The Philosophers' Cocoon

Tips for good book proposals?

A reader writes in,

Do any readers of the blog have words of wisdom for putting together a great book proposal? There are scattered tips on Twitter both from academics who have successfully gotten contracts and from people who work for publishers, but I'd like to gather insights in one thread. I've heard writing a book proposal is akin to writing a book review for your own book (that you may not have finished yet).

Additional tips are welcome for the specific experience of writing translation proposals (I'm working on translating lesser-known 20th cen. German philosophy), but I don't want to limit the feedback sourced here to that. Let's hear advice for any kinds of book proposals.

Good question. Although I've written three successful book proposals, I'm not sure that I have any special tips except for this: good book proposals should probably be pitched so that they make a compelling case for the project not just to specialists, but also to editors who aren't specialists themselves. It is, after all, an acquisitions editor who in the first instance will decide whether to move forward with a proposal (e.g., request a draft manuscript or chapters to send to reviewers), and in turn, an entire editorial committee at a press who will decide whether to offer a contract.

So, I guess my one big tip would be this: try to write the proposal in a "down to earth" way that is likely to make the project make sense and be of interest to specialists and non-specialists alike. Another more basic tip would be: look on the websites of various presses how they want book proposals to be structured. Some of them even have templates they'd like you to download and follow, so if you put together and send in a proposal without following their procedure, that might be a bad initial look!

Anyway, these are just a few of my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from book authors, as well as from editors and reviewers!

Publicizing a new book?

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

I just published my first book! I would very much appreciate advice on what authors can and should do to publicize a new book. I know that my publisher will do some marketing on their end (send the book to journals for review, etc.) but is there anything more I can do on my end to increase the readership?

Good question! Aside from sharing it on social media, ensuring that journals get sent copies for book reviews, and trying to get journal symposia and the like, I'm not sure.

Do any readers have any helpful tips?

When to publish a book, and why?

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

How do folks know when they have a project that's best suited for a book format, and not, say, a series of articles? And is it risky to write a book before tenure?

Fair questions, and I'm curious to hear what readers think!

I suspect that how risky it is to write a book before tenure depends a lot on the kind of institution one is at, as different departments and universities can have very different tenure standards. At a university like mine, it is not risky at all; all things being equal, publishing a book is a clear benefit. But, at R1's where one is expected publish X number of articles in top journals for tenure? That might be another story. And obviously, how helpful a book is for tenure at such an institution may depend greatly on the prestige of the publisher.

In terms of how to determine whether a project is better-suited for a book or series of articles, I don't know if there's any good formula for deciding. However, as an author of two books, my main test has been how 'self-contained' each chapter/paper is. For example, in my first book, the first chapter defends a particular method for doing moral philosophy, and the rest of the book then aims to show how fruitful that method is. So, in part, the reader is asked to judge the method itself (Chapter 1) in virtue of the latter 7 chapters--and, in turn, the plausibility of the argument in each individual latter chapter depends in part on the other chapters. Broadly the same is true of my second book, which tells a single coherent story. Given that (as their author) I wanted readers to consider each book's chapters as an integrated whole, and given that publishing them as a series of journal articles would have spread them out in different places (and probably taken many more years to do), it seemed to me to better advance my goals as their author to publish them as a book.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

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.

The inside scoop on open access book publishing?

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

Do any readers have an inside scoop on how open access monograph publishing works? Every once in a while, a book from a university press like OUP is published Open Access. Nick Shea's (2018) Representation in Cognitive Science is one example. I assume that in such cases, the author gets a grant from somewhere to pay the press a fee to make the book open access. How much are such fees? And are there particular places to go looking for that kind of funding? I know there are also recent efforts to create all-OA monograph publishing venues (in philosophy of science, there's the new BSPS Open). What other such ventures are out there?

Good questions. I seem to recall hearing that in some places (particular parts of Europe?), people are expected (required?) to publish their research open-access. Is this right? I'm not entire sure how much it costs to publish an academic book open-access (though I seem to recall it definitely being on the order of several thousand dollars), but my sense is that people who publish open-access stuff tend to have dedicated research budgets that they can use to pay for it. Am I right about this? And what about all-OA monograph publishing venues? Here, I know very little.

It would be great to hear from readers who are in the know. Anyone have the inside scoop on this stuff? It would be great to hear some details!

Publishing a translation in grad school?

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

I work in medieval philosophy. My original training was as a classicist and I love doing translations of philosophical texts. I'm an early PhD, currently teaching fulltime but unassociated with an academic institution, with only only one publication. Both that publication and my dissertation are on the texts I want to translate for publication.

Given my CV, do I have a shot at successfully pitching a translation to a publisher, or should I wait until I've published more?

Is there a chance that a journal could be interested in publishing an article-length translation?

(I'm aware that starting a book/translation project may be a less efficient use of my time than writing articles. That's an important consideration but not what I'm asking about at the moment.)

Fair questions, and I have no idea what the answers are, as I don't work in historical areas or on translations. Anyone who does have any helpful insights to share?

Getting books reviewed & book review opportunities?

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

I have a question about book reviews. I am a junior assistant professor, and I plan to complete/publish a book project before getting tenured.

I have seen that books in my field (from the same press) that were published around the same time get very different number of reviews. Some of them are reviewed by 6-8 scholars, whereas others are reviewed by only 2-3 people. I am wondering about this discrepancy: how can a junior person make sure that their book is going to receive a larger number of reviews and attention?

I have seen that other junior people write book reviews. Are people invited to write book reviews, or could they just send their book reviews to journals? Do people try to connect to others, perhaps more senior scholars, by writing book reviews?

I would like to know your reasons for writing book reviews/declining requests for book reviews and suggestions about how junior people should proceed with regard to book reviews. Thanks a lot!

These are all good questions. I'm not sure how journals decide which books to review (I suspect it probably has to do with expected reader interest in the book). However, my sense is that the best thing a junior author can probably do to get reviews is to simply reach out to book review editors to see if they are interested in being sent a copy.

Usually, authors are given a bunch of free copies by their publisher, so if a journal expresses interest in doing a review, this can be a good way to get them a copy (N.B., I've heard that publishers are making it more difficult for journals to get print review copies, so this strategy may be especially helpful nowadays).

In terms of writing book reviews, my sense is that most journals do it by invite, and that many journals don't accept unsolicited reviews. However, some places, such as Philosophy in Review, accept unsolicited requests to review books. It might be good to hear from readers in the know which journals do this.

In any case, what do you all think? Authors: what are the best ways to get your books reviewed? And editors: what are the best ways for someone interested in writing a book review to get invited to write a review?

Tips for reviewing book proposals?

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

I have recently received my first invitation to review a book proposal, and was wondering what are the main things to consider as a referee. Should I go about in a similar way I would review a journal article, or should I be stricter with regard to originality, potential impact, or other aspects?

This is an excellent question, and I'm really curious to hear what readers think. My (admittedly anecdotal) sense is that the reviewing standards for book proposals are quite different than for journal articles. Because it's normally taken for granted that an author of a book manuscript will have ample time to revise the manuscript prior after receiving a contract (prior to a final "clearance review" of the final manuscript prior to publication), the job of a book proposal reviewer isn't to decide whether the book is publishable as-is. It is to give the editors a recommendation as to whether the book seems promising enough to either (A) place a full draft of the manuscript under review, or (B) offer a contract...

Publishing in a book series?

A reader writes in:

I have a question that seems to not have been asked before, and for which it is hard to get good advice...Here it is:

For your first monograph, is a series 'less prestigious' than a standalone publication with the same publisher?

