Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

Advice about Submitting Manuscripts to Publishers

Brian Leiter

A philosopher writes:

I noticed that an old thread about editorial practices of philosophy journals (delay, etc.) is generating new interests. I was wondering if you would consider creating a similar thread on editorial practices of philosophy book publishers. I am a young philosopher who recently sent a manuscript to an important press and who is curious about how things normally proceed. Are missed deadlines, emails that are not answered, etc. the norm in this domain? What is the usual amount of time it takes for a manuscript to be reviewed? Is sending the same manuscript to many publishers a big no-no?

Another philosopher writes:

A friend phoned me a bit earlier today to ask advice about correct practice in submitting book manuscripts/proposals to publishers.  I don’t know if you think it appropriate to open this question on your blog or if you have time to give a personal reply, but if you can do either it would be greatly appreciated.  I’m not really sure what the expected behaviour is here for dealing with book publishers.

My friend works in cognitive science/philosophy of mind/philosophy of language/ linguistics.  He recently submitted a manuscript to a publisher, a publisher where he would like to be considered in good standing whether or not they publish his book.  He wanted to know if he could reasonably send the manuscript to other publishers while the first publisher goes through its review process.

I had two thoughts in response to this.

1.  As far as I know although it is clear that refereed journals have a strict expectation that an article will not be submitted to more than one journal at the same time, I am not aware of any similar expectation with regard to book manuscripts or proposals.

2.  It seems to me to be a bad idea to annoy a good publisher by telling them that one has agreed to publish a book with another publisher while the book was still under review at the original publisher.

I’m not sure which consideration should have more weight, or if there are other considerations I am overlooking.

Comments are open; I will try to weigh in myself when I have a chance.  My experience here is somewhat limited, because I have never had occasion to do "cold" submissions to presses, as opposed to solicited ones.  But I’ve heard various anecdotes, but it would probably be more useful for those with first-hand experience to offer their perspective.  Since I know a number of philosophy editors at major presses read this blog, I encourage them to comment as well about their expectations and procedures!

Leave a Reply to David Chalmers Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

26 responses to “Advice about Submitting Manuscripts to Publishers”

  1. Rob Tempio, Editor, Princeton University Press

    I think it varies depending on the editor and it is important to find that out before subimitting to multiple presses. Take the time to check a press's website as they sometimes will explicitly say so in their submission guidelines or ask them when you drop by the booth at a conference. Personally, I do not shy away from multiple submissions if it is a project I am very interested in and which I think is right for our list. However, it is EXTREMELY important that you be above board about this and tell all publishers who have agreed to review the manuscript that it is under review with another press. You needn't tell them which one(s), but you should tell them that it is. Also, once a press has agreed to review it, you owe it to them to wait until the outcome of that process has been determined (as long as it hasn't taken an unreasonably long time, say 6 months or longer), even if the other publisher has already reached a decision. Finding reviewers, sending them materials, assessing their reviews, and getting internal editorial board approval is a big part of what we do and it is a time consuming effort. Oftentimes, this is precisely why editors don't accept multiple submissions. They don't want to expend effort on a book that they may not potentially get. What is perfectly fine to do is to send out multiple letters about your project asking publishers if they might be interested in such a book. This is not a submission, but merely a gauge of a potential publisher's interest. But, once a press has contacted you, expressed interest, and agreed to review it and if they have not asked for an exclusive on your project, you must tell them that of any additional presses that express interest and would like to review it. Of course, the "musts" in the above are merely conventional etiquette, but flouting them might effect consideration of future projects down the line.

    Reply
  2. Kate Ahl, Associate Editor, Routledge

    I would agree with Rob's comment above. It's important to let a publisher know if you are sending your project to multiple presses.

    The length of time it takes for a project to be reviewed depends on a number of things, including the time of year, the type of book that is being proposed, whether it's intended for inclusion in a series, and how specialised the subject matter of the book is. Allow 3 months. If the process feels like it is taking a long time, feel free to contact the editor to whom you've sent it. They may appreciate suggestions for more reviewers.

    There are also some very basic things that will help speed the process along. Always address the philosophy editor at the company to whom you're submitting your work by name (call the receptionist to find this out if it's not on the website), as emails sent to general email inboxes can take a long time to be delivered and don't always end up in the right place. The same is true for hard copies. Always ask the editor to acknowledge receipt if you haven't heard from them after you've submitted your proposal.

