Meeting w/book publishers while on the market?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I have been approached by an editor who works for an academic book publisher (somewhere in the middle of ranked publishers from the blog of the guy who ranks everything) who wants to meet me at an upcoming conference we are both attending and discuss publishing the project I am working on (not dissertation project).

I was wondering two things:
1) What should I be asking/getting to know about this publisher in this meeting? I'm completely new to this process and have no clue what to even be asking this editor?
2) What are people's thoughts on middle of the road publishers? I imagine they would help my chances at a permanent job, am I wrong in that assumption?

I think this should be ok in my situation since I would like to work at a SLAC, but I'd love to know what others think?

Another reader submitted the following reply:

It sounds like you do not have a permanent position - if that is the case I think it is a bad idea to try to publish a book. I have published 3 monographs, and edited 2 volumes (and finishing a 3rd). These are long term projects that are quite unpredictable. My monographs and one of the volumes is with one of the top 2 publishers. It is unrealistic to try to complete a monograph while you are still actively on the job market. I completed my first ONLY with the help of a sabbatical - and it came out in print three years later. If you need a permanent position, then you need well placed articles in highly ranked journals.

I disagree, based on my experience both as a former job candidate and many-time search committee member at a SLAC.

First, as a job-candidate, my number of interviews and flyouts at SLACs skyrocketed my last two years on the market after I had a book under contract with Palgrave MacMillan (a mid-ranked publisher in the polls the OP refers to). Although there were other parts of my CV that had improved as well, it certainly seems like having the book under contract made a significant difference. Second, as a search committee member, it makes sense to me why. My sense is that one of the most difficult challenges that any job candidate faces is "standing out from the crowd." Something like 90+% of applicants for a job have a good enough publishing record at journals, good teaching reviews, pretty good dossier materials, etc. How is one supposed to choose? Well, if someone has a book coming out, that will stand out. Why? Because very few candidates do. It can also be attractive in that tenure and promotion committees at SLACs are likely to have people from other departments where books are the norm, not to mention administrators who books will look good to as well.

I do think there is some risk to pursuing a book while on the market. It's a ton of work, there's no guarantee the book will be accepted in the end, it could detract from other things (e.g. publishing in journals, teaching, etc.), and it may be difficult to do your very best work on it given all of the things you are balancing (and your time and resources, or lack thereof). Still, I think it can be a risk worth taking. But I'm curious to hear what other people, particularly those who have gotten books under contract or published them while on the market.

Finally, to address the OP's questions, I think mid-ranked publishers are just fine if you're looking for a job at a SLAC, and the main things you should figure out before meeting with a publisher is what kinds of books they publish and what their book proposal process is like (many publishers have specific proposal guidelines that you can download). The most important thing to do before meeting with a publisher, I think, is having a good pitch for a book project. They are going to ask you "what you're working on", but what they really mean by this is, "Pitch me a promising sounding book project." So, have that going in--and, if you're really committed to it, you might even sketch out something like a first draft of a book proposal (i.e. what each chapter will do). My sense is that the more you sound like you have a plan for the book (as opposed to merely a vague sense of what the book will be on), the more likely you will be to get them to invite you to submit a full proposal.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? 

Comments

[J]

On the basis of papers I've presented, I've been emailed by publishers to meet at the APA to discuss whether the papers were part of a larger project that I would be interested in publishing with them. My general sense from these meetings was that the people I met with were for the most part not well prepared for the meetings and that one ought to be suspicious when a random publisher is soliciting proposals and manuscripts from an unknown, early career author. As an analogue: Just think of all the emails from predatory journals asking you to submit some paper you gave at a conference. How many emails do you get from *good* journals that ask you to do that? To be clear: I don't think publishers that are soliciting manuscripts are bad, but again, I would be cautious.

Speaking to the reader's first question, I would try to get a general sense of how the editors you're meeting with tick and how you get along with them, how the press handles peer review, whether they provide copy-editing, and what their production timeline is. If you haven't written a proposal before, you could also ask the press directly about that (I received a very helpful guideline from a publisher) and about what topics the they are particularly interested in publishing (this yields astounding answers in my experience).

[booktime]

I will agree that it is a bad idea to try and publish a book if you do not have a permanent position. The *exception* would be if you already have a few good pieces in top journals - then, maybe, you have nothing to lose.

Maybe I've been too ambitious or unlucky, but my experience trying to publish a book has been that it is basically like trying to publish a very long peer-reviewed article.

The proposal is the easy part. The difficult part has been that these publishers (1) want to see a complete draft of the manuscript; (2) put it through a standard peer-review process (with possible decisions of reject, R&R, and accept); and (3) will only review the manuscript if I agree not to send it elsewhere. Basically, the book has to be a finished product (other than indexing and editing for clarity) before a contract will be issued. Just like a journal article.

It would be easy if one could get a book contract with just a proposal and sample chapter. If a respectable, middle-ranked publisher offers that, I'd say go for it.

If it is going to be the kind of process I've encountered, it is probably better to hold off. Build up a solid CV with journal articles, and if the book project ends up going into peer review hell for multiple years, it will not matter.

[Bill Vanderburgh]

I have heard of Philosophy departments that don't weight books very much in tenure decisions--getting more journal articles might count for more for such places. But SLACs probably aren't like that (are they?).

The worry about predatory publishers is genuine. Do your due diligence. If they say you will need to pay anything at all to get it published, walk away.

If your project is of interest to one publisher, it might be of interest to others. Given the early stage of your career, time is on your side and there is no rush to publish, so pursue the best press you can.

I'd recommend getting Laura Portwood-Stacer's _The Book Proposal Book_. It is all about putting together a good package for academic publishers to consider. Send your proposal out to several publishers to gauge interest. (As long as you mention that you are doing that in your cover letter, book publishers are unlike journals in that simultaneous submission is not forbidden.)

The academic book publishing process can take a LONG time. More than a year. So you likely won't have the book in hand, and maybe not even a contract, in time for the next job round.

When I've seen cv's of junior people with books under contract, it generally hasn't swayed me much. The chances of completing the manuscript on time (or at all) are uncertain, and even when finished the publisher might not accept the manuscript. Such things are essentially mere, "Works in Progress," which is a hope rather than an achievement. So it might be less impressive on the cv than more peer reviewed articles.

All that said, take the meeting. Even if nothing come of it, it is a good opportunity for an experience that might be valuable to you later.

[Daniel Kaufman]

Something I noticed getting more common within the last ten years. Publishers approaching me to do textbooks or anthologies, only to discover that the point is to sell them to my own students. No marketing, sale’s strategy, etc. Essentially an overpriced course pack.

[know the whole picture]

Something else to note about publishers - they differ in a variety of ways. Some - Cambridge and Oxford - do pay you royalties for sales. I certainly do not live for or on my royalties, but they can generate thousands of dollars (rather than hundreds or tens of thousands). This is a small perk, but it is worth keeping in mind. A more obscure or lower ranked press may sell very few copies of your book - there will be fewer readers (and less royalties, assuming they pay them at all).
Perhaps the biggest perk I have from publishing with a highly ranking publisher are the invitations to conferences. I have enjoyed this very much, and it also contributes to selling your book (which also contributes to it being read widely).