Publishing an Academic Edited Volume Pt. 1: Publishers and Proposals

Since the release of The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Monsters, I’ve had a number of people ask about the process of publishing a book like this. What does it look like to publish an academic edited volume? How does the process get started? What does it mean to edit this kind of book?

This is the fourth volume I’ve co-edited; the process has been a little different with each one. But for all of them, it starts with an idea: what is the volume going to be about? What kind of essays are going to be included? Once I have an initial idea, I write up a 1-2 paragraph summary of what I think the book will look like, and start thinking about which companies publish books like this. If you’ve read enough in your field, you’ll have an idea of who is publishing what – and that will really help with approaching editors.

If you’re trying to publish a volume with a popular (trade) press, you’ll probably need an agent. These publishing houses are tough to get into, they receive tons of submissions, and even if you happen to find the right person to get your manuscript to, it’s unlikely it will receive any serious attention. But academic publishing is different. If you’re a specialist in your academic field (with a PhD, or other credentials that demonstrate this), editors at academic publishers will be happy to talk with you. You can usually find their contact information just by looking at the company’s website – they’re also frequently hanging out at the publisher’s table at major academic conferences, looking to meet potential authors. So make the connection with someone, and ask if your idea might be interesting.

Once you’ve passed this hurdle, the acquisitions editor will usually direct you to a proposal template that their particular publisher uses. At this stage, you’ll be moving from your rough 1-2 paragraph description to something more detailed and formal. It will also be significantly longer; a proposal for an edited volume might run 5-10 pages, or more.

These forms vary from publisher to publisher, but there are a few things they’ll all want to see:

1)    Your description of the book’s contents;

2)    An overview of the book’s target audience;

3)    Potential for classroom adoption;

4)    A survey of the field – what other books have been published that are similar? Why is this book needed?

5)    Technical details, like the proposed length, when you expect to submit the final manuscript, and things like that.

6)    Some publishers want to see a list of proposed chapters and authors. For Oxford, my co-editor and I had to create a list of 30 chapters, with an author attached to each. Only about half of the authors ended up being part of the final volume; the others weren’t able to fit it into their schedule, so we had to find replacements. But this still let Oxford know that we knew the field well enough to have ideas for who would write which chapter in the proposed book.

For some publishers, the proposal itself goes through peer review; for others, the acquisitions editor simply signs off, and peer review is held off until the manuscript is completed. Occasionally, publishers will try to say that the volume’s editors can serve as peer reviewers, so no outside review is necessary. I’d recommend pushing back on that; it’s always good to get the opinion of someone from outside the project.

Lastly, the timing of the contract can vary. Some publishers want to approve the general project, then wait until authors have been lined up to finalize the contract for the book. Others move forward after the proposal.

For those in academia who might be considering publishing your first edited volume, I hope this is helpful! For others, I hope it’s an interesting window into what can seem like a mysterious process from the outside.