    You may also find that you can cut down on some multiple submissions by thoroughly researching the publishers you're considering. Look at what publishers have published in the past year, and look at areas where their list appears to be growing, in order to get an idea of whether your book will fit.

    Best of luck!

    Reply
  3. Alan Thomas

    I think I am on the publishers side on this one. So much of what we do is based on mutual reciprocity: no-one enjoys refereeing papers very much, except for the odd paper that is very rewarding to read, but if each of us announces we are too busy to do this none of us will get a paper published. The system is clearly already starting to break down somewhat as the demands on time become more intense. But agreeing to review a book manuscript properly is a very time consuming commitment, much more so than reviewing a paper; the idea of this effort being duplicated on the same ms by different philosophers so that people can shop around the publishers more freely does look like a misplaced direction of effort. If, as Rob Tempio asks, you flag up that this is what you are doing I guess the reviewer can be asked for a less intensive review. But, clearly, if this becomes the general practice that loses something important: a book I published was greatly improved by no less than two sets of comments from an ideally committed reviewer. I would be sorry to see that level of engagement become impracticable. Behind these enquiries I think I hear the loud ticking sound of the North American tenure clock; I don't think its demands should re-shape general practice so widely. If publishers promise to get you an answer in six months, isn't that a reasonable time to wait before trying the next publisher?

    Reply
  4. Mark van Roojen

    Alan, I'm not sure I get the upshot of your comment here. I guess I think that what's appropriate in this regard depends on the existing conventions in the field. Both of the publishers who have responded seem to indicate that they are comfortable with multiple submissions so long as people are honest about it. That is also my understanding of the current conventions and I believe they have been that way for a long time. (My judgement here is based on what other people who have published books have told me about their own practices.) I'm not saying that one *should* submit to more than one press at a time, but that it is permissible to do so seems to be what the current conventions indicate. I don't think that any existing practice is being reshaped by tenure clocks or anything else.

    I do think there are real worries about using people's time to referee wisely. It is always open to argue that the existing conventions ought to be changed. In that regard it may be worth asking if the relative lack of complaint against book publishers about the timeliness and quality of book refereeing reflects the fact that there is some incentive to get it done quickly because of the possibility of competition. I don't have any idea myself whether this is true, nor do I know how who would be in a position to judge. Another theory might be that because publishers tend to reward referees with books as payment, referees are more easily shamed into finishing in a timely fashion. Or I might just be wrong in thinking that there are fewer complaints about book publishers than about journals. But if book refereeing is not an obviously broken, I would be hesitant to advocate major changes in the current conventions regarding multiple submissions.

    Reply
  5. Simon Kirchin

    In case it is of interest, philos-l has just had a recent discussion on just this topic.

    November's posts are here:

    http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0711&L=philos-l

    (no. 193)

    and December's posts are here:

    http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0712&L=philos-l

    (no. 50).

    Best wishes,

    Reply
  6. Doug Portmore

    I wonder if it might be in the author's interest to submit to only one publisher at a time, or at least not to submit to all suitable publishers simultaneously. There could be, unbeknownst to the author, some serious problems with the manuscript. If so, it would be better to find out about it before blowing one's shot with every suitable publisher.

    Reply
  7. Michael Rosen

    I would be furious if I found that I was reading a manuscript and the author had sent it at the same time to another publisher.

    Reading a manuscript for a publisher is time-consuming, difficult, often dispiriting (no one likes having to say negative things) and very poorly recompensed. Those of us who do it do so because we think we owe it to the profession. The idea that some other poor schmuck is doing the same thing at the same time on the same manuscript is hard to bear.

    (And a quick note to Rob and Kate. If you think that this sort of thing is OK, don't ask me to do any reading for you, please.)

    Reply
  8. Rbb Tempio, Princeton University Press

    Let me clarify just a bit. Again, it does depend on the editor's personal preferences (as you can see from the above) whether or not they accept multiple submissions and these preferences may not apply to every project. There may be a project they have an extra-ordinary interest in, it may be a book by an author they have long sought, or it is a project they think would be an especially good fit for their list. One or more of these three usually apply when I am willing to review a project that is under review at another press.

