Publishing a book, part 3: Referee comments and contracts

In my previous post in this new series, I discussed how to approach academic presses with book proposals, what the proposal process is like, and offers to have one's manuscript placed under review. As I explained, there were quite a few complexities about these stages of the process that were together new (and unexpected) to me--and, as I will now explain, the same was true of receiving reviewer comments and contract offers. My hope, again, is that by explaining the process in detail, readers who might be interested in publishing a book will have a better advance idea of the step involved that I did!

Referee comments

If you agree to have your book manuscript placed under review, either in whole or in part, you can expect to receive an email from your editorial contact several months later with reviewer comments, as well as some sort of "decision" by the acquisitions editor (reject, invitation to revise and resubmit, contract offer, etc.). So far, this probably sounds not altogether different than the journal article process, where one submits, gets comments (sometimes!), and a decision. But, in many respects the process with books is quite different. The aim(s) and content of reviewer comments are often quite different than with journal articles, as are the kinds of "decisions" editors might make. Allow me to explain.

One thing that surprised me about some reviewer comments I received (though perhaps it should not have surprised me very much) is that some of the comments focused less on the book's content than on its "sale-ability." Peer-review for book manuscripts is not anonymized. Referees know you identity, and at least some of them care substantially whether you are a "name" author, and may even say so in their comments. Indeed, a referee might even say your book is well argued, but express reservations about offering a contract because the author "isn't well-known enough." This might seem odd--or unfair, even (shouldn't a book be judged on its merits)--but this is the thing about book publishing: the merits of manuscripts are only part of the story. As "Karl" writes in a comment here, the cold hard truth is that there are economics involved. Book publishers presumably want to sell books, not have them sit on shelves unpurchased--and so, at least some reviewers appear to see their responsibility to offer recommendations based partly on a manuscript's content, but also on the basis of other considerations: name recognition, prestige, etc. Finally, although in my experience book referee comments tend to be detailed and conscientious--as well as significantly longer than referee comments for journal articles--there are still cases, just as there are with journal articles, where a referee's comments may seem unfair, not backed by adequate argument, etc.

Which brings me to the next, somewhat surprising element of the process: depending on the overall tenor of the referee comments, acquisitions editors may ask you, the author, if you have any "thoughts" in reply. That is, rather than just giving a decision--rejecting your manuscript, inviting you to revise-and-resubmit--acquisitions editors may invite you to respond to the comments. I suspect this may have to do with a couple of things: there may be positive elements to the reviewer comments, and the editor may not be entirely sure what to make of the less positive elements. I found this to be a very welcome--and exciting--part of the process. Whereas with journals one typically has to simply put up with referee comments that may strike one as unfair, it was really nice to have the opportunity to respond to reviewer comments. If one thinks the reviewer hasn't given adequate justification for their concerns, either about the book's content or ability to sell, one can have the opportunity to make a detailed case to the contrary! Finally, if the editor is sympathetic to your response, they may agree to send out the manuscript for additional reviews, or even offer you a contract.

Contracts

Receiving a contract offer is super-exciting, but here too there are many complications. First, you may receive multiple offers simultaneously, in which case you may have a easy decision to make (if you prefer one press over another), or a difficult one (if you are torn). Second, you may receive a contract offer from one press but be hesitant to accept because you are still waiting to hear from other presses (as, again, on some occasions--if you ask forthrightly--multiple presses may review your manuscript simultaneously). Third, there are lots of nuts-and-bolts issues to think about with contracts, such as word-limits, and (something I did not realize before signing my contract) restrictions on what you can publish in the meantime. Allow me to explain.

As I explained in my previous post, if multiple presses agree to review your manuscript simultaneously, chances are one of them--the first one that offers to review your manuscript--will require you to agree to a "right of first-refusal", which means that if they offer you a contract, you cannot accept a contract from another press. It is really important--morally, and, I expect, legally--to uphold such an agreement, as well as to let other publishers you approach (in your proposals to them) that you have already agreed to a right of first-refusal with another press (Note: one thing I forgot to mention in my proposals post was that this can actually give you some leverage at the proposal stage with other presses, as acquisitions editors at other presses might be willing to give your proposal a more sympathetic look if they know you already have interest from a good press!). In any case, if the press you give a right of first-refusal to rejects your manuscript, or rejects it but invites you to revise and resubmit it, then contract-offers from other presses are fair game--and you may receive more than one.