I've had my book under review with a publisher for a while now. A few days ago, I got notice that the second reviewer just never got back to the editor anymore, did not answer emails anymore etc. So now the editor decided to instead send the manuscript to the editors of a series with the same publisher (without asking me first). I did not expect that change of course.

Spontaneously, I think I'd rather send my manuscript to a different publisher, than to have it 'relegated' to a series. But am I overreacting? In my training, I was told to be careful in choosing the publisher of my book (it's my first book). The prestige of the publisher can make quite a difference for an early career researcher, they said. And I did not wait so long with publishing my book just to have it part of a series, is my thought.

What do you think, am I right in assuming that a series is 'less prestigious' than a standalone publication with the same publisher?

And: Is that even legitimate what the editor does - or would I have a right that he looks for a new second reviewer for the original plan to have the book published as a standalone publication? He kind of seemed to imply 'either series or not at all', but I'm not sure whether he'd really stick to that if I pushed on that. It's not my fault the second reviewer was a no-show.

These are excellent questions, and to be honest, I'm not sure what the answers to most of them are. I certainly don't think I would think less of a book published in a series, but then again, my viewpoint may not be very representative and maybe it depends on the press and series? In terms of whether what the editor did was legitimate, it does seem a bit odd to me for the editor not to have asked first whether you'd be willing to publish in the series, etc. But I guess my basic thought is this: if it is an otherwise good press, why care? As the common saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I'd prefer to know that my book is coming out with a good press rather than turn them down and risk a worse outcome with other presses. And honestly, at the end of the day, isn't it the quality of your work that really matters? Then again, this may just reflect my own values and tolerance for risk. 

What do you all think?

Writing a book: what do you wish you'd known?

On Twitter, Alexandra Gustafson (PhD candidate, Toronto) asks:

What do you wish you knew before you wrote your first book?

This is a great question, and I definitely have thoughts that I'll share down in the comments section. But I'm really curious to hear from other book authors!

Monograph-writing resources?

In our February "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

As someone writing my first research monograph, I would love to know about any good online sources of advice--like, tips on writing a good introduction, things like that. I have found so much good teaching-related material online, but I'm not sure where to look for writing-related guidance (ideally, philosophy-specific). Help!

Excellent question! I've written a couple of books, and could always offer some suggestions--but it looks like this reader is not looking so much for advice here as they are looking for resources online on writing a monograph/original-research book. Anyone know of any good resources like that? If not, and if you have written a monograph, do you have any tips you think the OP might find helpful?

Publishing a book after leaving academia?

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

I have a question about book publishing. I am two and a half years post-PhD and have transitioned to non-academic full-time work after poor luck on the job market. I still find myself wanting to continue publishing work in academic philosophy, beyond journal articles. Would any decent book publisher (e.g. Routledge, Palgrave, Wiley, university presses) take seriously a proposal for a scholarly monograph from someone now entirely outside academia, assuming a completed manuscript was submitted?

This is a good question, and I don't know the answer. Any readers out there have any helpful insights?

Getting permission to reuse material?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I've published a few related papers and some are still under review. I want to write a book where I want to reuse some textual material from these papers. I presume I have to ask for permission to do it. Whom to ask? The journal editor, the publisher? What is the extent of the material that can be reused? One sentence, one paragraph, several pages...? How to deal with papers that are under review? I know that authors address this in the acknowledgement section of their books. But exact rules are not clear to me. Can anyone help?

These are excellent questions, especially given that one could get oneself into a difficult position by going about things the wrong way. One reader submitted the following response to the OP:

Read the publication agreements you signed. For many of the big publishers (Springer, for example), you have the right to include the material in a monograph (a single author book). All you have to do is acknowledge where it was published, says, Phil Studies, and thank the publisher for the right to include material (in whole or in part) in your acknowledgement in the book. Done!

However, in my experience things aren't quite as simple as this. Let me explain.

When (and how) to try to publish a dissertation?

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

For those who want to try and publish their dissertation as a monograph: what is the best time to start getting in touch with publishers? Once the thesis is starting to take shape, or when it is more or less finished/submitted, or only after the dissertation has passed the defence?

On the one hand, it seems that earlier = better, if only because the same time can otherwise be spent trying to publish individual chapters. On the other hand, the defence itself might provide valuable feedback, and publishers might not want to take a gamble on a dissertation that has not even passed yet!

Relatedly, suppose one plans to revise their dissertation to become more like a monograph, rather than a dissertation (i.e. include a gentler introduction, but leave out long literature reviews): should one do this *before* submitting the manuscript to a publisher, or is it fine to submit the dissertation 'as is' but with a (detailed) note in what ways one intends to change things? (I am thinking here of the initial 'proposal' stage, not the later 'review' stage, for which it seems sensible to submit an as-final-as-possible version).

These are excellent questions, and I am curious to hear what readers think. Here are a few quick thoughts...

Article(s) or book manuscript: how to choose?

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

I am wondering when one should start considering changing a long paper manuscript into a book project.

I am a junior faculty member working in a traditional area of analytic philosophy. Publishing a book is something that had never occurred to me. Recently, I am working on two interrelated papers, each of which becomes longer than what most journals recommend. While I know that the recommended length is not a requirement, I started considering whether it would be a good idea to develop a book project that includes these two papers (and more, of course). I know that some people's books were developed from paper manuscripts, so I am curious to hear others' suggestions, especially things that I should consider in order to make the decision.

This is an excellent question, and I am curious what readers think. My general experience is that many people advocate 'thinking strategically' here. For example, I have heard many people say things like, 'As a junior person, you should try to publish some of the papers on the project in well-ranked journals, so as to test the waters and develop a reputation as a researcher. Then, if all goes well, try to publish a book.' I certainly understand this kind of strategic thinking, but I also think that there are limitations to it. Allow me to explain.

Editorial services for book manuscripts?

A reader writes in:

Do Cocoon readers have recommendations of people who provide editorial services for book-length philosophy manuscripts? I’m looking for someone to help polish up a manuscript over the summer. As a native English speaker, the ideal editor would be a really strong writer (and substantive knowledge in moral philosophy is a plus). Perhaps there is someone with a Ph.D. in philosophy who decided to pursue editing as a primary career or side gig. Self-recommendations are welcome too!

I don't have any experience with outside editing help, so unfortunately there's not much that I can say to be helpful here. But what about you? Do you know of any good people or services for editing book manuscripts in philosophy? Feel free to give recommendations, or even (as the OP suggests) recommend yourself!

Thoughts on short books?

In our August "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

What do people think about SpringerBriefs or Palgrave Pivot? It feels a bit of dirty back-scratching to me: the author gets to call an extended article a book, and the publisher gets to charge book price for it. But happy to change my first impression!

Another reader then responded:

I know at least one SpringBrief that is a thoughtful and well regarded book (and it is not my own ;)). So I think they do serve a purpose. In fact, I think a number of the major publishers are getting into producing smaller books (under 60,000 words). When I published with an academic press, I was explicitly told that the manuscript should be 90,000 words (the idea was it should not be shorter than 90,000). I think the academy is shifting a bit.

Here's my response: I think it is a good thing that publishers are increasingly publishing shorter book series like these. Let me explain why.

Listing one's dissertation committee on the CV?

In our June "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

Should junior TT faculty, who are trying to do things such as get another TT job or secure a book contract with a good academic press, list their dissertation committee members on their CV?

Karen Kelsky advises against it because by her lights it makes one seem much more like a junior scholar or maybe even a graduate student.

But, on the other hand, both search committees and academic press suffer from prestige bias. So, one might think that if one's dissertation committee is very famous, one should include them on one's CV.

