The Editor's Role
Collaboration is the key to the author–editor relationship from the initial proposal through publication. Below are some thoughts on how authors' and editors' roles can be defined and negotiated as well as some suggestions for authors about how to get the most out of their interactions with a press.
The Difference between a Series Editor and an Acquisitions Editor
As an expert in the field and a working scholar, the series editor takes the lead in identifying scholars who are doing important research and persuading them to submit proposals. Once proposals and manuscripts have been submitted, the series editor evaluates them and recommends whether the press should solicit the full manuscript, issue a contract, or send the manuscript out for external review. She or he keeps an eye on trends and innovations in the field and helps shape the discipline through the series.
The acquisitions editor, who works in house at the press, also tracks trends and projects and may be equally active in soliciting proposals. In addition to evaluating all proposals and manuscripts, he or she handles the logistics of peer review and editorial board approval once the manuscript has passed peer review. As the publisher's agent, the acquisitions editor judges whether a press can afford to publish a project and market it effectively—factors that often play a role in whether a project is accepted.
The Editing Process and Great Expectations
“Can one desire too much of a good thing?” Rosalind asks in Shakespeare's As You Like It. One might ask the same question about an editor's role in collaborating with scholars on developing new works. What is the ideal balance between active engagement and a more laissez-faire approach, and how do scholars and editors find the combination that will best serve both the project in progress and their individual working styles and larger professional goals? Indeed, how many authors—particularly those entering the book market for the first time—recognize the importance of this dynamic in shopping their manuscript around from press to press?
Both the author and the editor need to be clear from the very beginning about expectations and parameters in their professional collaboration. In an essay for the Chronicle of Higher Education, former acquisitions editor Rachel Toor (Duke University Press and Oxford University Press) describes the editor's role as a combination of midwife, handmaiden, and groupie.Footnote 1 Toor's words emphasize the supportive roles that an editor can fill throughout the process of bringing a manuscript through production. She also points to the potential pitfalls when an editor's vision of a work risks smothering the author's vision, or when an author becomes too dependent and relies on the editor to approve every paragraph. How can authors and editors arrive at a workable balance between these two extremes? What follows are some suggestions for authors about developing relationships with their editors.
Assimilate the initial responses to the project. Even the most perfectly prepared manuscript, once it comes into an editor's hands, is, in some sense, a first draft. The series editor (if there is one) and peer reviewers will bring a fresh set of questions to the project. The author's responses to these questions give the editor a sense of his or her ability to collaborate. This does not mean that the author has to agree with every recommendation. Rather, an author needs to look at the responses as objectively as possible, considering carefully which ones will improve the manuscript and which seem incompatible with its larger goals. In the latter case, respectfully articulating the rationale for the current structure or scope can actually enhance the work, since the exercise prompts the author to explain ideas that are not apparent in the first draft. While this might ultimately mean that the editor has to decline the project because it doesn't align with the goals of the press, it saves the author the work of trying to force the book's argument into one that is inconsistent with his or her original vision.
Consider why the editor is making certain recommendations. If the editor's responsibility is to help sustain and grow the field, he or she may be trying to help an author shape a book that moves the series or the field in new directions. Editors often ask authors to assess their own place in the field as part of an initial proposal. However, once an author receives an expression of interest from a press, he or she may also ask the editor for feedback on what particular aspects of the proposed study most align with the needs of the press. Although peer-review reader reports should address this question, it can be useful for the author to have an editor articulate it more clearly in terms of the larger mission of the press. This information can help the author shape revisions to the project.
Ask your editor about reasonable expectations for your working relationship. Once a prospective author has received an indication of interest from an editor, he or she should inquire about the next stages of the process. Does the editor want to see the revised manuscript in its entirety, or is the editor willing to review pieces in progress? Is the editor open to questions about the development of the project while writing is still under way? Will the editor send a revised manuscript out to a second set of readers, and if so, how will that feedback be conveyed to the author and what will the expectations be about any further revisions? What is the editor's timetable for the project and does that align with the author's ability to deliver materials on deadline?
If the editor's policy is not to work on a one-on-one basis with the author on issues of writing style, structure, or content, the author will need to turn to professional colleagues who can assist with developing and revising the manuscript. The author should also consider working with a copyeditor before submitting the final manuscript to the press. While this may entail additional time and expense, it can also shorten the overall time it will take to guide the book through the production process and result in a substantially stronger text. At a press, copyediting represents the last stage of a manuscript's development, so any substantive changes an author wants to make as part of a collaborative dialogue with peers and his or her editor need to happen before this point. A recommendation that an author work with an outside copyeditor is by no means a requirement, but those who know that they would benefit from substantive and detailed feedback on their writing or who have received that assessment from a press's reader reports should consider this option. This may be particularly useful for some first-time authors who are accustomed to getting feedback from a faculty adviser or dissertation committee. It is perfectly acceptable for an author to turn to peers and other professionals for help in making the transition to a new phase in her or his writing career.
Ultimately the most successful collaboration between author and editor is one that both parties would like to repeat. Careful negotiation on both sides will generate a productive working relationship that can continue for years to come.
