Drawing from previously published work in a (first) book manuscript?

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

I’ve been told that this early-to-mid-career time is when you should start thinking about a book project, and that you should have some publications out in support of your book project.” I can see that often whole chapters of books are drawn on material from published papers. But how many papers should one draw on? How do you know when you have an established enough body of work to satisfy a well-regarded press?

Good questions. My experience is that different presses can have different policies on this. For example, I seem to recall one press I've worked with require that no more than 10% of a book be based upon previously published work. Alternatively, I've heard that some presses have policies that focus on chapters (e.g., no more than two chapters of previously published work). But, of course, I expect that as with many things in book publishing, some of this may be negotiable depending on how invested the press is in publishing with you.

Do any readers have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

Comments

[non-rhetorical question]

What counts as previously published work? Verbatim cut and paste jobs? Or does salami slicing count too? I generally don't read books when I see the author has already published on the topic, because I find it's usually pretty redundant.

[One monograph down]

I can't remember if the press had any rules about this, except that I had to ensure that I could get the rights to my journal articles from the journals, which wasn't a problem. Two of the nine chapters in my monograph were revised versions of journal articles. When I was writing the manuscript, I was advised that no more than two chapters should have been published previously elsewhere, and so I made sure not to publish any more of the material I wanted for the book, even when I was asked to write book chapters on it for edited collections. Note that I wrote the entire manuscript before I approached a press. Contracts issued before a manuscript goes to peer review don't hold much weight. A press will drop you if the peer-review stage doesn't go well. Good luck!

[Bill V.]

A published track record in a topic may be more important to presses in the case of so-called "trade" books, rather than for books aimed at an academic audience.

For trade books, publishers need to sell a lot of them, so they want you to have a pre-existing audience. For academic books, since prices are higher and there's a "captive market" of university presses (and your advance will be very small), they don't need proof of an existing audience. Instead, they'll want some evidence that you are indeed expert enough in the field to produce a good book. They'll ascertain that via your degree, specific training in a topic, teaching and research experience, and job title.

But since academic book contracts are normally secured on a full manuscript (rather than just on a proposal and a sample chapter, as is typical in the case of trade books), the press will send the manuscript to expert referees in the field as the main way to determine its quality before deciding to give you a contract.

All this to say, you don't need published articles on the very same topic to get a contract for an academic book, you just need a good book manuscript and ordinary academic credentials. The reason many authors have chapters that started life as journal articles is that it is a way to build up to expertise in a large topic, and because it is easier to use stuff you have already written rather than producing entirely new material.

As a field, philosophy does not have an expectation that we will produce books. That's very different than some other fields; in history, for example, publishing a book is normally the main condition for earning tenure. So advice to OP is not to worry about trying to publish a book unless they have a book-sized idea and really want to publish a book for their own reasons. But beware that deans and college evaluation committees don't always understand different disciplines' research expectations, so they might give the advice to publish a mid-career book. Your chair's letter in your tenure and promotion files can explain Philosophy's expectations. And as always with T&P advice, check local conditions.

When I published my first book, about 9% of the content was derived from a journal article, though I sliced and diced it rather than including it as a chapter on its own. My next book projects are shaping up to not have any previously published content.

[author]

I have published three monographs with a leading University Press. All of them contain material that was previously published in articles. They range in previously published content from perhaps 30 % to 60 %. But the material is most often reworked (sometimes even corrected), and a larger structure is imposed on the whole. So, none of my books are merely the collection of a series of articles. Of course, readers can enjoy each chapter on its own (and many do), but the real value of each book is in the synthesis offered in the book as a whole, and the larger argument that runs through the whole book.
By the way, it is very easy to secure permission to reprint a paper as part of a monograph. If you read the typical contract that you sign when you publish an article you will see that permission to republish the material in your own book is in there.
To repeat what others have said, books are rewarding to write, provided you have a book-sized idea. But the time they take should not be under-estimated.

[Preemptive Mid-Career Crisis]

Thank you for all the helpful advice! - OP