Interesting question! I would have thought the obvious answer here is, "Yes", for basically the prestige-related reasons (if you have particularly well-known committee members listed on the first page, that could catch someone's eye). But Kelsky's reasoning sort of makes sense as well, and I've heard similar things from others in the profession (i.e. you want to 'look like an equal' rather than someone who sees themselves still as a 'junior' scholar).

Any readers in the know have any thoughts on this?

Tips for creating an book index?

On Twitter, MB Willard (Weber State) writes: "Is there a good How To Create an Index for Dummies guide out there?" Ah, indexes, the worst part of the book production process! I don't know of any good 'how to guides for dummies' here, but I will say that I found Palgrave's guide helpful when finishing my first book. I'll also say that I think one can make one's index one's own, as it were. Just figure out which terms you think readers are likely to want to look up, and which play an important role in the book, and go from there. My own experience is that it is pretty much that simple. It's just time-consuming!

But these are just my not-super-helpful thoughts. Any book indexers out there have any better tips or guides to recommend?

Tips for suggesting referees for a book?

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

Do you have any advice or do readers have any advice about how to select referees or readers for a book manuscript when initially submitting it for peer review? Should everyone I suggest be an expert in the particular thinker that the book is about?

I'll be curious to hear what readers think. I've published two books, and when I put my book proposals together (which normally ask for a short list of suggested reviewers), I don't think I gave this very much thought. To the best of my recollection, I just suggested referees who (A) specialize in the book's areas, and who (B) I thought would probably be receptive to the book's project given their research interests. The only thing I guess I would advise is to not suggest your friends. I think it's fine if you suggest a person who you've met at a conference here or there who has been receptive to your work, but suggesting someone simply because they're your friend (and so, potentially inclined to give a good review for personal reasons) seems unethical to me.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

My New Book on the Connection between Environmental Impact and the Ethics of Procreation

Back in February (which seems like it was 2-3 years ago with all that's happened since then), I wrote about the process of writing a book based on some of the central ideas in my dissertation. Well, that book is actually published now, so if you were curious about the output of all that work, here's the official Routledge page for the book. I've also posted an image of the flyer that Routledge sent me to help promote the book that includes a 20% discount code as well as the blurb and some other information. Frankly, even with the discount code, the hardback edition is pretty expensive and probably something that you recommend to your university library rather than buying for yourself. If you're a book review editor for a journal and want to request a review copy, you can do so here.

If you've got questions about the book's content or the process of writing it, drop a comment down below.

How to Publish a Book in Philosophy (Part I)

Eric Schwitzgebel (UC Riverside) has started a great new series on how to publish a philosophy book over at The Splintered Mind. A very informative guide!

Tips for publishing books for a general readership?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Ross Campbell writes:

I wish to write a book on philosophy but I'm not sure what topic would be a good one to get it published. I want to write a book about philosophy in a broad sense covering a range of different fields within the subject. Also it's a popular work aimed at the general reader. The title I have in mind is "Why Philosophy Matters: Asking the Big Questions". Does anyone know if this sounds like a good theme or not. I welcome your comments.

This is a pretty odd query. I doubt the world needs another "Why Philosophy Matters/Big Questions" book, or how receptive good presses would be to a proposal like that, unless it's from a very well-established person in the field. But, in any case, the reader's comment reminds me of some questions I've had myself about publishing popular books. In a recent guest-post, Emily Thomas (Durham) gave a few helpful tips on publishing books of this sort. But I'd like to hear more. For example, Thomas is an Associate Professor. In general, does one need to be at a more advanced stage of one's career for publishers to be receptive to proposal for popular books? When I was invited to meet with a couple of presses early in my career, the representatives told me outright that they were looking for a specialized research book from me, not a book for a general audience. Could this be because while research books sell to university libraries, books for a general readership don't--thus making it crucial (from the press's perspective) for the book to be written by established name likely to generate sales?

Also, what kinds of proposals do presses take seriously for popular books? I'm just curious to hear more from people who have published popular philosophy books (or tried to) how things work. Many thanks in advance to anyone who chimes in!

Neurofunctional Prudence & Morality (new book)

I am excited to report that my new book, Neurofunctional Prudence and Morality: A Philosophical Theory, is now available from Routledge ($70 hardback, $12.50+ ebook). Anyone interested can preview the book’s introduction and part of Chapter 1 here at Google Books. Interested readers can also download a pre-published draft of Chapter 2 (‘Outline of a Theory of Prudence’) here, and read Chapter 3 open access (‘Derivation of Morality from Prudence’) here.

Overview: This book outlines a unified theory of prudence and morality that merges a wide variety of findings in behavioral neuroscience with philosophically sophisticated normative theorizing. Chapter 1 lays out the emerging behavioral neuroscience of prudence and morality. Chapter 2 then outlines a new theory of prudence as fairness to oneself across time. Chapter 3 then derives a revised version of my 2016 moral theory--Rightness as Fairness--from this theory of prudence, showing how the theory of prudence defends Rightness as Fairness against various critiques and unifies prudence, morality, and justice. Chapter 4 then argues that this theory explains a variety of normative philosophical and empirical neuroscientific phenomena better than alternatives. Chapter 5 responds to potential objections and explores future research avenues.

Chapter Abstracts

Introduction: Philosophers have long theorized about the relationship between morality and prudential self-interest. Many argue that moral actions are always or usually prudent, and that morality may even be reducible to prudence. However, others argue that moral actions are not necessarily prudent, or that prudence and morality involve fundamentally different types of normative reasons. This chapter outlines how these disagreements reveal the limitations of traditional philosophical methods. It then provides an overview of the new approach this book defends. It explains how this book combines traditional philosophical methods with behavioral neuroscience and scientific principles of theory selection to defend a new unified theory of prudence and morality. It also outlines how the book’s theory is simultaneously normative and descriptive, providing an account of how prudent and moral agents ought to act, along with testable predictions regarding how prudential and moral cognition actually function. Finally, it explains how this book’s theory refines and defends my earlier theory of morality, Rightness as Fairness, from a variety of objections in the literature.

Chapter 1 - Outline of the Behavioral Neuroscience of Prudence and Morality: This chapter outlines the emerging behavioral neuroscience of prudence and morality, explaining how the findings raise normative and descriptive explanatory questions. It begins by detailing how prudential and moral cognition involve mental time-travel (the capacity to imaginatively simulate different possible pasts and futures), other-perspective-taking (the capacity to imaginatively simulate other people’s perspectives), and risk-aversion. It then discusses 17 distinct regions of the human brain’s default mode network (DMN)—a region involved in daydreaming, mind-wandering, thinking about oneself and others, remembering the past, and imagining the future—that have been implicated in moral judgment and sensitivity across a wide variety of tasks. It also outlines how stimulation and inhibition of particular DMN regions and capacities, including the temporoparietal junction, have been found to have bidirectional effects on prudential and moral cognition and performance. Finally, it suggests the findings outlined raise normative questions about why particular brain regions and capacities should be involved in prudential and moral cognition, and descriptive questions about how they are involved in both forms of cognition, and how the findings summarized appear to cohere poorly with some dominant views in moral philosophy.