    I don't think whether a manuscript is being reviewed by multiple presses or not should have an impact on a reviewers decision to review it. Certainly reviewers feel a professional responsibility and/or obligation to take on the time consuming task of reading manuscripts for a press for the sake of maintaining the scholarly standards of their fields. But, reviewers also read projects because they are interested in the topic or the author's work and this gives them a leg up on seeing some of the latest work in that area or by that person and to offer some constructive suggestion (or, in the worst case, to prevent someone from making some egregious errors, including publishing this manuscript in its present form). It's their choice whether or not this is something they want to spend their time doing, irrespective of how many other people have read it (which is a minimum of two people, and sometimes three for one manuscript for one press). Also, I've heard from authors who clearly benefited from two sets of reviewers (all of which offered a different set of constructive criticisms). Small consolation for the press who didn't get the book (I know. It's happened to me. A risk I was willing to take), but I am certain the manuscript was the better for it.

    As for the process being less intensive because of an accelerated decision making schedule. That is a danger, but I have often found that reviewers spend as much time as they think necessary whether I ask them for their report in six weeks or three months. I recently competed on a project in which I asked reviewers to have me their comments in a little over a month on a rather long manuscript (I had heard about the project a little late in the game, but it was a highly desirable one for our Classics list). One reviewer took approx. two weeks to read it and comment on it, the other took the full time alloted and both reviews were excellent and caught many of the same problems. The manuscript will be much improved if the author makes good on their willingness to heed the many suggestions those reviewers offered. The process worked.

    Reply
  9. Ben Hale

    I was once asked by two different publishers to review the same manuscript proposal. I thought this was strange at the time, so I alerted the editors. They didn't seem to have a problem with it. I assume it's common practice.

    At first I felt that I was going to cancel out my own review. What struck after a while was the extent to which all parties — authors, editors, and reviewers — are involved in the project of finding a good fit. Given that this appears to be the case, I don't think it's so bad to allow multiple submissions, for any of the three parties, even if each reviewer spends a long time on the manuscript.

    Reply
  10. Jonathan Cohen

    I asked around a bit on the issue of multiple press submission recently (when deciding where to submit a book manuscript of my own) and found that most editors I talked to were in principle open to the possibility of multiple submission so long as the author made it clear that this is what he or she was doing. Their view seemed to be that, after looking over the ms, they would be in a position to judge how much they wanted the ms, and to weigh the risks of considering it and then not getting it. Assuming forthright behavior all around, I think this is a reasonable stance for them to take.

    At the same time, I was struck with the extent to which acquisitions editors seemed concerned about whether a proposed ms would fit into this or that series at their presses. While I understand the importance of the question whether a new ms fits with the existing list of a press taken as a whole, I am much less sure why it matters to fit a new ms into a series. Speaking as a consumer of philosophical books, the issue of the series under which something is published has been pretty invisible to me (at least until these recent conversations with acquisitions editors made me aware of it). I suppose a book that fits into a series edited by someone famous/impressive *might* be presumed to come with some kind of weak endorsement from the famous/impressive figure. But I wouldn't think that most prospective readers decide to buy/read such books on the basis of such endorsements — especially if other readers are, as I was until recently, largely oblivious to the matter. And if they did, I would think that blurbs and direct word of mouth endorsements carried a lot more weight — partly because they'll provide much more information about the good-making features of the book at issue, and partly because I take it there are lots of explanations for the book's being published in the series without being endorsed (or endorsed strongly) by the series editor.

    As I say, I am surprised that it seems to mattered so much to acquisitions editors whether a new ms would fit into existing series. I would have predicted that their level of interest in acquiring something would just be independent of this question. Perhaps, however, I'm projecting my own reading and buying strategies onto others; so I'd be interested to hear from others on this topic.

    Reply
  11. Kate Ahl

    I think all editors are aware of the demands we make on people's time when asking for reviews, and we try to be as respectful as possible. That's one of the reasons that many presses go to contract on the basis of a proposal and a sample chapter, and have the full manuscript read by carefully selected readers only when they've committed to publishing it.

    While there is undoubtedly more shopping-around of proposals than of manuscripts, a 10-20 page prospectus requires far less of a time committment from reviewers, and the benefits of getting feedback in the early stages of a project, before the structure and approach have been set in stone, are huge.

