Thread by @carsonaust

How to publish a first academic book? The “diss to book” transition can be daunting. I’ve collected some of my experience w the process inspired by @pstanpolitics's post. (FYI this targets first-time authors in polisci/social sciences) THREAD

https://twitter.com/pstanpolitics/status/1134215218706493446

*Approaching editor*
Early step is getting the book project on the radar screen of editors. Editors at univ presses typically manage a portfolio of disciplines (“politics”; “history”; “economics”). Editors decide whether to review a ms, identify reviewers, and manage the process

Tip 1: get editor names & emails by talking with recently published authors. Target, say, three presses/editors. Get the dirt: is an editor hands-on or -off? Do they have substantive expertise in anything? Are they responsive to emails? Is the author happy w/ experience?e

Tip 2: cold email editors to meet at big disciplinary conferences. Agree with @pstanpolitics here: don’t feel like you need a "hook-up” or pedigree. My impression is they get lots of direct inquiries. Let your work speak for itself. Ask if available for a half hour mtg

Tip 3: don’t wait until a full ms is ready. Even a proposal may be optional. A published article related to the book + a short synopsis in the email with a table of contents may be enough to catch interest and get a mtg. If they need more, they will ask

*Book proposal*
A ~5 page synopsis of the book. Key elements include: summary of argument, brief lit review, empirical approach w/ core findings, implications / why it matters, and “market.” Include table of contents with chapter names

Tip 1: get exemplars. Email some first-time authors who have published in the last 5 years and ask if they are willing to share a draft of their book proposal. As with all academic work, there is a loose template. Identify it and mimic it (see @pstanpolitics for an example)

Tip 2: think twice re: "why important." First-time authors reflexively start w their contributions to the field. But editors also ask: Is this topic broadly interesting? Does it speak to current controversies? Appeals to other disciplines? To practioners/policy community?

*Book workshop*
A one-day workshop on book is increasingly common in political science. Not necessary but worth thinking about doing. Timing can vary: some do one before approaching editors, some do it after initial approach

Tip 1: view the book workshop as both substantive and political. Optimizing invitees for substance may miss out on opportunities to help build out your roster of supportive external letter writers for tenure. As always, talk widely to those who have gone before to get tips

Tip 2: plan to suggest external participants as book reviewers after submitting. Book workshops get new folks invested in a project. You get a chance to gauge enthusiasm. Rather than disqualifying, editors may welcome them as reviewers. Best case: they review it *and* blurb it!

*Simultaneous vs. exclusive submission*
Authors can submit their ms to one or several univ presses for review. This is an important strategic choice with substantive and timing implications. Most presses are open to either, though some may insist on exclusive

Tip 1: don’t worry about offending editors w simultaneous. Most will view it as normal course of business. If they don’t, they will ask for exclusive. I thought simultaneous was disloyal or something so did not do it with my first book. Still worked out but that was dumb!

Tip 2: simultaneous has advantages: leverage to ask for things like a larger word count if several interested; many more reviews of the book ms which can help inform revisions; speeds up the process so that if your top choice takes a pass you already have a second reviewing it

*What happens after submitting?*
This seems to vary a bit but based on my experience: Editor identifies reviewers w author input. Reviews come back. Author drafts memo with planned revisions. Editor decides whether to move forward. If yes, solicits board for approval. Contract.

One wrinkle: does a revised ms go back to reviewer(s) before contract? My sense: if reviews are all strongly positive, editor may not send back. If one or more review is more mild, editor may send back to hear reaction and get an updated & stronger review before going to board

*Article vs. book*
“What about articles that overlap with the book?” This is tricky and my own understanding of this is incomplete. Some thoughts though:

1: It seems very common to have one article in print while the book is under consideration. Editors may see this as an asset, showing audience and that the basic ideas have been vetted. For me, I’m 100% sure having a top journal article version helped the first book

2: More than one article can get dicey. At this point I think some/many editors worry that other academics will just read the articles rather than buy the book. A clear story for how the book’s scope is different / larger will be key, and asking editor about it can help

3: Publishing articles directly based on book material after book is out can be tricky. I've had personal experience with this. An article I really like had to either be re-written to explicitly differentiate and build on book, or fail to get published. Was not the best outcome

*Don't be dogmatic*
Be open to input. Editors may favor backing a book ms if they see you value their input. Includes content, framing, and title/cover. You def want a clear vision for the book in meetings; in proposal. But clearly signaling openness to advice can be useful

My caveats: some obvious privilege moments in the above that should be acknowledged (i.e. not all have $ for a book workshop). And all of this is tinged by my two experiences with book ms’s, one of which is still ongoing. And its polisci/IR biased. But hopefully helpful! END