Chapter 2 - Outline of a Theory of Prudence: This chapter outlines a new normative theory of prudence and descriptive psychological theory of prudential cognition. It begins from the common premise in the literature that prudence is normatively a matter of acting in ways that have the greatest-expected aggregate lifetime utility. It then contends that because life as a whole is profoundly uncertain, prudence requires acting on principles that are rational from a standpoint of radical diachronic uncertainty—from what Donald Bruckner calls a ‘Prudential Original Position’, a model similar to John Rawls’s famous original position, but where an individual agent is situated behind a veil of ignorance applied to their own life. Following Bruckner, I assume that minimax regret—the principle of acting in ways that minimize the maximum amount of regret an action might result in—is the most rational principle in the Prudential Original Position, and that this principle converges with maximizing expected aggregate lifetime utility the more an agent cares about the past and future. The chapter then constructs a detailed theory of how Bruckner’s account coheres with and appears supported by a specific form of ‘moral risk-aversion’ that prudent people typically engage in and progressively internalize across childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.

Chapter 3 - Derivation of Morality from Prudence: This chapter derives and refines a novel normative moral theory and descriptive theory of moral psychology—Rightness as Fairness—from the theory of prudence defended in Chapter 2. It briefly summarizes Chapter 2’s finding that prudent agents typically internalize ‘moral risk-aversion’. It then outlines how this prudential psychology leads prudent agents to want to know how to act in ways they will not regret in morally salient cases, as well as to regard moral actions as the only types of actions that satisfy this prudential interest. It then uses these findings to defend a new derivation of my (2016) theory of morality, Rightness as Fairness, showing how the derivation successfully defends Rightness as Fairness against a variety of objections. The chapter also details how this book’s theory helps to substantiate the claim that Rightness as Fairness unifies a variety of competing moral frameworks: deontology, consequentialism, contractualism, and virtue ethics. Finally, the chapter shows how Chapter 2’s theory of prudence entails some revisions to Rightness as Fairness, including the adoption of a series of Rawlsian original positions to settle moral and social-political issues under ideal and nonideal circumstances—thus entailing a unified normative and descriptive psychological framework for prudence, morality, and justice.

Chapter 4 - A Unified Neurofunctional Theory of Prudence and Morality?: This chapter utilizes seven principles of theory selection to compare the theory of prudence and morality advanced in this book to alternatives. It first argues that there are two possible ways that a theory of prudence and morality may explain relevant target phenomena: (1) as a normative teleofunctional explanation of why particular phenomena found in behavioral neuroscience should be the case and (2) as a descriptive functional explanation of how prudential and moral psychology actually function. It then argues that in order to evaluate how successful a theory is in both respects, theories of prudence and morality should be judged according to seven principles of theory selection adapted from the sciences, including principles of internal and external coherence, explanatory power, unity, parsimony, fruitfulness, and ‘firm observational foundations’. Finally, it outlines how this book’s unified theory of prudence and morality—Prudence and Morality as Fairness to Oneself and Others—appears to satisfy all seven principles of theory selection more successfully than other existing normative moral theories and descriptive theories of moral psychology.

Chapter 5 - Replies to Potential Concerns, and Avenues for Future Research: This chapter responds to potential concerns about this book's theory of prudence and morality. It first addresses the concern that the theory is overly speculative, arguing that the theory is normatively and descriptively promising and thus worthy of further philosophical and empirical examination. Next, it responds to the concern that the theory commits the naturalistic fallacy and violates the ‘is-ought gap’, arguing that the theory commits neither error. It then addresses the concern that there may be counterexamples to this book’s theory of prudence: individuals who appear to live in prudentially successful ways while not appearing to have internalized the form of ‘moral-risk aversion’ that Chapters 2 and 3 argued serve as the foundation for normative moral philosophy and descriptive moral psychology. The chapter argues that it is ultimately an empirical question whether such counterexamples are genuine and, by extension, whether there really are individuals to whom morality does not normatively apply—implications the chapter argues for taking seriously. Finally, it addresses the concern that my theory is at most a theory of how morality is prudent, not a theory of morality per se.

Figures below are from Chapter 3 (open-access), pp. 86 and 88:

Turning Your Dissertation into a Book

A while back, Marcus addressed a question from Big Dawg about how to turn one’s dissertation into a book. I finished a project similar to that during the last semester, so I can provide some timely input on the subject. I’ll start with a short summary of how I got the book contract, and then I’ll say a bit about how to approach a project of this sort.

Background

I got my book contract in a somewhat unusual way. When I was midway through graduate school, my dissertation advisor published an environmental ethics textbook with Routledge. Sometime afterward, Routledge sent him an email asking him to provide some feedback on their editorial process and his experience. Evidently, one of the survey questions was about in-progress work in the field of environmental ethics that he thought might be of interest to the editors who work on their series of books in environmental studies. One of the things he mentioned was that I was working on a dissertation at the intersection of the ethics of procreation and environmental ethics.

Months after this happened, I was contacted by one of the editors from Routledge asking about my dissertation. That was in Summer 2015, and I was only getting started on the project. Even so, I sent her a copy of my prospectus and promised to follow up with her when things were further along. Down the road, after the dissertation was finished, I made good on that promise, and she requested to see some chapters. So I provided them. A while later, I was invited to submit a formal proposal for review. The proposal was essentially a 4000-5000 word pitch for the project. Beyond providing a summary of my main arguments and a sketch of the book’s layout, I needed to explain how it compared to similar books and who the audience for the book would be.

Turning dissertations into books

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Big Dawg writes:

I would sincerely appreciate if you could create a thread that seeks advice on the general topic of turning a dissertation into a book. I understand there is already a series on "book publishing" but this is obviously a different scenario.

I am looking for the following advice:

Where does one begin?

What is the best way to think about how to do this?

Is there any advice from someone who has done it themselves and what they would recommend?

Are there specific things one can do to make this process easier?

I realize advice may vary depending upon the specifics of the dissertation itself but any general advice would be much appreciate.

**Please note: I am not looking for advice on whether to do this. I have a book contract.

As I don't have any experience turning a dissertation into a book, I don't have much advice to give here beyond the following two things.

Book contracts and the market

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Anon writes:

To search committee members: how does receiving a book contract from a mid-tier press look to potential search committee members?

How should one go about listing this on their CV?

'Press' then responded:

Book contracts are not that impressive - in part, because they are not binding on the press, and they are often based on work not yet done. You say mid-tier ... that is hard to image which press. Can you be more specific: Springer, Chicago, Cornell, MIT? If you are dipping lower still, it really cannot count for much.

For what it is worth, Press's comment does not cohere at all well my experience on the market or my experience hiring at a liberal arts university. Here are my thoughts.

Palgrave books 90+% off

This is just a quick note that Palgrave MacMillan is holding a cyber sale (sale code CYBER19PA) though December 3rd, selling books that normally go for $109 for only $9.99. You can apparently order as many books as you want under the sale price. So this is not only a chance to check out philosophy books you might have avoided buying before for pricing reasons. It's also a chance to support your colleagues in the profession, giving their books a read and perhaps considering them for future courses you teach. Anyway, I plan to take advantage of the sale myself, and want to encourage any authors of Palgrave books who read this blog to post their book titles and links to their Palgrave page below! Here's my first book's page, for anyone who might be interested.

Tips for editing books

In our September "how can we help you?" thread, Anonymous writes:

I’d love a post for both those editing books, special issues of journals, etc. and for those who get asked to contribute about what kind of information should be communicated to contributors and/or what questions contributors should get answered before they commit. I’ve seen wildly different levels of information communicated. Some initial thoughts of things that should be communicated before commitment: word count, what kind of review process will happen (I.e. will it be peer reviewed? Will the editor just look at it? Does it need to be blinded? If it is for a journal special issue, is the review process the same as the standard review process?), how much editorial advice one should expect to get, what the expected publication date is (though of course take this with a major grain of salt), an abstract or infgormation about the theme (as opposed to e.g. just a title for the collection), what kinds of subfields contributors will be drawn from, etc.