    Reply
  12. Kate Ahl

    Re: series

    You're right that inclusion or not in a series won't always matter much to the reader. In many cases, series are a way of selling the book to people other than the person who ultimately reads it; to booksellers, sales reps and marketers within a publishing company.

    For series that are well represented in major bookshops and sell to general readers as well as academics, publishing books that don't fit (and thus don't fly off the shelves) can damage the series's reputation. The benefit of publishing a book in a series like this is that it can increase the exposure a book gets: bookshops will trust the series, and require less persuading to order it than they would for a standalone book.

    Scholarly series are often shaped by their series editors, who have a lot of say in what will fit and why. And some series have briefs that can seem restrictive because the series was created to meet the requirements of one particular group of readers, and a book that doesn't hit the mark won't benefit as much from targeted series marketing and might do better being published as a standalone.

    Series do also give an indication of an overall list strategy. If a publisher can't find a way to make a book fit one or another series, and is reluctant to publish it as a standalone, it may mean that the book is not of a text type that the publisher is able to publish to the book's best advantage.

    Reply
  13. Brian

    As a contributor to one series (Routledge Philosophy Guidebooks) and the editor of another (The Routledge Philosophers), let me add a word about series:

    1. I gave my Nietzsche book to the series edited by Tim Crane and Jo Wolff for Routledge because (a) I respected them as philosophers, (b) they had commissioned good authors for the series already, (c) the series was extremely well-distributed, and (d) all books were published simultaneously in paperback as well as hardcover, and priced to be affordable.

    2. I was partly motivated to undertake editorship of The Routledge Philosophers series based on what I had learned about Routledge from my participation in the Guidebook Series. In particular, Routledge does an outstanding job placing books in its series at the major book retailers (e.g., Waterstone's in the UK, Borders and Barnes & Noble in the US).

    Reply
  14. Alan Thomas

    My comments were premised on a fair deal from the publishers end, i.e. a timely review process with worthwhile feedback at the end of it, successful or not. And we are talking about reviewing manuscripts, not proposals. It is a very time consuming commitment; maybe you will review something in your area that it is a pleasure to read, but sometimes you will review a lot of work by an author on a misconceived project where the onus is on you to justify your verdict that it is misconceived. Obviously editors use their judgement, but they do use referees and when you send an ms to a publisher for a review you know two colleagues in the profession will be putting a lot of time into it. Send it to two places simultaneously and that's four – where you know the work of two will be wasted. At a time when we are all very hard pressed it does seem to me that is a factor to be kept in mind. People are paid to review an ms but not enough to cover the time involved and there is a strong element of "pro bono". My speculations as to tenure was an attempt to identify which of us cannot wait six months before trying somewhere else – it does not seem an excessive time to me, but then, as it say, it involves the assumption that a publisher can promise that turnaround time. Doug has given a very good practical reason why it might also be in a person's interest to approach publishers serially and not in parallell!

    Reply
  15. Anonymous

    I don't think an author should submit a whole manuscript at the start, even if one already exists. Submit a detailed prospectus, including a chapter-by-chapter summary. Editors will be more receptive to a proposal if referees readily agree to read it. Referees will more readily agree to read a prospectus than to read an entire manuscript of unknown quality. You might not get a contract without a review of the whole manuscript, but you might get the editor invested in it. Authors with time to spare should not send the entire manuscript to several publishers at once, for as Portmore notes, one can learn something from a rejection (though it may not be what the referee wanted to teach). Be aware that nowadays book publishers do not reliably send out formal rejections. Often they just never get around to making a decision. Sometimes one needs to do some pestering just to get them to acknowledge receipt. So one needs to know when to take a hint and move on. I know this both from my own experience and from that of friends.

    Reply
  16. Steve Mc Kay

    Anonymous (6:33 pm) wrote that "Often they just never get around to making a decision. Sometimes one needs to do some pestering just to get them to acknowledge receipt. So one needs to know when to take a hint and move on." I hope serious academic publishers don't work this way. When you are in the business of book publishing, you should acknowledge receipt and send formal rejection. In this day and age, email makes these tasks easy. Young academics depend on publishers to kick start or establish their career ("job marketability", tenure, etc.), but academic publishers also depend on us for content, reviewing… and as customers for the wares. Formal receipt and rejection is a minimum…really.

