Getting invited to contribute to edited volumes?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, J writes:

How do you contact an editor about a paper you think would be suited to an edited collection they are working on?

I have a bit of a conundrum. I have very recently found out that a new edited collection is being worked on in my research area. It is a big follow up to a previous edition published 20 years ago. It is high impact and meant for audiences wider than just philosophers. It is published by a international specialised agency (think UN) and involves a lot of big name philosophers. (I am happy to add detail if it would be helpful, but don't know whether that would be considered appropriate here.)

I have been working on a paper that is a response to two core views expressed in the initial edition published 20 years ago. My supervisors and I believe my response is novel, important, and particularly well suited to this edition.

However, neither me nor my supervisors know any of the editors and given I am only a lowly PhD student I don't know how to approach the editors respectfully and to get them to take me seriously. Especially considering there has not been a call for papers for this edition.

Relatedly, suppose I send the paper to the editors, should I avoid submitting the paper elsewhere in the meantime?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated - especially from editors themselves.

Good questions. One editor submitted the following response:

I have edited volumes, and by the time people know they are in the works, contributors have signed contracts, and the press has also made concrete commitments to a certain number of contributions of a certain size. So it is unlikely you can get in. On the other hand if you do send the editors the paper you absolutely MUST not send it out to another journal while you are courting them.

This response sounds right to me. One can always try reaching out to the editors, but the list of contributing authors may already be set. Fortunately, I do think there's a silver lining here: namely, that if the OP's paper is really good, they can always publish it in an excellent journal and it will get noticed there. It's worth remembering that publishing in philosophy is a proverbial marathon, not a sprint. Oftentimes, it can take an author many years to break through--but, if you publish well, then people in the relevant field(s) may start to take notice. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Comments

[Karl]

This might be naïve, and I am only putting together my first edited collection now, but it strikes me that the answer is simpler than it seems. Volume editors are not algorithms, they are people, they are philosophers, they are scholars who want to produce the best volume they can, given their constraints. Just write them a polite, persuasive, and very brief email. Depending on publisher and other technicalities, an editor may be able to squeeze in another short paper, they may not. They may feel like taking a risk that you will turn out to have something worth reading, they may not. In either case, a short email is worth the risk. The worst that can happen is they can ignore you, or say that the commitments they made do not allow for another essay. They will not resent your impudence and hold it against you for life. They will not blackball you from the profession. If you feel like you have something to contribute and you are not wasting anyone's time, just do it. It might cost you a week of waiting in vain for an answer. That's all.

[JR]

What Karl said.

[Bill Vanderburgh]

To add another consideration: hiring and tenure committees almost always think of refereed journal articles as "worth" more than chapters in edited volumes. A junior scholar might be better off opting to publish in a journal anyway.

[anon]

How about invited, but peer-reviewed journal articles? Where do they fit in all this?

[Listen to Karl]

What Karl said goes for most of the questions on this site, IMO.

[Bill Vanderburgh]

To anon's query, invited is generally less prestigious than non-invited, but if it is a refereed journal article it should still count significantly.

[ex-PTC member]

@Bill, I have to say my experience is that it depends. If a CV has lots of peer reviewed papers my sense is that a few invited pieces would make it stand out more (ah, this person is being recognised in their field!). If the CV has lots of invited pieces but few peer reviewed ones then I get suspicious, though (maybe this person can't get their papers through peer review, but is in the 'in crowd'?).

It's certainly right that generally speaking, peer reviewed pieces are worth more for junior scholars.

Also chiming in to echo Karl's very sensible sentiments.

[Atypical Anon]

What Karl said. I saw that an advertised Oxford handbook on X did not seem to address subtopic Y that might plausibly have been included . As an expert on Y, I wrote to the editor offering my services. He wrote back accepting my offer and saying in effect that he had been vaguely thinking go me but that his thoughts had not crystallised into action. (I put this down in part to my remote physical location. I had never met the editor in the flesh.) So now another paper in an OUP handbook. Not much help to younger folk perhaps, but I say ‘Give it a Go!’