I've never edited a book myself, but I have contributed to edited volumes as an author and am curious what people think. What are authors owed in terms of up-front communication? One thing that I think may be relevant is an expected timeframe for publication. I've heard a few horror stories about people who contributed papers to volumes only to be left hanging for many years without any clear picture of if or when the volume would actually come out. Another thing I think may be relevant is whether the volume will be reviewed after publication. I know of cases of edited volumes that have come out (in some cases we very good presses) that, for one reason or another, never received a single review, either in a journal, NDPR, etc. I can imagine it being very frustrating to put hard work into a piece, only to see the book get no attention at all. How much control / responsibility do volume editors have for this? I don't know - but it does seem to me to be something that authors should be informed about heading in (if possible, of course).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? What should a good book editor communicate to contributors, and at what stage?

Getting contracts for edited volumes?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, junior anon writes:

The blog has talked extensively about how to write and achieve a contract for a monograph. I wanted to know what the process is like for getting a contract for a volume. How does one start the process? Presumably one cannot have all the papers ready beforehand. Does one simply pitch the idea to a press (e.g. Cambridge), and depending on your expertise in the field they may bite? Does one have an introduction ready?

I'm probably not the best person to ask here, as I've only had papers in edited volumes, never proposed one. However, my experience as a contributor has given me a little bit of insight into the process. My sense is that individuals proposing an edited volume need at least three things:

1. A compelling introduction/overview of the proposed volume.
2. A list of contributors, including some established, well-known researchers.
3. A complete compilation of paper titles and abstracts from each contributor.

Then, of course, one has to put together a full proposal, based on the proposal forms that presses typically have on their websites (which require proposals to specify an intended audience, competing works, and many other things). Does this sound about right to people? It would be great to hear from people who have actually secured contracts for and published edited volumes. What does one need to do in order to put together and submit a good proposal?

Query on book presses

In the comment thread on our recent post on seeking book contracts, Anon wrote:

In this thread there have been a few mentions of press rankings - well regarded, less well regarded, potentially a scam, etc.

I myself have much less of a sense of this than I do for journal rankings - would anyone be willing to share a rough list, in the sense of, "This wouldn't be a bad place to publish a book"?

In response, 'A book author' wrote:

Look at your own book collection in philosophy, and look at the most common presses. Those are the ones you should aim to publish with.
OR
look at the books you referred to in your dissertation, and look who published them. Do a count. Aim to publish with the two or three most common cited publishers.

As I wrote in a follow-up, I disagree. Over the years, Leiter has run a few polls on book presses (in English). I don't know a few of the presses listed in those polls (Continuum or Ashgate), but otherwise all of the presses listed in those polls strike me as decent presses to publish with. Obviously, publishing in the top 3 presses is ideal--at least in terms of getting one's book read and engaged with (and prestige, if one is concerned with that). However, many good books have been published over the years at other presses, and I've seen more than a few authors "work their way up" from lower-ranked presses to higher-ranked ones. 

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours, especially those of you who have published books?

On Seeking Book Contracts

In this post, I wanted to talk about two different ways to go about seeking a contract for a monograph.

In the first way, one drafts an entire manuscript, polishes it, then writes up a book proposal and sends it out to publishers. If publishers are interested, they can request the full manuscript to send out to referees. If the referees are impressed, the publisher may offer a contract to the author. After the author revises the manuscript in light of referee comments, the book will likely go out for a final clearance review before publication.

In the second way, one writes up a book proposal with, perhaps, only a few chapters completed. The proposals, together with the sample chapters, are sent out to publishers, who decide whether to offer a contract on the basis of the proposal, rather than on the basis of a completed manuscript. As far as I know, most or all major academic publishers still require a clearance review of the final manuscript before publication.

Books: how short is too short?

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

How short is too short for a book? To make it more concrete, I have a book idea, and am thinking it'd end up being around 50,000 words. I know that's quite short for a philosophy book, but short books are always better! Moreover, I can say what I want to say in that many words. (Why not do journal articles? I have. I'd like to do an elaborated defense of some things I've written on, as well as bring in new, related material.) Should I consider adding more material to make it longer, or should I try to swing it as a short book?

There were some very good replies to Anon's concept, such as this one by Harry:

Some publishers want book manuscripts of very specific lengths, say 90,000 to 110,000 words. So such publishers will generally not be interested in a short book. But there are now series devoted to short books, like Springerbriefs, published by Springer, of course. Some of the books in the collection are quite good. If you were already an accomplished author, then many publishers would publish whatever Bullshit you have (I hope this joke is not lost everyone).

Amanda's comment is also helpful: "Routledge has a series for short books. Some other publishers too. So you can make it work. You just have to find the right spot...". As someone who has written two books--a long one and also (presently in progress) a shorter one--allow me to add a few additional thoughts.

Outside readers for a book manuscript?

I am happy to report that I recently signed a contract for my second book, Neurofunctional Prudence and Morality: A Philosophical Theory. If there are any readers out there who specialize in areas the book focuses on who might be interested in confidentially reading and providing feedback on revised chapter drafts, I could really use some help!

Here is a short description of the project:

Philosophers across many traditions have long theorized about the relationship between prudence and morality. Few clear answers have emerged, however, in large part because of the inherently speculative nature of traditional philosophical methods. This book aims to forge a bold new path forward, outlining a theory of prudence and morality that unifies a wide variety of findings in neuroscience with philosophically sophisticated normative theorizing.

The author summarizes the emerging behavioral neuroscience of prudence and morality, showing how human moral and prudential cognition and motivation are known to involve over a dozen brain regions and capacities. He then outlines a detailed normative philosophical theory of prudence and morality based on neuroscience and lived human experience. The result demonstrates how this theory coheres with and explains the behavioral neuroscience, showing how each brain region and capacity interacts to give rise to normatively prudent and moral behavior. The theory also resolves normative and descriptive critiques of the author's first book, Rightness as Fairness: A Moral and Political Theory.

I am especially in need of readers who specialize in decision-theory (particularly risk and uncertainty) and philosophy of science (specifically, the nature of explanation and theory evaluation). I could also probably use some readers who focus on moral psychology (motivation, emotion, and cognition) and meta-ethics (particularly normativity, reasons, and categorical reasons).

Query on junior scholars writing books

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Amanda writes:

So what are everyone's thoughts on writing a book as a Junior (non-tenured) scholar, particularly when you are not from somewhere fancy? So here are some things I have either seen or heard:

• If you do write a book, even if it is very good and published with a very good press, or even the top press, it is likely to be ignored.
• If you are searching for research jobs, then *maybe* a book with Oxford, Cambridge, or Routledge might help, but other presses likely not. And even with the aforementioned presses great articles are probably better.
• For tenure at a research place, books with the above presses can help but you better have had great article publications as well.
• For teaching schools books are more competitive with articles? Maybe? I am really less sure on this.

Good questions - I'll be curious to hear what readers think! Here are a few of my thoughts.

Reader query on book proposal workflow issues

In the comments section of our most recent "How can we help you?" post, a reader writes:

I am joining a philosophy and religious studies department this Fall as a new TT faculty member. I have been told that the norm for tenure in this department is to write a book. I happen to have a book project in mind, based on my dissertation, so this works out great. However, I am not sure exactly what my work flow ought to be as I am putting the book proposal together. Up to this point, I have been fairly successful in my work flow for publishing articles: write papers --> conference those papers --> get feedback from colleagues --> submit to journals --> revise and resubmit --> publication. I am not quite sure, however, what my work flow is supposed to be like with the book proposal. Should I still be conferencing while working on the proposal? If so, what should I be conferencing? Chapters? Ideas for chapters? Should I still be sending articles that could/will be chapters to journals for publication? Should I just start working on the book proposal directly? Focusing lots of my time/energy there? Or should I be working on the book proposal and these conference/journal-sized papers simultaneously? Do I need to be building my CV up in certain ways to be appealing to publishers? etc.

