next »

[lorelei]

I have a manuscript, complete, which I am trying to get published.

It's already gone through some problems (first publisher liked it but their second external reader HATED it, so they canned it). I sent out another round of proposals, of those, 1 publisher asked to see the full ms, and although they were positive about some elements said it wasn't suitable for their focus.

So I sent out a third round of proposals (so I've sent about 25 in all). Of this round, 1 came back immediately asking to see the full ms, which I sent. That was 2 weeks ago. Today I had a response from another UP, asking to see the ms. I understand it's not appropriate to send the full manuscript to more than one publisher at a time. But how do I handle this? I don't want to say no to this email in case the publisher currently reviewing it end up rejecting it (this whole process has taken nearly 2 years).

[raoul]

That's a tough one. What did you say in your query letter? If you weren't too specific about the state of it, maybe you can put them off by saying you're still working on it...or I guess you could just be honest and say you've already submitted it elsewhere, but somehow I don't think an editor would be that excited about the idea of having you come back to them if it's rejected at press #1. Even though I'm sure they all know that manuscripts get rejected one place and then published elsewhere all the time, it still seems like you would be offering them the leftovers or something. Probably best to play it as vague as you can without actually saying anything deceptive or misleading, at least until you hear something more concrete from press #1. It will probably not take press #1 that long to at least decide if they want to send it out to peer review, so you should be able to hold off press #2 for at least a month or so (maybe just say you want to make some further revisions to polish it up, which could very well be true). Or you could just say that you're gratified by their interest but you sent out queries to several houses, and you want to wait to get all the responses back. You can ask them questions, too, like how they deal with art, in which cases do they publish in paperback, do they have an in-house manuscript editor who will work with you, etc., that suggest you are evaluating the presses to see which is best fit for you; this is more respectful than implying that you are just waiting in hopes of getting an invitation from a more prestigious press.

[lorelei]

Thanks for your reply. You clearly understand my dilemma. Unfortunately, my original proposal said the ms was complete so I can't really buy time in that way. The press that have just contacted me are more prestigious than the one now reviewing the full ms (which is still perfectly respectable, I'd be happy to be published by either of them).

[raoul]

Well, I think you could still use the second tactic I mentioned above. Just say that you've written to several houses and you have the following questions you'd like to pose. Make up five or six legitimate, intelligent questions about how their peer review process works, how they would handle editing and producing your manuscript, etc. Then when you get the answers say that you're very interested in their press but you want to wait to hear from others, or discuss your options with a senior colleague who gives you advice, or whatever. This is not going to hurt you--it makes it look like you are professional and have a good project that a lot of presses and people in your field will be interested in.

This should process should give press #1 enough time to decide if they're sending your ms out for a full peer review.  If they are, then at that point you probably have to be open with #2 and tell them you've decided to submit it elsewhere, but make sure you say that you are very gratified by the interest of their excellent and prestigious press, and that it was a difficult decision among multiple good options. If #1 turns it down, then this at least leaves the door open where you can go back to #2 and say something like: "Although my manuscript received one glowing peer review from Press #1, the other reviewer unfortunately did not approve of my methodology. However, the fact that I have published X and Y articles from this project in peer-reviewed journals suggests that the majority of scholars in my field do think highly of my work, as I have now received positive reports from five of the six reviewers who have evaluated part or all of the project. Therefore I would like to inquire whether you would still be interested in reading my manuscript." Or whatever spin you can put on it that's appropriate.

By the way, the fact that you've received so many invitations to submit your ms in the current publishing economy suggests that your project is very good, so don't forget that! Editors do want good work, and to the extent that you can politely and tactfully let them know that there's competition for it, this can actually enhance their view of your project.

[cardamom]

I think the approaches that have been suggested are okay if you want to tap dance and stall for time. Alternatively, there's nothing wrong with being politely proactive, particularly given that the OP is 2 years into this. So I suggest a brief email to press 1 asking about the status of the ms. Do say that you are aware that it's only been 2 weeks, but that another press is interested in seeing the ms. and you would appreciate an update so you can proceed accordingly. It's entirely possible they've not looked at it yet, but even that information is better than nothing. If they're really keen on the ms. and it's not yet out, interest from another press can get press 1 moving.

Unless press 1 tells you they're no longer interested, you can then write to press 2 with some sense of where your ms. is with press 1 and see what they say. For example, if press 1 has the ms. out with external reviewers, say so. Press 2 may then ask you to hold off submitting until you hear back from press 1 or they may still want the ms. anyway. You can then let press 1 know this is the case and go from there.