    Reply
  17. Anonymous

    Sorry, Steve, but serious academic publishers do operate in this way. I am thinking of specific cases, some more egregious than others, involving three different publishers who would be on anyone's list of the top five publishers in philosophy. In some of these cases I was the author, in one I was a referee, and in one I was just somebody who somebody turned to for advice since the press in question had published one of my books. (Whenever I read a story or see a movie in which someone gets a rejection letter from a publisher, I think, "How quaint!") The other, possibly redeeming side of this story is that, in my experience, both first- and second-hand, when a proposal is taken seriously, the reviews one receives are substantial, helpful and numerous.

    Reply
  18. Steven Hales

    Here's a little anecdote germane to the issue of multiple submissions. My last book I submitted to a major top-5 university press which will remain anonymous. I didn't send it anywhere else. Over a year later, Anonymous U.P. sent me four lengthy reviewers comments, and asked for a revise-and-resubmit. No promise of a contract. So I did substantial revisions and addressed all the referees' points sentence-by-sentence. I resubmit. Meanwhile, the editor at Anonymous U.P. has changed and doesn't know me from Adam. Six months or so later I get two new referees' reports– they sent the ms to completely new referees. Again they want a revise and resubmit. At this point, nearly two years have gone by, the press has gotten comments from six different refs, some of whom were very positive, had me do major revisions once, and still can't give me a decision. So I bailed and went to another publisher (MIT) who gave me a yes within six months. I regret not multiple-submitting right from the start.

    Reply
  19. Jonathan Cohen

    Thanks, Kate and Brian, for the useful points about why fit with a series might matter to a publisher. It strikes me as some of these points might as usefully be asked about publisher as about series (e.g., are the other authors published in the series or in the same area at the same press ones the new ms author respects and wants to be in the company of? does the press effectively market its books — in series or not — to major book retailers?). But I take the point that consideration of the series might be a useful way of getting more fine-grained answers to some of the questions that matter to prospective authors, especially if presses have blanket policies for a whole series about distribution, paperbacks, and so on.

    Reply
  20. Daniel Restrepo

    Is it possible that those in the know about publishing a manuscript could return to offering some advice on how this process works rather than bemoaning or defending the practice of dealing with multiple publishers with the same manuscript. This was a promising conversation until it turned that way and I think there are many things those of us yet unpublished can learn from those who have published or work for publishers.

    Reply
  21. Tony

    Hi, I'm currently going through the process for the first time myself, and so have been speaking to people about this. So I'll offer my impressions based on what I've been told.

    Perhaps the most notable thing was that Oxford-UK, at least in Law, state explicitly that they usually expect a "right of first refusal" on manuscripts scubmitted to them. This perhaps reflects the strong dominance of Oxford in Law in the U.K., rather than a general policy. However, it is perhaps notable that they don't say they expect exclusive submission, but only a right of first refusal.

    Beyond that, my impression from the advice I've gotten is to do things in two stages. If there are one or two presses with whom you really want to publish, then give them sole access to the manuscript. Then you don't have to worry about alienating them. Once you've been rejected by them, then feel free to multiple submit, being open with the publisher that you are doing so. If you get rejected by a publisher because they don't like multiple submissions, then it's not that big a deal since you weren't that interested anyway – and it is compensated by the compressed schedule you get from multiple submissions.

    One thing I would emphasise though, not just as someone putting together a proposal, but also as someone who has reviewed a couple of proposals, is that you should make sure you pay a lot of attention to the proposal. Don't just throw together a couple of paragraphs with vague statements about your book. I've seen proposals like that, as well as proposals that went into great detail about the subject, listing each chapter and describing the contents and argument of the chapters, listing other books covering the same sort of subject (preferably by the press to which you are submitting), and so on.

    Obviously the longer type of propsal gives a far greater impression that the author really knows what he/she is talking about – so is far more interesting as a proposal.

    Of course, publishers and reviewers have limited time, so my advice as someone who has reviewed, and the advice I've been given, is to combine the approaches. That is, give a short, general abstract of your proposal at the beginning. But then also supply the longer, more comprehensive details. That way someone busy can just look at the shorter abstract, but they can also see that the more detailed information is available.

    Ultimately, after all, you are trying to convince the publisher/reviewer not just that you have a good idea for a book, but that you personally are capabale of doing a good job of it. Established people may not need to prove their abilities, but those of us at the early stages of our careers do.