I've seen some very helpful advice (here and elsewhere) on how to move forward *once you have the book proposal more or less done.* My question here is about how to get to the book proposal. For the past two years, I've followed a routine/work plan designed to put out journal articles. Now I'm wondering how that routine/work plan needs to change to put out the book proposal.

Really good questions! I will be curious to hear what others think, but here are some thoughts based on my experience writing a book:

Before I turn to the reader's main questions about "workflow", here are a few quick thoughts on proposals themselves. I do know a few people who published books based on their dissertation (so it's certainly possible!). However, I have also heard that publishers generally don't like to publish revised dissertations. Why? I'm not exactly sure--but when I was approaching publishers (and even after getting a contract), it was made clear to me that publishers wanted the book to be as original as possible, not using material that had already been published. Since dissertations are already "published", and most people publish material from their dissertations in journal articles, book publishers may worry that too much of the book being proposed is already out there and available (indeed, I was even forbidden by one publisher from sending out material from the book for review as a standalone article!). Consequently, in putting together the actual proposal, I would advise this reader to try to distance the proposal as much as possible from the dissertation. But perhaps I am wrong about this? What do other people who have published books think?

Let me now turn to the reader's workflow questions:

Should authors respond to book reviews?

I came across Pea Soup's NDPR Discussion Series today, which features authors responding to book reviews, and am curious what readers think: should authors respond to book reviews? If so, when? If not, why not?

As an author of a relatively new book myself, I confess to feeling a bit torn here. On the one hand, I very much appreciate why authors might want to respond to reviews, particularly if they are invited to do so or if they have philosophical concerns about the content of a review, such as misrepresentations of their work. Further and more generally, as a philosopher I find myself attracted to the idea of scholarly debate and discussion: if a book is reviewed, it might be illuminating to see how the author responds. Finally, because academic books are expensive; because the reception of a book can make a difference to an author's career (including tenure and promotion decisions); and because books by early-career authors may only receive a handful of reviews (journals can be selective in which books they decide to review), there may be a pragmatic case to be made for responding to some reviews. I cannot help but be reminded here of R.M. Hare's brutal two-part review of Rawls' A Theory of Justice in The Philosophical Quarterly, which concludes:

In concluding this not very sympathetic notice, it must be said that a reviewer with more ample patience and leisure might possibly have done better for Rawls. I have taken a great deal of pains (and it really has been painful) trying to get hold of his ideas, but with the feeling all the time that they were slipping through my fingers...The book is extremely repetitious, and it is seldom clear whether the repetitions really are repetitions, or modifications of previously expressed views. I have drawn attention to some of these difficulties, and there are all too many others. Rawls is not to be blamed for failing to keep the whole of this huge book in his head at the same time (the only way to avoid inconsistencies when writing a book); and still less are his readers. He is to be blamed, if at all, for not attempting something more modest and doing it properly.

Many years ago [Rawls] wrote some extremely promising articles, containing in germ, though without clarity, a most valuable suggestion about the form and nature of moral thought. It might have been possible to work this idea out with concision and rigour (Rawls' disciple Mr Richards has made a tolerably good job of it in his book A Theory of Reasons for Action, which is much clearer than Rawls' own book as an exposition of this type of theory). If Rawls had limited himself to, say, 300 pages, and had resolved to get his main ideas straight and express them with absolute clarity, he could have made a valuable contribution to moral philosophy. 

Because reviews can be fair or unfair, charitable or uncharitable, etc., it is not hard to imagine philosophical or professional reasons why an author might want to respond to some reviews. And indeed, as a new author, I have given some thought to doing so myself.

At the same time, there seem to me to be pretty good countervailing reasons not to respond to reviews. First, there may be good pragmatic reasons not to: it might reflect poorly on the author (prejudicing other reviewers?); the author's time might simply be better spent publishing new work; and so on. Second, and perhaps more to the heart of the matter, my own feeling is that a published work can, should, and usually will ultimately speak for itself. After all, despite Hare's review, Rawls' book caught on. What Hare took to be serious errors in A Theory of Justice, generations of other philosophers took to be the foundations for research programmes. Similarly, as I'm sure we all know, Hume famously remarked that his Treatise "fell still-born from the press"--and, or so Wikipedia tells me of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, "Although now uniformly recognized as one of the greatest works in the history of philosophy, this Critique was largely ignored upon its initial publication...It received few reviews, and these granted it no significance." 

Now, of course, very few of us will be a Hume or Kant (I certainly don't pretend to be!). Still, my feeling is that the following principle may be the best perspective for authors to adopt: good work does not usually go unrecognized forever, bad work usually does not stand the test of time, and one must leave it to readers to decide for themselves. 

But these are just some of my current thoughts--and I am far from certain about them. What are yours? Should authors respond to book reviews? If so, when? If not, why not?

Experiences with copy-editors

By Axel Gelfert

It's been a while since I last wrote a post as part of the series 'Publishing as process', which I promised would discuss some of the mechanics of publishing. Sorry for the long hiatus -- in my defence, I was busy finishing a book and taking care of a newborn...

In my last post, I urged authors to proofread their books and papers properly; this usually requires several iterations -- it's amazing how one can read the same material over and over again and miss glaring typos (which is why it's important to budget enough time, so as to give oneself a break in-between). It helps, of course, if one can hire a research assistant (or get someone else to read one's manuscript as a favour); for both my books, I was lucky enough to be able to hire an undergraduate research assistant who did a stellar job spotting typos, highlighting possible ambiguities, and pointing out formatting issues.

Today, I'd like to continue in the same vein, but focus on interacting with copy editors. In my experience, the competence and professionalism of copy editors can vary drastically, even for the same journal. I've had my fair share of positive and negative experience. Some of the variation is due to publishers having outsourced production to companies overseas. Thus, my first book, A Critical Introduction to Testimony (published by Bloomsbury), was copy-edited very competently by an external company in India, and the most recent one, How to Do Science With Models: A Philosophical Primer (published by Springer) by a Springer subsidiary, also in India. (In the former case, I was able to get them to produce an additional -- third -- round of proofs, just to make sure that all my changes as well as the index were implemented correctly; in the latter case, I had to fight quite hard to get a very favourable endorsement by a senior scholar included on the inside cover -- the bigger the publisher, the more rigid their templates and production procedures seem to be!)

One recurring issue with journal publishing is the quick turnaround time: you wait for months to get the paper reviewed and accepted, and then an email arrives telling you to return the corrected proofs "within  48 hrs". As if this wasn't bad enough, it seems that some copy editors have a penchant for unilaterally making changes to the manuscript. Sometimes this may be due to technical issues. My recent book, in philosophy of science, contains a number of fairly complex mathematical formulas, and even though I had used a formula editor (and even had the source code in TeX), apparently these were typeset again separately, leading to some errors (which, luckily, I was able to catch at the proof stage). That much seems inevitable, given the complexity of typesetting software and the vagaries of word processors.