If you receive a contract offer, or multiple ones, what should you do? There is no simple answer here. First, if you receive an offer from a press that you know you'd be perfectly happy publishing with, then agreeing to have them draw up a contract may be a good idea. In other cases--if there are other presses you might be happier publishing with that are also reviewing your manuscript--it may be a good idea to contact them, letting them know you have an offer. They may say, "congrats", and send you on your way, but they also might expedite their review process so that they can give you a decision. This can be a bit stressful, especially if you have a contract-offer on the table (as you might worry about the offer being rescinded if you ask the first publisher to wait), but it is an option.

Second, how you should think about contracts should probably depend on your career-aspirations, job, and/or trajectory. At some schools, publishing a book with any legitimate academic press is considered an accomplishment, and will probably help towards tenure. At R1 research institutions, however, the prestige of which press you publish can matter so greatly that even a press that's generally considered "good" (e.g. top-15) can actually be considered a "weak link" for tenure. 

Third, it's really important to get clear on--and think carefully about--the contract itself before signing. Contracts typically have a lot of provisions that place constraints on revisions, as well as what you can publish the meantime. On the one hand, contracts typically include strict word-limits, say 105K words, including endnotes and bibliography. Given that you will probably revise the manuscript substantially post-contract, it's really critical that you get a word-limit that you can meet. Additionally, there will be a due-date for getting the manuscript in, and, if you are offered a due-date that seems too soon for you (and you should leave yourself plenty of time), do not be afraid to ask for a later one (I negotiated four extra months myself). Further, it is critical to be aware that contracts may disallow publishing "competing research" in the meantime--i.e. papers on ideas similar to the book, or parts of book chapters. This is important to be aware of, and possibly try to negotiate if you can, particularly given that a book contract, as I will now explain, is no "sure thing."

Finally, you might think that if you get a book contract, you're "golden" (you have a book forthcoming!). Well, not exactly. Book contracts typically have provisions for a final review--that is, approval of the final manuscript by a final round of review with referees. Even after signing a contract, and revising a book, it is always possible that your book may not pass this final review. You may be asked to revise the book, or you may even have your contract cancelled (fortunately, this did not happen in my case!). This is another reason that it's really important to be aware of the terms of your contract before signing. Given that it may take you six months (or whatever) to revise your book, another month or two for the final review, followed by possible requests for revisions, etc., the entire process (if you are lucky to actually have the final manuscript accepted) can take a long time: time during which your contract may disallow you from trying to publish related research! For all of these reasons, it is important to think long and hard--and consider all of your options, including possibly negotiating elements of the contract--before signing on the dotted line. Fortunately, I can also say that I was treated with the utmost honesty and professionalism by all of the editors and presses I engaged with. 

Comments

[an author]

Thanks Marcus,
Two remarks:
1. Of course sales matter. Publishing a book is a big deal, and a lot of expense for the publisher. If they can only anticipate 100 sales, then it is unlikely they will be interested in pursuing your book idea. That is one of the values of publishing with the most reputable presses: Cambridge Univ. Press, Oxford Univ. Press, Harvard Univ. Press, Princeton Univ. Press, and Routledge. Serious libraries consider buying many of their books. As you work with more obscure presses, it is far less likely that many libraries will bother buying the book. Indeed, for many academic books, library sales are a significant portion of the sales. They are certainly a significant portion of early sales.
2. There is a less jaded reading to give to the remarks you make about Presses asking about the prospective author. They are interested in knowing whether this person is a recognized expert in their sub-field, and whether the book will sell because people want to read what she ahs to say on the topic. If the person has no reputation in the area, or a bad one, then it is not in the interest of the Press (or anyone) to have a book on the topic by that person.

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi 'an author': Thanks for your comment. I agree with almost all of what you say, with one exception.

You write: "If the person has no reputation in the area, or a bad one, then it is not in the interest of the Press (or anyone) to have a book on the topic by that person."

This conditional has to be false, right?

Wittgenstein had no reputation in his area before publishing the Tractatus, but--although few publishers were smart enough to recognize it at the time (he did have trouble getting it published)--it *was* in their interest to publish it, as it was a work of genius later recognized as such. Of course there are few "Wittgensteins" out there, but great books by people who were previously "nobodies" are not unheard of--just like great scripts by nobodies aren't unheard of in Hollywood, great music from nobodies in common in the music industry, etc.

Sometimes great ideas come out of nowhere, from the most unlikely of individuals--and, if their work is really good, it may be in the interest to invest in and put it out there. I'm not suggesting this is the usual case. I'm just saying that the conditional you stated is surely too strong.