Review Phase

Critical—everything hinges on this process, the backbone of scholarly research.

Book publishing is an anonymous review, in which the reviewers will know your identity, but you won’t know theirs unless the editor and referee agree to “out” that person to the author. At Oxford, a minimum of 2 positive reports is required to move the project forward to the editorial board for approval and a contract offer. Some interdisciplinary projects may require 3-4 reports, but it’s typically 2.

The editor may ask the author to suggest potential referees.  Note that if you are asked for suggestions that doesn’t mean the editor will call upon any of them for formal reviews. 

A couple “don’ts”:

1. If you’re asked to provide suggestions, don’t suggest people who might have conflicts of interests (e.g. dissertation advisors, relatives, or friends). This is more commonly done than you think! Choose someone who can give a fair assessment and won’t be conflicted in doing so. This person can be aware of your project and may have read some of it, but is far removed enough to remain objective.

• Editors will reach out to the referees and give them guidelines and usually a small honorarium (either cash or books). The timeline for reviews to come in is 2-4 months, but some can take longer.

• ADDENDUM: if your project is “controversial” towards certain groups or scholars, you can request to “blacklist” a group from reading (but if you do that, say the reasons why)

2. The waiting period between those 2-4 months can be anxious. Don’t pester the editor for information on the reviews UNLESS it’s way past the deadline they proposed (i.e. several weeks beyond)

Editors will often wait to get all reviews in (they usually come at different times) before sharing them with the author to give them a full picture of the assessment.

Four Possible Outcomes of the Review Phase (from least to most positive)

1. Both reviewers are negative about the project.

• Not much hope for a revision and resubmission

• If the reviews are fair, the author may want to withdraw the project and look for another press

• Do not argue about the decision with the editors. (It happens!).

• Don’t burn any bridges because you may end up working with this editor/press in the future

2. Mixed reviews: one negative, one positive.

• Stefan will have a discussion with the delegates. Each press has discipline experts who approve the acquisitions and signings as editors. OUP has a delegate for Classics and one for archaeology. Even if the reviews are mixed, if there is hope, Stefan will ask the delegates’ opinions: revise and resubmit, or get a third opinion as a tiebreaker? (Both scenarios happen often).

• For tiebreaking, the editor may inform the third referee about the mixed reports, or even share the reports with them

3. Mixed reviews: can be positive or negative, but the project has potential

• A complete revision and resubmission

  The author may be asked to submit a response to the reviews

4. Both reviewers are positive about the project

• A contract is recommended. Stefan shares the reviews with the author and asks for a formal response. The author is encouraged to write a brief acknowledgement of the reviews, addressing any criticisms.

• Not every suggestion needs to be accepted. The author can push back but should not be combative. They should show a willingness to revise and engage, and explain their reasons and rationale

  • Stefan will then share the response with the appropriate delegates and the editorial board

• Material is prepared for the editorial board (an internal board who meets virtually). The board is usually comprised of heads of Sales, Marketing, Editorial, and sometimes Production. They meet frequently, usually every 1-2 weeks, to discuss projects, their merits, and their profiles (price, initial print run, author advance, etc.).  Legal issues are rare, but they may come up if the project could be considered libelous. Production issues may arise if the book is particularly large or has other design or print challenges. Post-board meeting, Stefan will let the author know the project has been approved and congratulate them.

Contract Phase

Once the editorial board has approved the project, in about four weeks Stefan will have a digital contract for the author to review. For first-time authors, these are standard contracts: not complicated, but still a bit of legalese. Things to pay attention to in a contract:

• Word and illustration count (make sure it reflects the agreed upon figures, since editors can make mistakes at times (ex: budgeting for 70,000 words instead of your 120,000))

• Delivery date (for scholarly monographs this can be extended; for trade books, because of the commercial importance of timing, deadlines usually cannot be adjusted)

• Royalties (an advance is generally only offered to projects with high sales expectations)

• Permissions clause (putting responsibility like text and art onto the author. It can be a financial burden at times, but for some projects, the press will share the financial/administrative weight. Otherwise it’s usually the author)

• Options clause, “Right of first refusal” (the publisher has the right to see the author’s next project and make a decision about it before it is shown to other publishers. An author may not want this if they have been discussing a new project with someone else, so this can be struck).