What seems less excusable are unilateral changes that are clearly intentional. I once received the proofs of a paper in which I had used the phrase "A nice example of this would be..." a couple of times. The copy editor had changed this to "A pleasing example of this..." which, correct me if I'm wrong, sounds a bit silly. In another case, I described a Gricean picture of communication, in which a speaker S (="she") tries to communicate a belief of hers to a hearer H (="he"). Using "he" and "she" in this way nicely helped to keep track of the different roles of the speaker and hearer. Unfortunately, in a misplaced attempt to be gender-neutral, the copy editor made changes that rendered the whole example unintelligible, by editing perfectly clear sentences into something like this: "The way in which H is intended to arrive at her/his belief that p is by taking S’s act of telling (for example, her/his perceptible utterance of certain sounds) as evidence of her/his intention to get H to believe that p, and subsequently to take her/his having that intention as evidence that S her/himself has the belief that p."

On yet another occasion, a copy editor with a penchant for etymology and differences between British and American English entered into a lengthy email exchange with me. While this was probably unnecessary, in the end I found it to be an informative exchange (especially for me as a non-native speaker/writer of English), and I was even a little touched by the detailed attention this person was giving my manuscript.

So, let's hear from readers about some of their best/worst experiences with copy editors!

Pre-order Rightness as Fairness!

I'm happy to report that my forthcoming book, Rightness as Fairness: A Moral and Political Theory, is now available here for pre-order on Amazon (in the UK? Go here). Seeing as the book description there isn't the best, if you'd like a better idea of what the book is about, see my research statement here. I'll also be adding a chapter-by-chapter overview on my website at some point (probably when the book is officially released). Although I realize the book is pricey ($95), I truly believe readers will find it a worthwhile purchase. (Note: Amazon will give you $30 off instantly if you sign up for their credit card. Though I'm not a fan of credit cards myself, I figured this might be worth mentioning, as $65 versus $95 is a pretty big difference!).

Publishing a book, part 5: the production process

In my previous post in this series, I examined some of unexpected difficulties one runs into after signing a book contract, at the revising stage: putting one's book into the publisher's 'house style' (which may involve learning an entirely new reference-style), keeping one's manuscript under one's contractual word-limit, selecting/commissioning a cover image, and the final "clearance review."

One final thing I forgot to mention are supplemental materials. One does not merely have to complete one's manuscript for the final clearance review. Along with it, I was surprised to learn that I had to submit (1) chapter abstracts for each chapter, (2) an author marketing form which requires you to put together a short book abstract, a slightly longer description for the book's back cover, a list of journals to send the book for reviews, and (3) a "permissions checklist" listing every quotation in the book, attesting whether the quotation is "fair use" or whether it requires copyright permission (which one has to secure for anything that does not fall under fair use). Although having to submit these other materials might not seem so bad, I found the entire process a bit like opening a new restaurant or musical play: no matter how well you plan ahead, it's a real scramble to get everything in line by one's deadline. 

In any case, after submitting the final manuscript, you might think the hard part is over. Unfortunately, or so I found the "fun" is just beginning. The production process--the stage of copy-editing, proofing, indexing, etc.--is far more intricate and time-consuming than with journal publishing. With journal articles, you basically just get sent your page proofs to check for errors. The production process for a book actually has three parts. Allow me to provide a summary of each, along with some of the challenges one runs into.

Publishing a book, part 4: after the contract

It's been a while since I've posted in my series on book publishing, but the closer I get to the end of the process, the more I'm reminded of just how different the process is from the journal publishing process--so I figured it might be a good idea to finally start completing the series. I hope readers find the series helpful.

My previous post in this series was on contracts: on what they involve, issues one should think about or negotiate prior to signing, and so on. Today's post will be on the "post-contract" stage: the stage during which one revises the manuscript for final submission, selects a cover image, etc. In some ways, I found this the most "normal"--or expected--stage of the process, as it mostly involves nuts-and-bolts type stuff (revising, formatting the manuscript, etc.). But still, as I will now explain, even these basic nuts-and-bolts issues can be more complex, and stressful, than one might naively expect.

House style

The first thing my publisher (Palgrave) sent me post-contract was a 28-page "house style" guide laying out their expectations about how the manuscript must be presented and formatted.

Cholbi's on attention books (do not) receive

In the comments section of my recent post, "Some questions about the book review process", Michael Cholbi writes,

A small point but something that's long bugged me: 'Important' books are often the target of review essays or symposia in journals in which the book authors get to respond to critics. But standard book reviews are the end of the discussion of that book -- the author has no voice with which to respond to the review. This seems to me an unjust way of augmenting the intellectual capital of those who typically already have plenty of it in our field.

As someone who has a book coming out soon, I couldn't help but find this comment worrisome. I expect that just about any author's biggest worries are (A) the book will be terribly received (i.e. receive bad reviews), or (B) it won't be received at all (i.e. no one will read or engage with it)--"falling still born from the press", as it were, to use David Hume's famous phrase about his own A Treatise of Human Nature (a book which, thank the gods, ended up ultimately receiving the attention it was well due). 

Anyway, these are of course the risks one runs as an author. One can only write the best book one can, and hope that it receives attention and is well-received (these are my own hopes as an author, at any rate!). Still, what interests me about Michael's comment is the question he raises as to whether our discipline does enough--as a professional discipline--to ensure that everyone is given a "fair shot" at their book receiving discussion. Michael seems to think not, suggesting that book symposia (in journals and/or conferences) should be more available to those with less "intellectual capital."

I'm curious what everyone thinks about this. Is Michael right? Are there not enough opportunities in our discipline for book authors--particularly "small time" authors not at top programs--to have their books engaged with and taken seriously? If so, what could/should be done (e.g. by journals, the APA, etc.) to improve/level the playing field? More book symposia at APA's? More freedom to organize book symposia at the APA? More room in journals for book symposia (particularly, let's say, in the new Journal of the APA)? I would be especially curious to see if there are any authors who are willing to chime in, either in favor of or against Michael's concerns.

I guess I'll close by saying that I don't think I have enough experience here to weigh in on one side or the other, but that I have a few friends in the discipline whose books have thus far seemed to enjoy a good amount of discussion. Still, these are only a few anecdotal examples. So, once again, I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks!

Publishing a book, part 3: contracts

I'm (finally) going to continue my series on book publishing by examining contracts. As with other parts of the book publishing process, there is a lot of stuff to think about that one may be unfamiliar with (I sure was!).

Receiving a contract-offer (or, better yet, multiple offers) is really exciting. But there are also a lot of things to think about. First and foremost, you need to decide whether you should accept the offer (and, if you have multiple offers, which one!). What should go into your decision? To some extent, this depends on your aims and academic position. If you are at an R1 (research) school or elite college--or have your sights on getting a job in one--I've heard you should really try to publish with a "top-ranked" press (for one of the only rankings of presses I've come across, see here). On the other hand, I've been told explicitly by people in positions of power (e.g. department chairs and administrators) that a book with any legitimate academic press is looked upon favorably (towards jobs and tenure) in other types of institutions...provided, presumably, the book is decent (though, for my part, I don't know how a book's reception by reviewers is looked at by tenure committees. Anyone know?).

Job Market Mentoring Project Website

This is just a quick note that the Cocoon's Job-Market Mentoring Project now has a permanent website available here. Readers will also note a permanent link to the website on the Cocoon's left sidebar. Thanks again to everyone who has signed up so far!

Publishing a book, part 2: proposals and manuscript review

In my first post in this series, I outlined the main steps of the book publishing process, beginning with book proposals all the way up through acceptance of the final manuscript and the production process. I decided to begin this series because, as you can see from the summary, the process is a whole lot more complex that you might think. Because so much of the process came as a surprise to me--and I was uncertain at many points of how to best proceed--I thought readers might find a series on the "ins and outs" of the book publishing process helpful. I hope it is!

In today's post, I am going to focus on the book proposal and manuscript-review parts of the process.

