An effective review for a book proposal needs to consider many aspects – all geared towards situating the proposal in the context of the discipline. In this article, two of our commissioning editors explain four top tips and four common pitfalls to bear in mind when reviewing a book proposal.

Four top tips

Emma Kiddle, commissioning editor for Earth, Environmental and Planetary Science

#1 First things first, is the title right?

This may seem like a minor point but the title is hugely important in promoting the book to the right market.  If it’s too broad readers might expect too much; too specific, readers might not even pick the book up in the first place.  The title also needs to reflect the type of book: a short, snappy title is best for a general interest title but a more advanced book will need a more ‘academic’ title to describe the specific focus of the book.  Many titles change over the course of the publication process: ‘Habitability in the Solar System’ became the popular science book, Life Beyond Earth; while the professional handbook, ‘Isotopes for Industry’, was given a more formal title of Radiogenic Isotope Geochemistry: A Guide for Industry Professionals.  Many hours can be spent mulling over the best title so any suggestions during the review process are always appreciated!

#2 Check the author’s description of the market – does it match the level of the book?

Books are often proposed with several audiences in mind: an academic book on geophysical techniques might have a secondary market to professionals in the petroleum exploration industry; a popular science book on volcanic hazards might be recommended as background reading for undergraduate students taking a course on natural hazards. It’s essential to keep the primary market in mind though – if a book tries to cater for too many audiences it might end up not being useful for any of them.  Text boxes can be a good way to separate out material for a secondary market – whether that’s the more complex mathematics in Stochastic Analysis of Scaling Time Series that’s incomprehensible to all but the most numerate readers, or to provide end-of-chapter ‘take home’ summaries for policy makers who might not have the time to read chapters of Water Ecosystem Services in their entirety. These suggestions were both put forward by reviewers and helped to get the level of each book right for both the primary and secondary audiences.

#3 Ask yourself if there are any extra topics or features that you would like to see in the book.

Book proposals are rarely set in stone at the review stage so this is your opportunity to ask the author to add in anything you think is missing.  Chances are if you want extra topics or features then others will too so suggestions put forward by reviewers are always considered carefully.  Reviewers often help to shape the contents of a book: more stunning images from the Cassini mission were added to the new edition of Planetary Rings, extra chapters on explosive volcanoes were included in Volcanism and Global Environmental Change, and additional North American case studies were solicited for Source-to-Sink Fluxes in Undisturbed Cold Environments, all based on reviewer suggestions.

#4 Don’t forget the most important question of all: would you spend your hard-earned cash or limited grant money on this book? 

Or would you recommend it to your students or your library?  Ultimately, we want to know that we can sell copies of the book!

Four common pitfalls

Elizabeth Spicer, commissioning editor in the Law team

#1 Have you cited yourself?

One of the central tenets of academic peer review is the anonymity of process: in book proposal review, you the referee are unknown to the author, though you will know their identity. It is common to see referees suggesting other works which engage with the same topic, that the author has not mentioned. The easiest way to make your identity known to the author is by only suggesting your own publications!

#2 Are you running late?

We understand that things crop up all the time and a commitment made can later become impossible to keep to. If you are able to keep the editor with whom you have been in touch informed of any delays that is enormously helpful in terms of our ability to in turn inform the author.

#3 Are you bringing your own scholarly preferences into the mix?

Some of the most interesting comments from referees begin, “If I were writing this book, I would…” and we really value those opinions. In any good scholarly debate there will be different schools of thought, and often the debate between them can be lively to say the least! As the publisher our remit is not to come down in favour of any particular side, and it is possible you may be asked to review a proposal which is very much on the other side of a debate to you. Do try to be as clear as you can about when your comments concern the school of thought as a whole, and when they concern the proposed approach and content of the particular book in question.

#4 Have you engaged with the material?

You may well be sent sample writing, and sometimes there might be quite a great deal of material available! In those cases feel free to be selective in terms of what of the sample writing you read (though let us know what you read), but definitely include the proposal itself and any introduction provided. These will give you the clearest information regarding the project as a whole, and how the sample writing fits in with those goals, so it’s worth spending some more time over them. Conversely, no editor will expect you to supply a list of detailed corrections to typos in the sample writing! In that sense we’re looking more for overall impressions.