• Contracts are not a guarantee of publication.

Establishing the Final Text

Is it in a publishable state or does it need another review? This depends on the original reports. If the reports were largely positive, then a clearance review probably is not needed. Regardless, Stefan will perform at minimum an inspection of the MS, looking for anything problematic such as poor chapter titles, referencing issues, low-res art files, etc.  For some manuscripts, especially trade books, he will perform a more detailed line edit. 

The editor will also send guidelines for formatting the manuscript and submitting final files. The entire work should be sent as Word and PDF files.

If the initial review was of a partial manuscript or just a proposal, then Stefan will solicit 1-2 reviews, likely from the original referees.

There will be variance among acquisitions editors: some require the complete text to be formatted before it is sent out for a final review. Stefan prefers just the raw manuscript, inclusive of the bibliography and, if art is planned, a provisional figures list.

Depending on the availability of referees, the final review should take between 2 and 3 months.

When the MS has been accepted for publication, Stefan will gather all materials, including the final, formatted manuscript in Word and PDF, art files, a cover image (the author would talk about this with their editor), and production forms (abstracts & keywords, marketing questionnaire, and MS submission form). The MS submission form explains the author’s preferred style to typesetters. OUP does not have a house style so the author should note down their citation style and whether they want it copyedited for UK or US spelling and punctuation. The author would also negotiate with the editor as to footnotes or endnotes (though the press usually prefers endnotes for monographs). They would also need to check if any of the art has to be redrawn, like maps, tables, and figures. The author will also receive a marketing questionnaire to generate jacket and online copy.

After all those documents have been gathered and logged, Stefan will assign an editorial assistant to the project. It will take about 2 months for the author to hear from the production manager who will inform the author about the full schedule of the process.

The author needs to take note of the schedule since their input is required, especially for copyediting and page proofs. If the author is not available for those dates, they should inform the PM as soon as possible. The production manager has the incentive to move things along. Stefan would only be looped in if there were delays with the author, but generally contact remains between the author and production manager.

It is about 9-10 months to print books from the time the project is assigned to a PM. The first responsibility is to check the art proofs (setting the art on the page as it would appear). The PM and author will check contrast, cropping, size, and rotation (usually 1 month after hearing from the production manager).

About another 4-6 weeks, depending on the size of the manuscript, the author will receive copyedits. They will have 7-10 days to accept or reject individual copyedits, which is done digitally. It is the last stage to make any significant changes to the text, such as adding a citation to the bibliography. However, it is a risk to add material and change text at this point.

The author will then see a cover design for the book. Not every editor does this, but Stefan does as a courtesy and welcomes input from the author.

Page proofs come afterwards. These are an important part of the author’s responsibility as it is the last chance to make any changes to the book. The author should not be introducing new text or making significant chances at this point. Indexing also happens during this time. OUP prefers the author to do their own index, but if they do not want to or cannot, OUP can hire freelancers and charge to the author. Authors may hire their own indexer, such as a graduate student. However, most editors feel that no one is better equipped for indexing than the author.

The art proofs are checked again to see how they sit with the text. Finally comes the proof of the full jacket design with flaps and endorsements on the back. Barring any printing delays, once files are finalized printed books will appear in about four weeks’ time. Author copies will ship once the stock has been received and released from the warehouse.

Open access should also be discussed during the proposal stage, certainly before a contract is signed. OUP has an assistant in place for that. Open access is not free for the publisher. There is a free required (on a scale) and it changes the contract and how the book is profiled. The author is responsible for the fee.

Book in Hand

Congratulations! Now comes the promotion process.

For a first-time author, the marketing budget is small. One part of this is promotion to scholarly journals, such as Bryn Mawr Classical Review, Classical Philology, Classical Journal, and Greece & Rome. OUP will send these and other journals in Classics monthly updates of new publication available for review, upon request.  It takes a long time for a review to appear in a scholarly journal, often more than a year from original publication.