    Naturally, if anyone disagrees, I'd be happy to hear.

    Reply
  22. David Chalmers

    As editor of a book series with Oxford University Press (US), my sense is that at least with this press, there is somewhat less openness to multiple submission of manuscripts than some of the comments above suggest. In my experience, it is reasonably common for a book proposal to be multiply submitted and nevertheless reviewed, but it is very rare for a full manuscript to be multiply submitted and reviewed. The press puts a lot of time and resources into such a review, and is usually unwilling to do this unless they know it's likely that the book will be theirs if they want it. The only exceptions are usually authors who are coming up for tenure, and perhaps manuscripts by very well-known authors (though these are most commonly accepted at proposal stage).

    I think this attitude on the part of publishers is a reasonable one. If there were not a presumption against multiple submission, then a rational author would submit to many publishers, both to maximize chances of acceptance and to maximize feedback. This would soon lead to a breakdown of an already strained review system.

    Multiple submissions of book proposals are a somewhat different matter, as the initial review process for these is so much easier. But even here, multiple submission makes review somewhat less likely. And in my experience, it is rare for a book proposal for a monograph by a junior author to be reviewed at all. For such a book (as opposed to edited collections, and monographs by established authors) the press prefers to start with a full manuscript.

    Of course practices at other presses may be different. I think that for almost all presses, though, it is more or less a given that multiple submission must be disclosed.

    Reply
  23. Tony

    I should clarify something based on a point David makes, that junior authors may have trouble getting a book proposal considered at all. I should have explained that in my case the book will be an expansion of a considerable (80 pages) article already published – and the other successful proposal by a junior author I had in mind was similarly supported by several regular-sized publications on the topic of the book. So in both these cases while we are junior authors, without a full manuscript in hand, we are able to provide significant evidence of the nature of the final book. Publishers, in my experience thus far, seem quite content with that situation, rather than demanding a full manuscript. However, that may also simply be a matter of the specific publishers with whom I have communicated.

    Reply
  24. Tony Cole

    I'm also wondering to what extent "pedigree" and specialty play a role in the flexibility of publishers to consider proposals.

    For example, our department recently had a "meet and greet" visit from the Law editors of a major publisher, including an invitation to come by and discuss any book proposals with the relevant editor. It may be that this kind of thing is done at all departments regularly, but it would also not be surprising to me to find out that there is somewhat of an increased willingness of publishers to consider proposals (rather than finished manuscripts) from faculty at certain institutions. Much with many things in life, pedigree may matter, and it's perhaps not unreasonable of a publisher to consider that Assistant Professor X, having already shown enough potential to be hired by Famous Department Y, is a fairly safe bet for producing a worthwhile final product.

    The subject of the proposal might also matter. There is, after all, less of a chance of major sales of a metaphysics book, for example (or any technical philosophy book), than something with cross-over potential like political theory, social theory, etc. So perhaps publishers also set lower standards with respect to their willingness to take on projects in fields in which the potential rewards are greater.

    But I am, of course, just speculating, so will happily defer to anyone who has actual knowledge.

    Reply
  25. Fritz Warfield

    David Chalmers writes:

    "In my experience, it is reasonably common for a book proposal to be multiply submitted and nevertheless reviewed, but it is very rare for a full manuscript to be multiply submitted and reviewed. The press puts a lot of time and resources into such a review, and is usually unwilling to do this unless they know it's likely that the book will be theirs if they want it."

    Dave: can you or one of the press editors clarify in what sense the *press* puts a lot of time and resources into such a review? I do a lot of reviews for major publishers. The interaction involved is usually an email asking if I'll read either a proposal or a full manuscript and an offer of a modest honorarium, followed by files being forwarded for review (the savings on postage alone from a decade ago is tremendous). We as referees do put quite a bit of time into this activity. But in what way is the *press* putting in lots of time and/or resources *at the reviewing stage*? Maybe inflation has hit the honorarium market without my knowing it?

    Reply
  26. Carl

    I suspect many readers, like myself, haven't yet published books. I'm not sure what would go into a good book proposal since I've never read one. Would someone (author or publisher) be willing to post their proposal online for a book that's already in print? This would be a service since it would provide a model for new authors; it might also sell a few extra books, since people would want to compare it to the final version.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress