In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:
I am wondering when one should start considering changing a long paper manuscript into a book project.
I am a junior faculty member working in a traditional area of analytic philosophy. Publishing a book is something that had never occurred to me. Recently, I am working on two interrelated papers, each of which becomes longer than what most journals recommend. While I know that the recommended length is not a requirement, I started considering whether it would be a good idea to develop a book project that includes these two papers (and more, of course). I know that some people's books were developed from paper manuscripts, so I am curious to hear others' suggestions, especially things that I should consider in order to make the decision.
This is an excellent question, and I am curious what readers think. My general experience is that many people advocate 'thinking strategically' here. For example, I have heard many people say things like, 'As a junior person, you should try to publish some of the papers on the project in well-ranked journals, so as to test the waters and develop a reputation as a researcher. Then, if all goes well, try to publish a book.' I certainly understand this kind of strategic thinking, but I also think that there are limitations to it. Allow me to explain.
It has always sort of seemed to me that the nature of the work itself should dictate what kind of work it should be. For example, some things just work as articles: namely, arguments can be formulated and defended effectively in a relatively self-contained manner, say in ~10,000 words. Other things don't work so well that way: namely, arguments that are more systematic and holistic, requiring something like 50-100,000 words to properly flesh out and do justice to. The italicized phrases here are, I think, important. Sometimes I hear people say things like, 'If you can make an argument in 50-100,000 words, you can also always break it up into a series of articles.' This may be true, but I also think that in many cases it is suboptimal. For example, sometimes the point of a first chapter of a book may only be fully able to be appreciated by readers in virtue of what comes after–so, having everything 'in one place' (i.e. a book) may make more sense than trying to publish things as a series of articles in different journals.
In any case, it isn't clear to me that there's just one way to make the decision here. There are, rather, strategic considerations worth considering, but also considerations related to one's judgment as an author for what kind of format the work itself calls for–and ultimately, I think, one may have to make up one's mind which considerations to favor. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?
Leave a Reply to Only HumeanCancel reply