The book will also be promoted at major conferences like SCS or via virtual catalogues. Advertising is not done very much anymore, so OUP finds ways to promote the book to readers online by sharing a single chapter or sending something to librarians or direct buyers to spur interest. Amazon and other online platforms are a great way to promote books.

Final Words of Advice for First-Time Authors

• Carefully proof any material you want to share with an editor

• Be as reasonable and grateful in your relationship with your editor. They have a thousand other projects to work on. The review phase will be bumpy and difficult for first-time authors.

• Don’t take things personally, especially if the project is rejected by the editor or you receive a negative review. This is not a comment about you as an individual or scholar. The project may have better luck at another press.

• Remain cordial and grateful. You may end up working with these editors or presses later in your career, so do not burn bridges.

Q&A

For mixed reviews, how long does the author have to revise and resubmit?

This really depends on the nature of the reviews. Some mixed reviews may still call for significant changes, which could take the author months to complete. In other cases, the required edits may be easily accomplished.  An editor will be conscious of this. But if the project is taking longer than a year to complete that would concern an editor.

How long do people generally take for the response to the reviews?

A couple weeks depending on how detailed and challenging the reviews are. The editor should give the author some guidance, like if the author should focus more on one report over the other.

What about time constraints when going for tenure or a promotion?

Editors usually are sympathetic and understanding for first-time authors facing a tenure clock. This can affect the decision of what materials are submitted in the proposal stage. If a short timeline to contract is desired then a partial MS and proposal may be all that is needed to begin the review process. This is a quicker route to approval and contract but it is also riskier in that reviewers may find that they don’t have enough material to assess the project as a whole, thus delaying approval until a full MS can be reviewed. There are ways to accommodate a tight timeline if the editor believes in the project. The delegate can also provide advice on projects before the review phase

How is it determined whether a book becomes part of a series? Is that earlier on in the process, and who decides? And if it’s in a series, do editors step in any time during that production?

The determination occurs in the proposal stage. When the author submits the project to the editor and has a series in mind, the editor can decide if the project is appropriate for a series and come back with the decision. An author can approach the series editor directly, which Stefan encourages.

Does Stefan/OUP do edited collections?

Yes, but they don’t sell well, although they can be and are important. Libraries are skeptical of edited collections at times. Single authored monographs are preferred.

What is a good length for a book and a reasonable page limit for print?

For a first-time author, 80k-100k words is typically what’s expected. The word count includes notes and bibliography. Often in reviews there are suggestions to trim the manuscript because of, for example, too many quotations from secondary sources or unnecessary repetition. Be careful about “padding” your text and ask yourself if this is better published as a book or as one or two journal articles. (Editors will be mindful of this question as they consider revised dissertations).

What is an ideal chapter length?

Ideally between 7-8k and 12k words per chapter. Make sure there’s a balance (e.g. a chapter with 20k words and another with 3k words).

For book cover art, does the author send pictures?

Stefan will solicit the authors’ opinion on the cover but will also suggest something himself. It is open to discussion.

In the contract, when looking at the next project, does the author have to submit a proposal again and a few chapters of their manuscript?

There is flexibility after an author has published with a press since there is a track record. Stefan would prefer to start with a proposal for the next project and then determine how much more material he would want.

At what point of completion should a manuscript be submitted?

If nearly everything is completed besides the conclusion, send it along to start the initial review process. However, an editor may agree to review a smaller portion of the complete MS, say 50-75%.

How are casual readers reading these books, since they often don’t go cover-to-cover. Editors caution against repetition throughout the manuscript, but wouldn’t it be necessary if a regular reader is only looking at certain chapters?

For the humanities in general, people are still digesting books cover-to-cover (though they may skip an introduction or conclusion). The tenure committee for first-time authors will probably also be reading cover-to-cover, and they should be the audience in mind when writing the book (for tenure books). Titles, subtitles, and chapter titles are also important. Plain descriptions can often work better than poetic ones for digital discoverability. Stefan would be in communication with the author early on if the title needed work but would assess chapter titles only after the complete manuscript was reviewed.

There are helpful guidelines on OUP’s website for writing chapter titles (note: these are constructed for digital texts and readers)