|
|
Post by question on Sept 26, 2011 6:12:53 GMT -5
I have a publication agreement with a scholarly press. The agreement states that if the manuscript receives positive peer reviews, then the press will commit to publishing it.
This is not the same as a book contract, but I've heard from profs that such an agreement is essentially worthless because there are contingencies and it can still fall through.
Does anyone have a better grasp on this? How will this look to search committees?
|
|
|
|
Post by yea on Sept 26, 2011 7:00:10 GMT -5
Doesn't sound like such a bad problem to have. I have wondered similar things about listing a an article as under review. Does it really mean much?
|
|
|
|
Post by answer 1 on Sept 26, 2011 7:29:17 GMT -5
Can't say exactly about the book thing, but you don't sound too promising about it yourself, so I'm not sure it would be so impressive.
On under review: I think you want to note that they are under review, so you can show that you are moving forward and show what that direction is, but it doesn't really matter where it's under review.
|
|
|
|
Post by Good question on Sept 26, 2011 9:39:58 GMT -5
I too find the different kinds of agreements with book publishers a bit confusing. Certainly a board approved contract on an already written book is better than an advance agreement on a proposal. I assume this is a proposal because if it is already written, why would they not have reviewed it? That said, and others should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, isn't even an advance contract better than an R&R on an article? Another question: How do people think a board approved contract at a good press compares with say a sole author piece in AJS or similar?
|
|
|
|
Post by prof on Oct 12, 2011 8:15:13 GMT -5
An advanced contract looks nice, but it's not anywhere close to sole-author top tier article. The reason is because an advance is still an I.O.U; it does not cost the publisher almost anything to give but but allows them to exercise an option over you so that you cannot take your finished product somewhere else--they can still reject the final rewrite. Don't get me wrong, an advance--if you are a grad student--looks impressive, but by itself you will likely not look so bright next to someone with an ASR.
|
|
|
|
Post by SC member on Oct 12, 2011 11:44:10 GMT -5
I disagree with an above poster that SCs discount articles "just" under review, and where they are under review. Aiming for top journals demonstrates an interest in publishing in those outlets. If you include the item as a writing sample, a search committee can make their own assessments about the quality of the work, and whether we think it ever has a chance making it in to a top journal like where it is under review (or one close in terms of prestige/influence).
RE books, the press matters a lot here. While anyone can get an advanced contract from Verlag, not everyone can from Chicago or Princeton. Again, though, any SC that is not totally insecure and looking for external validation will look at the work and make their own assessment of quality/likelihood of publication at the press.
So, yeah, it is definitely not as good as an R&R from a top journal, but it still might carry some weight; especially if there are other promising aspects to the record. But looking closely at the work usually comes after an applicant has made a cut onto a short list based on their CV/statements/letter/(and, maybe, recs). Personally, I might look at the work earlier in the process if the signals about quality are not clear and I am interested in the candidate based on their CV.
Good luck, people!
|
|
