next »

[yellowtractor]

Often it's best to say nothing.  But if the book you mention is major in your field, and the methodological issues are apocalyptic, there would be nothing wrong with telling the acquiring editor at Target Press pretty much just what you've told us here:  explaining that your book has a major methodological conflict with Shiny New Book X, and that, depending on whom they choose to review your ms, this may be an issue.

This is what I would do, under the circumstances.  Sorry about Publisher 2.

Keep in mind that if you do say something to Target Press, editors there may ask you to address this conflict in your ms, regardless of who winds up reviewing it or what the reviewer(s) say.  You should be anticipating this demand.

[lorelei]

Just got review back from publisher, in the negative. I can see from the comments that the reviewer was on the other side of the disciplinary fence, I had hoped I might get 2 readers in order to get a fair shake but evidently not. The publisher doesn't want to consider it further. Is it even worth replying?

Feeling humiliated that people in the field have now read my sh!tty manuscript and will be thinking "you idiot". Just tired of the frustration of going through all this.

[yellowtractor]

So sorry to hear this, Lorelei.

Is it even worth replying?

No, unless you want to send a brief (as in 2/3-line) e-mail thanking the editor for his or her time and "hoping to work with you on some future project" or something like that.

Feeling humiliated that people in the field have now read my sh!tty manuscript and will be thinking "you idiot". Just tired of the frustration of going through all this.

Stop that (that particular thinking) right now.  As far as I can tell, three people have read your ms, and two of them are not necessarily in your field (editors).  So it is a person, not "people."

This said, my experience on both sides of this situation suggests that you would do very well indeed to anticipate this criticism as best you can in your ms--especially if this is, or will be, your first book.  If you can defuse the objection before it detonates, that's good.

And yes, it is frustrating.  The immense time lags incurred by outside reviewers make it more so.

[seniorscholar]

Four or five years ago I gave a detailed but eventually negative review to a ms. for Press A. Last year the book was published by Press B (a better press). Curious (and myself feeling a bit anxious about having suggested that the manuscript be rejected), I checked the book out of the library and found that the author had taken account of almost all my criticisms (including the one about the section that needed significant additional research in sources I suggested) when rewriting the manuscript to submit to Press B. So, as YT says, one person has read it. Do the comments and criticisms make any sense? If so, get to work revising and submit it to another press.

[lorelei]

I now am talking to another publisher, after meeting the editor recently at a conference.

Since I don't know who the reviewers were for the previous publishers, my concern right now is that it will be sent to one of the same people! (how bad would that be: "Why are you asking me to review this? I already wrote a report saying it was crap to another university press"? Although this kind of thing must happen I suppose).

Suggestions?

[runwithscissors]

As long as you have made appropriate changes that reflect the requests of the previous of reviewers, then they likely won't complain on seeing the manuscript for the second time. If you just submit it again as it is, then you do run the risk that they review it for a second time and send it back (possibly with a glib response) and you'll have wasted another 4-9 months.

I'd be a bit wary of thinking that the only reason the reviewers rejected the manuscript is because the don't have the same disciplinary background, there might be legitimate areas of scholarship that need improving before publication is recommended. In an ideal world, the review process is supposed to strengthen manuscripts not just bash the ones that don't fit with the reviewers' theoretical expectations.

[lorelei]

I'd be a bit wary of thinking that the only reason the reviewers rejected the manuscript is because the don't have the same disciplinary background, there might be legitimate areas of scholarship that need improving before publication is recommended. In an ideal world, the review process is supposed to strengthen manuscripts not just bash the ones that don't fit with the reviewers' theoretical expectations.

Part of the problem is that the book is in Purple Studies, and the reviewers are clearly in Red Studies, with which there is overlap but there are also disputes.
First review I got said basically that I should crawl into a hole and die. It was the worst manuscript this person had ever read, sloppy, and an embarrassment to humanity. (I am not exaggerating, unfortunately). Wasn't really sure how to revise it to resolve those concerns.

The second review (from more recent press) was more generous, but again the problems this reader had were with the basic conceptions of the project, and the sources used. That's not so much a "revision" issue as a "start again from scratch with a new project" issue...

[parispundit]

What I would recommend you do with the next publisher is to briefly point out the existence of the ideological divide (they may not be aware of it), give the names of a few people who should not be your readers, and hope for the best. Also, make sure there is a paragraph or 8 that adresses that divide someplace early in the ms. and again in the conclusion.

I myself have frequently gotten both miserable and wonderful reviews of the same ms. I take this as the natural consequence of saying something worth saying.

[yellowtractor]

What I would recommend you do with the next publisher is to briefly point out the existence of the ideological divide (they may not be aware of it), give the names of a few people who should not be your readers, and hope for the best. Also, make sure there is a paragraph or 8 that adresses that divide someplace early in the ms. and again in the conclusion.

I myself have frequently gotten both miserable and wonderful reviews of the same ms. I take this as the natural consequence of saying something worth saying.

Yes, this.

And good luck again.  I lucked out on my first book--the first press I sent the ms to took it--but I've had to drive around the block many times--many blocks--sometimes even into spooky adjacent neighborhoods--for some of the others.

[runwithscissors]

Would you consider breaking the manuscript into articles and sending it relevant disciplinary journals instead? It might give you a fairer crack of the whip because you are more likely to get purple studies reviewers. Then start on book project number two for tenure (a daunting thought I know...).

[seniorscholar]

What I would recommend you do with the next publisher is to briefly point out the existence of the ideological divide (they may not be aware of it), give the names of a few people who should not be your readers, and hope for the best. Also, make sure there is a paragraph or 8 that adresses that divide someplace early in the ms. and again in the conclusion.

And this reminds me of the importance of having someone highlight this divide in your tenure application, too, once you get to that point. Sitting on the college committee one year, I was bewildered by the competing hostile and enthusiastic reviews of the published book --- until I read the letters from the outside evaluators, one of whom had the sense to point out the divide in the field and the noted scholars who lined up on one side and the other.