In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:
I'd be interested to know how people approach [book] manuscript reviewing. While publishers (in my experience) offer $100-200 to review a manuscript, the time commitment can be anywhere from ~5 hours to several days depending on the level of involvement of the reviewer. How long do people spend reviewing a manuscript (does this depend on the remuneration offered?) and what kinds of comments do they give (or what kinds of comments are expected and helpful)? I'd like to get a better picture of what is appropriate, as I have a good sense of how to review articles but not manuscripts.
An author responded:
You are not being paid to review a book manuscript. You are being given an honorarium, a small token of their appreciation. Keep in mind, if the press does not publish the manuscript, the whole process has cost them a lot. They have others to pay, etc.
The original commenter then responded:
Given that, what kinds of feedback do you think it's best to receive and give? I imagine line edits are too extreme, but that authors/publishers expect something more than a summation of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. I could be wrong on this assumption though, so any help would be appreciated.
As someone who has both reviewed a number of book manuscripts and been the recipient of reviews, here's my own answer: I think the question of what kind of feedback it's best to receive and give depends primarily on the manuscript itself. Here's what I do:
- I give the manuscript a quick read-through.
- If it does not seem to me promising enough to warrant a contract, then I will quickly explain why (presses usually give reviewers forms with a series of questions to answer).
- If it does seem to me promising enough to warrant a contract, then I will again quickly explain why, but then give the manuscript a close read, adding any feedback that I think would substantially improve the manuscript (including pointing out any serious mistakes).
When it comes to type-3 cases (where I think a contract is warranted), how much time I put in and the kind of feedback I provide depends on (A) how much time I have, and (B) how good of shape the manuscript is in. If the manuscript is in really good shape, then I may not feel the need to give detailed feedback (beyond any things that clearly stick out to me as things that need addressing). On the other hand, if manuscript is promising but really needs substantial work, I'll explain in fair detail why–much as I would in reviewing a journal article.
As a quick autobiographical note, my reviews for journal articles are normally between 1-3 pages long, my reviews of book manuscripts normally similar in length, and the reviews I have received for book manuscripts I submitted generally similar in length as well. So, this seems to me about what to shoot for: something like the length and detail of a standard journal article review. Alas, I would say this can take anywhere from several hours to a few days, depending on the case. So unfortunately, my advice here doesn't really go beyond where the original commenter started.
That being said, on one occasion (with my most recent book), I received a profoundly helpful "line-by-line" review where the reviewer (who revealed their identity to me) posted comments throughout the manuscript I originally submitted. While I think that is probably above and beyond what one has a duty to provide, I will say that the review proved absolutely invaluable–and I will always owe a debt of gratitude to the reviewer for the time and care they took. Because of that, I plan to "pay it forward" by doing the same for manuscripts that I think are particularly promising.
Long story short: I don't think there's any clear amount of time or level of feedback to provide when reviewing book manuscripts. As trite as it may seem, my sense is that one should simply use one's best judgment on how much time and detail to spend on a review given the manuscript you received. If you think it's not a promising manuscript, it may not take a lot of time or detail to explain why. If it is especially promising, it may not take a ton of time either. But if it's promising and there are also substantial things you think the author needs to address, it may take substantially more time and detailed feedback. I suspect that, in this regard, it is quite like many things we have to learn during the course of our professional careers: one has to develop the kind of situation-specific 'practical wisdom' (or phronesis) that Aristotle so famously argued can only be learned through experience. So, that's what I would suggest. Just write your review, spending whatever amount of time and detail you think the manuscript warrants, within reason (and bearing in mind your other professional responsibilities). Then, as you progress in your career, doing and receiving manuscript reviews of your own, update your practices on the basis of whether, given your overall evidence, you think you're doing a good job.
Anyway, that's all I got, and it's just my perspective! What do you all think, particularly those of you who have written or received book manuscript reviews?
Leave a Reply