Given that I'm finishing up a book manuscript to send off for review, I've been reflecting on "Anonymous Book Referee"'s story in the comments section here recounting a several year saga getting a book published (a rejection after a 9 month review process, 3 years from finishing the book to getting it accepted, 4 years to getting it actually published, etc.). To anyone who has tried publishing journal articles, let alone a book, the basic story Anon tells is a familiar one. It is a saga of sending off a manuscript, waiting 9 months to a year for a decision (rejection), rinse, and repeat. Fortunately for Anon, s-/he ultimately found a home for the manuscript (i.e. 3 referees and an editor who liked it!).
The thought of going through a similar experience with my own manuscript is not a pleasant one to entertain–but I recognize the probabilities are in its favor. Rejection-rates being what they are, it is more likely than not that I will have to shop the book around to more than one press before (hopefully!) finding a home. Who knows? Maybe I'll get lucky–but again, the probabilities clearly suggest otherwise. And, I have to say, at least psychologically, the prospect of waiting several months at a time — one at a time — for an editiorial decision (and referee comments) just seems awful. It's bad enough waiting to hear that long for a journal article. But an 8 chapter, 100,000 word book? After putting so much time into something of such magnitude, the prospect of going through Anon Book Referee's "waiting saga" just seems really, really awful! Anyway, maybe that's just the price we pay as academics. Nobody ever said publishing a book is easy. That being said…
Anon Book Referee's story got me thinking about the very strange publishing/review rules we operate under–rules which make the publishing process far more drawn out and difficult than it might otherwise be. As with philosophy journals, or so Anon Book Referee conveyed to me in the comments section here, one is expected to have one's manuscript under review only at one place at a time. Thus, if one submits one's manuscript to a press and it takes 9 months to hear back, you basically have to "sit" on the manuscript all that time–time during which other people are publishing articles, books, etc., that may in certain ways "steal your book's thunder."
Again, this is bad enough in the case of journal articles. Some top journals are well-known for having 1-2 year turnaround times on decisions–something that early career scholars in particular (people like you, I, and typical readers of this blog) cannot always risk wasting time on. But, my feeling is, as bad as it is in the case of journals, it is far worse in the case of books. Here I have what I think is a good book on my hands…and yet I may (if I'm lucky!) have to "sit" on it for several years until it finds a home. Again, this just seems awful.
Does it have to be this way? Why does our discipline have such strange norms (e.g. the norm of only submitting to one journal/book press at a time)? Two initial points I want to make are (1) these kinds of rules literally do not exist in any non-academic area, and (2) there are academic disciplines that do not have these rules that seemingly function far better precisely as a result of not having them. Let me explain.
The idea of "sending a manuscript" or product to one place at a time is–as far as I can tell–utterly unique to (some areas of) academia (i.e. ours). So, for instance, I used to write screenplays and was a semi-professional musician. There was no expectation in either of these areas to, say, send your screenplay or demo to one agent, production company, or music label at a time. Such a norm would seem utterly bizarre to people in these (and really, just about any) lines of work. Quite the contrary, these–indeed, almost all occupations–are driven by competition. Music labels, for instance, face pressure to sign the up-and-coming artist before someone else does. Similarly, production companies seek to lock down a good screenplay before competitors do. This makes the entire review processes very efficient. In contrast, if they knew that they could just sit on a screenplay or music demo for, say, 9-12 months before the artist could even send their product to anyone else, how efficient do you think they would be in arriving at decisions?
Now, some might say, such a model works for non-academic industry–but surely it's unrealistic for academic publishing. This, however, is where I get very confused (if someone can set me straight here, I'd be very appreciative!). First, some academic disciplines–law, for instance–do not have the norm of "one journal at a time." Authors can submit manuscripts to multiple journals, and turnaround times are fast! Second, I see no reason why it couldn't work, and work very well.
One obvious worry is that if people can send their stuff to multiple journals at once, it would inundate reviewers with a ton more manuscripts. I actually doubt this. Sending a manuscript to, say, every journal at once (or even a significant #) would be a disastrously stupid thing for a person to do. When I send a paper to a journal, I usually recognize that there is some significant, non-zero chance that it sucks or needs major changes…and so part of what I'm doing when I'm sending it out for review is "testing the waters" with reviewers (seeing how reviewers respond to the manuscript as-is). I suspect that just about everyone else does this too. Thus, even if there were no rule against sending manuscripts to multiple places at once, I suspect that most people might send any given manuscript to, like, 2 or 3 journals at a time. This would, obviously, significantly increase the number of manuscripts in circulation, requiring more reviewers/etc., but I see no reason why this alone is a reason not to do away with the "one at a time" rule. For, in my own experience as an author and reviewer, (1) reviewing papers does not take a ton of time, and (2) a significant number of reviewers do not seem to put much effort into things as is! (We have all by now, I think, have gotten that one-paragraph long referee comment advocating rejection…after 9 months! At least we wouldn't have to wait so long for bad reviews if we could submit to more places at once)
Further, it is a mistake to focus only–or even primarily–on the potential drawbacks of a practice without considering the potential benefits, and whether the benefits might outweigh the drawbacks. For what, I ask, would plausibly be the result of a rule allowing one to send an article/book manuscript to multiple places at once? Well, I think one obvious thing is that it would stand to make the entire process more efficient: publishers would have incentive to require reviewers to get back to them far more quickly, etc.
One final thing, though, is that we need to not only think about the costs and benefits of different policies, but who specifically bears the various costs and benefits within different schemes. As I've explained before (and alluded to above), it seems to me that the status quo (e.g. the rule to submit to only one place at a time) benefits mostly those in a position of privilege (publishing companies, reviewers, etc) to the detriment of those in far more vulnerable positions (early-career scholars who do not have the time to wait for a 9-18 month review-time, etc.).
Anyway, maybe the status quo (submit one place at a time) is somehow optimal. Maybe. However, it is difficult for me–at least offhand–to believe this. Yes, it is like true: a more permissive rule–of letting authors send stuff to more than one place at once–might have serious costs. But the status quo has serious costs, costs imposed disproportionately (I believe) on more vulnerable members of the profession–people who are just starting out, or from a marginalized group, etc.
Yes, allowing authors to submit to multiple places would likely have costs–but 12 month turnaround times at journals and some book publishers don't? "Surely", I think to myself, "there has to be a better way that that!" But maybe there isn't. Who knows? But I don't think I'm the only one who has these concerns. I have a number of facebook friends who have bemoaned their experience with attempting to publish books. Maybe we all need more patience. But maybe academic publishing needs less patience–with reviewers, with rules on submitting to only one place at once, etc. 🙂 I leave it to you to discuss!
Leave a Reply