Tips for reviewing book manuscripts?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Kian Mintz-Woo writes:

I have been asked for the first time to evaluate a manuscript. The editor mentioned a 'small fee' or the equivalent in books. I am interested in the topic of the manuscript, know and like the (similarly junior) author, and believe I would be well-placed to comment on it. However, I know it is a massive time commitment and I am sure the 'small fee' is nowhere close to the value of that time.

What is a normal timeline for reviewing a manuscript (this is not very long--the author expects <100k words)? It is worth noting that the editor has mentioned that they can be very flexible abut the reviewing time. Are there other things I should keep in mind? (Should I basically just say no to manuscript reviews until I'm a mid-career academic?) Is there a reasonable range to expect the 'small fee' to be? (I am sure it's not worth haggling or anything like that, but even if I wanted to I don't know enough to do it.)

Is it relevant that I like the press and might pursue them in the future, as I think it is with journals (although, because of subject area, not this particular editor)?

Do I basically review the book like I would articles, just on a larger scale--i.e., track the argument as it unfolds over chapters? Or should I also be thinking about things like audience and sales (!) I would also add some copy-editing in, because I like to do that as well.

I searched through Phil Cocoon for advice on this and--while you have lots of discussions about preparing proposals--you don't (appear!) to have anything about evaluating them. Thanks for any thoughts or advice!

These are good questions that I suspect many early-career people might benefit from hearing good answers to. Here are some quick thoughts...

My experience is that publishers usually give you a few months to review book manuscripts, in return for either a few hundred dollars (USD) in cash or books (usually, the number is a bit higher if you choose the books over the cash). Publishers usually also give you a questionnaire to fill out, which is quite different than journal reviewing. The questionnaire usually asks things like whether the book is likely to sell, how broad the audience is likely to be, how strong the scholarship is, what its strongest and weakest points are (and why), and so on. There is absolutely no expectation of copy-editing, which I wouldn't advise, as that seems to me a poor use of time. If the author is offered a contract, they are almost certainly going to have to revise the entire manuscript in response to reviewer comments, and copy-editing occurs at the final stages if the final manuscript is accepted. Finally, there's an important question here as to whether it makes sense for untenured people to review book manuscripts, given how much time it takes. I think a lot depends here on how efficient one is (are you a quick reader and writer?). But, assuming it won't get in the way of other things you need to do (e.g. publish, etc.), my sense is that reviewing manuscripts can actually be useful. First, it can help you to stay on the forefront of the literature, seeing what other people are working on (and giving you an excuse/incentive to read a book length work on the topic). Second, if you take the cash and/or book-ordering options as compensation, you can use that to buy other books you might not otherwise buy or read. Finally, if you have never published a book before and think you might want to someday, reviewing manuscripts can help you see the kinds of things to do and avoid when writing your own book (as you might spot things while your reviewing, thinking to yourself, "If I ever write a book, I want to do/not do that!"). 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have some experience here?

Comments

[Malcolm]

I've reviewed a few book manuscripts and proposals and found it helpful for my own book projects. It's also helped me in writing book reviews, as well as generally thinking about what kinds of projects I'm undertaking, for whom, and why. It does take time to do well, but I don't see that it is a negative for junior people, especially if you're considering writing a book.

First, as Marcus notes, book publishers often give you a template to complete to help you with the reviewing process. If they don't give you one, I'd ask specifically what they want you to focus on.

Second, the publisher will be in a better position to know whether the book will sell, but you can speak to whether you, or people you know, would buy the book, and for what purposes (for research, for classroom use--and which courses/levels).

Third, I think there's an important difference between book manuscript reviewing and article reviewing. While you want to evaluate the argument and other aspects of its content, you are also thinking about why this book should exist out in the world, and for what purpose. This is audience-relative in a way that is less in the foreground for articles (where the focus is mostly on whether the paper makes true claims or plausible arguments).

Hopefully the book is clear about who it's for and what it's doing. If not, that's important to note. And once you understand the audience and the book's goals, I think it's important to keep those in mind as you review. (I.e. don't evaluate an introductory primer the way you would an advanced independent treatment of a topic, or vice versa.)

Finally, as for copy editing, don't waste your time on that, but you can certainly flag repeated kinds of issues (grammar, cumbersome style) which a copy editor and the author will need to be on the lookout for. Copy editors don't catch everything, and the author will have a chance to make revisions before they submit the final version.

[editor]

Absolutely do not spend time on copy editing a book manuscript that you are reviewing. The good presses pay someone to do that.
You should comment on the substance, structure, and importance of the book.

[Kian Mintz-Woo]

OP here. Thanks for your time and thoughts (and for posting this Marcus!) In case people are interested, I have ultimately decided to review the proposal/manuscript. It was recommended to me to think of it mostly as service to the profession, but I also liked the editor's email approach, am quite interested in the book's topic (and am well-placed to review it in terms of expertise) and potentially would like to work with this press in the future. Hope this thread can help others too!