript put under review by one press can require you to commit not to have it published anywhere else if the first press likes the manuscript!

Finally, book proposals themselves are relatively straightforward. Some presses have their own proposal form. Other presses simply ask you to submit a proposal--and here's a standard template. The proposal itself should be somewhere between 4-7 pages long, with a detailed chapter-by-chapter summary. Still, writing a good proposal is difficult. It will be read first by an editor, and then (if they like it) by peers in the profession (i.e. other philosophers). Consequently, you need to make the proposal simultaneously clear and attractive to a layperson, but also sophisticated enough to give a peer-reviewer an idea of what your book's major arguments are and why they are good arguments. Doing both of these things well is tough--and, in my experience, the best way to do it is to have someone who has published a book already help you, by providing feedback on your proposal. Really work hard to get it right--as, with each editor (and there aren't that many presses), you might only have one shot! 

The Manuscript Review

If an acquisitions editor likes your proposal, they may ask to send some, or all, of your manuscript out to reviewers. If so, great! Still, before you proceed, there are some important things to think about.

First, some editors will not be okay with you sending out proposals or putting your manuscript under review with other presses concurrently. The most important thing, in the first instance, is to always be up front and ask if something is okay before doing anything. Of editors who are okay with you sending proposals/manuscripts elsewhere, chances are they will request you confer to them a "right of first refusal"--which means you can send your work to other presses, provided to promise the first press rights to publish the book if you accept it. Agreeing to a right of first refusal is no small matter, as it is unethical (at minimum) to go back on your word and publish your manuscript elsewhere. This is why I said above that it can be a good idea to only send proposals to publishers you would be willing to commit to. If you submit a proposal to five presses you really want to publish with, but also to five presses you would not be so excited to publish with, you might find yourself in a quandary: an offer from a press you're not excited to about to review your manuscript, and them asking for a right of first refusal (in which case you might have to choose between rejecting their offer or signing over rights you don't want to sign over!). 

Finally, it's a good idea to "do your homework" before committing to have your manuscript placed under review.

First, some presses, or so I've heard, can take over a year to review a manuscript. Others are more responsible (the several that reviewed my manuscript all got back to me in a couple of months). In my experience, this is really important, as one big difference between journal articles and book manuscripts is just how much you have invested in them. Waiting a year or more to hear back on a book manuscript can be disaster, as (after writing an entire book!) you might find yourself stressing over new articles coming out in the literature saying similar things as your book.  When you've put so much time, thought, and energy into a book, that kind of wait can be 1000x more stressful than waiting a year to hear on an article.

Second, some presses, or so I've heard, are much better to authors in general than others, putting together better-looking books, marketing them better, etc. 

One good way to find out the answer to both issues is to simply ask around, contacting people you know (or "friends of friends") who have published books to find out how the review process and overall experience was with presses they've worked with.

Whew, that was a lot. I'm sure there are things I'm forgetting, so if you have any questions--or, alternatively, think I got anything wrong--by all means, fire away!

Comments

[Dan Dennis]

That is all very helpful. Thank you Marcus.