Publishing a book, part 1: Overview

A couple of months ago, in response to several readers queries, I started a series of posts on book publishing. However, because I was still relatively early in the book publishing process myself (rewriting my book manuscript, post-contract), I let the series languish. Now that I'm almost all the way through the process, I'd like to restart the series, focusing not so much on giving advice (though I might give a bit), but rather on simply summarizing the entire process from start to finish, drawing attention to its "ins and outs" (i.e. what to expect, what sorts of things might be worth thinking about at various stages, etc.). For the book publishing process is surprisingly complex, and very different in many ways than publishing an article. I personally had little advance idea of what it involves before I went through the process, and it has been a real eye-opening experience. I hope readers find the series helpful! 

So you want to publish a book, part 3: soliciting interest

I'd like to continue my series on book publishing (see here and here) by devoting this short post to the topic of soliciting interest in your manuscript. Basically, there are two ways to solicit interest:

1. Submitting a full book-proposal
2. Meeting an acquisitions editor in person at the APA

Given that I have a bit of experience with both, allow me to briefly share my experiences and the processes involved with each.

So you want to publish a book, Part 2: when should you seriously think about it?

I'd like to continue discussing the book publishing process (see my first post here) by saying a few things about one of the most common questions I have encountered: when should you think about publishing a book?

I have encountered a bunch of different answers to this question. On the one hand, I've heard some say that because you should aim to publish with a top press (OxfordUP, CUP, etc.) and top-presses tend to publish well-established people--people with a good publishing record in top-rate journals--you should wait until you're well-established. On the other hand, I've heard other people say that you should write a book whenever you think you have a really great book idea--an idea that would be best expressed over the course of an entire book, rather than a series of journal articles. And I've heard many things in between.

So you want to publish a book--Part 1: book proposals

In the comments section of my post on John Turri's (illuminating) self-report data on papers he's published, Sam Duncan asked, "Could you guys ever run a post on publishing a book here?" Sam also asked several questions about book proposals, namely:

1. Just what are the respectable presses in philosophy? (I know huge question and more than a little subjective too).
2. How much of the book should you have written before you even shop the proposal? 
3. How long do presses take to get back to you?
4. Is it acceptable to send out proposals to multiple presses at the same time? Is it a good idea? I know Leiter had a thread on this a while back and absolutely no one could agree. 
5. Is it a good idea to send informal emails asking about interest in the book before sending in a formal proposal? 

Given that I went through the book proposal process for the first time a couple of years ago, and have been going through the book writing, revising, and publishing process ever since, I'm really glad Sam asked! I'm going to put together a new series of posts on book publishing, and hope readers find them informative.

Here, then, are my answers to Sam's specific questions:

1. Just what are the respectable presses in philosophy?

As Roman Altshuler pointed out in response to Sam's comment, Brian Leiter put together a helpful poll ranking philosophy book publishers several years ago. By my lights, just about all of the presses listed in the top-20 are considered respectable in the field. I had to choose between pursuing the equivalent of a revise-and-resubmit with Routledge (#4) and a contract-offer by Palgrave (#13), for instance, and everyone I asked said they were both good presses.

Still, things are not so simple. The kind of press you should go with depends on a lot of things: your personal aims, employment situation, visibility in the discipline, etc. Allow me to explain.

First, if you are working at an R1 school, or are looking to get a job at one, then you should presumably shoot as high as possible (since it plausibly matters to tenure and promotion committees there). On the other hand, if you are not at an R1 school, then aiming for something lower might make sense.

Second, which type of press you should go with plausibly depends on your visibility in the discipline. It is hard for me to imagine someone wanting to go through the process of writing an entire book only to see no one buy or read it. As such, if you have very little visibility in the field, publishing in a lower-ranked press might be a big risk (you might write a book that no one reads--a big bummer!). Publishing in a top-ranked press might be necessary for your book to make any impact. On the other hand, if you are a visible presence in the discipline--if your work is widely cited, people know who you are, etc.--then publishing in a lower-ranked probably won't run the same risk. 

Finally, one thing I should probably also mention here is that I have heard (from a number of sources) that it can be very difficult to publish in a "top" press without an established reputation in the field as something of a research star. This is for one major reason. Book publishers are interested in sales and adding to/retaining their prestige. This is, among other things, why the book proposal and manuscript review processes are not anonymized (quite unlike peer-reviewed journals). Since books cost a lot to produce, publishing houses are looking for things that will sell--and a book by a "no name" is, unless it is absolutely extraordinary, unlikely to sell like a book from a "top name."

2. How much of the book should you have written before you even shop the proposal? 

I have gotten the same answers to this by everyone I've consulted. If you are not a well-established, visible figure in the field (someone with a bunch of well-cited publications), you basically need to have an entire book drafted. This is for a very simple reason. Publishers will be willing to offer contracts to established authors after a proposal and (perhaps) review of a sample chapter or two. Publishers will not offer a contract to a less well-established person until after they put your entire manuscript under review and get good (enough) reviews on it. Thus, publishers will not bother with a book proposal from an unestablished person unless you have a full-manuscript to send them for review if they like the proposal (note: it is standard in actual book proposals to note precisely how much of the book you have drafted).

This is, among other things, what makes publishing a book a rather harrowing experience for a person who is not that well-established in the field. You do, quite literally, have to write an entire book before you even approach publishers with a proposal. 

3. How long do presses take to get back to you?

There are two answers to this. The first time you approach a press, you typically send them a "query letter" (a cover letter telling them in a paragraph or two what your book is about) along with a "proposal." Many publishers have their own proposal form you need to fill out, though some do not--and for those who do not, I sent in a generic proposal in PDF (the contents of which I will talk about in a future post). In my experience, you tend to hear back on these initial queries really fast, in several weeks at most. Typically, your proposal will be rejected on the spot, or you will be invited sample chapters or (more likely) an entire manuscript for review. And this is the part that takes super long. I've heard presses taking well over a year to review a manuscript (yes, even rejections). Not only that. Many (but not all) presses will not review your manuscript while it is under review elsewhere--so basically, you can wait an entire year (or more) to hear that your manuscript has been rejected before you can even approach another publisher.

4. Is it acceptable to send out proposals to multiple presses at the same time? Is it a good idea? I know Leiter had a thread on this a while back and absolutely no one could agree. 

I struggled (as Sam did) to find good answers to this online, but actually in my experience it has a very straightforward answer: each publisher has their own policies. Some publishers will not consider a proposal under review elsewhere, others will. The important thing is to be communicate clearly with whomever you are dealing with. In your query letter, for instance, you might say, "My proposal is currently under review at other presses." In many cases, editors simply sent me an email telling me to try again later. In other cases, they were happy to look at the proposal even if it were under review elsewhere.

Things are very different, however, when it comes to the review process for entire book manuscripts. In my experience, most (but not all) presses will not permit you to have your entire manuscript under review elsewhere while they are reviewing it. There is one exception to this I encountered myself, and which you might ask about. Some publishers will allow you to have your manuscript reviewed at other presses if you confer to them a "right of first-refusal"--which is basically a binding agreement that you will publish the book with them if they accept it, even if another (possibly better) press wants to offer you a contract. The editor at Routledge offered me this, and I was very thankful, since I was able to have my entire manuscript reviewed by multiple places simultaneously (many other presses would not review the manuscript while it was under review with Routledge, but some did!). This sped up the entire book publishing process for me immeasurably. I placed the entire manuscript under review with several presses all at the same time, and a few months later I heard from all three of them at roughly the same time. 

5. Is it a good idea to send informal emails asking about interest in the book before sending in a formal proposal? 

This one also has a straightforward answer. Typically, book publishers have a webpage telling you precisely what they want you to do!