Whatever the situation, at this point in the process transparency is likely your best bet. There are just too many permutations to try to game the dynamics and if you don't have prior publishing experience, you can easily take a wrong step in so doing. It's not as if editors are unfamiliar with these situations, so getting responses from them can help you move this process along rather than sitting back and just waiting. I'll add that it's a particularly miserable time of the year to get readers' reports, so all the more reason to be proactive to the extent you can.

[cranefly]

Did either press ask for exclusivity?

[lorelei]

Did either press ask for exclusivity?

No. I just assumed this was implied.

Press 1 told me after I sent them the ms that they liked it (I assume the editor read or skimmed it at least) and they were sending it to reviewers. (They asked me to name a list of potential reviewers, but obviously I have no idea who they actually sent it to).

[aristotelian]

I would not disclose anything about the other press unless asked directly. There is no need to let #2 know that they are a second choice, otherwise when you submit the manuscript to them, they will know that Press #1 rejected it.

I think it is too early to rush Press #1 to review the manuscript.  Perhaps it would be worth it to do this after several months have gone by and Press #2 is giving you a firm deadline. 

I'd wait a while, then write to Press #2 and see what options you might have.  You can say that you are waiting to hear back from others before committing to an exclusive review, and ask if there is a deadline.  Hopefully they will say, "take as long as you want." 

Lesson learned: don't send in that manuscript until you have heard from everybody.

[lorelei]

Thanks for the suggestions everyone, I'll post back how things turn out.

[socsci]

Did either press ask for exclusivity?

No. I just assumed this was implied.

Press 1 told me after I sent them the ms that they liked it (I assume the editor read or skimmed it at least) and they were sending it to reviewers. (They asked me to name a list of potential reviewers, but obviously I have no idea who they actually sent it to).

You may be able to figure out from the presses' websites whether they require exclusivity. With an academic press, that is usually, but not always, the case. Academic-y commercial presses may not be so picky. I knew someone who submitted the manuscript to two publishers (one of each type above) because both asked me to review it. I told the second one I had already seen the manuscript, but they wound up publishing it, anyway. I also know someone who hired an agent to publish hu's dissertation and got a bidding war going between two academic presses.

Bottom line: I would check to see if there is scope for simultaneous submission of the manuscript, especially since you actually prefer press #2. But I don't think you can ask them directly.

[lorelei]

Bottom line: I would check to see if there is scope for simultaneous submission of the manuscript, especially since you actually prefer press #2. But I don't think you can ask them directly.

I've checked both their websites and neither of them say anything about it. Neither of these editors explicitly asked for exclusive consideration (previous editors who asked for the manuscript made this very clear in their request).
I don't want to do something underhanded, and as for preferring press 2, right now I'd prefer anyone who is willing to publish it! (I had a positive reply to my query from a third press, but they also said that due to a backlog they couldn't publish it before 2015 or something....)

[luder]

I see no reason whatsoever not to be perfectly forthcoming with press no. 2 about the typescript's being under review at press no. 1, not to ask press no. 2 if you can submit the manuscript when or if it is declined by press no. 1. After all, presses often decline to publish good work, superior work even (as I well know!), for reasons that have nothing at all to do with the quality of the work. That a book has been rejected by a university press is more likely to raise that book in my estimation than to lower it. Of course, I am not an acquiring editor.

[luder]

"Forthright," I meant, not "forthcoming." Argh!

[lorelei]

OK, so: here's what's happened so far. I did send off the ms to publisher 2. They just got back to me last week with a no thanks. Publisher 1 also contacted me at the end of December to say the reviewer they had has dropped out, and they've found another but it will be another 2 months.

I'm concerned now about who the new reviewer might be. I gave the editor a list of potentials (people who work in the field but with whom I have no relationship). But a book has recently come out on a similar theme, and its authors have major methodological differences with my approach (there are some ideological fissures in my field). In fact I suspect it was one of their colleagues who wrote the scathing review that led to it being rejected from the first publisher I dealt with.

While I gave the editor a list of suggested reviewers, I didn't supply a list of "Not These People" (I thought that might raise some red flags and make me seem demanding). Is there any tactful way to say something to the editor? I really don't want it to be tanked again.

[systeme_d_]

Just for future reference, Lorelei, the "Not These People" list often includes scholars who have already read the MS.  In many cases, this includes the dissertation advisor and committee members.

In your case, why don't you email the editor with a tardy version of the list?  There's nothing wrong with asking for folks who are not predisposed to hate your work.