The context
I’m coming to the end of my third co-edited book and am in the middle of a fourth. In addition to co-editing 5 issues of the journal Film and Film Culture, this has given me considerable experience of co-editing, so I thought it was time to reflect on what this means to me and pass on some tips I have learnt on the way.
The Journals
I started co-editing when I co-founded Film and Film Culture. At the time, I worked in my first full-time post at Waterford Institute of Technology. A journal is a very particular thing and we decided to get institutional funding for its publication as, at the time, all of the publishers we approached assumed that a film journal out of Ireland should deal with Irish studies. Irish studies is a venerable and established field, two of the co-editors were specialist in that area, but none of us wanted to stick to that field. We went alone. This gave us independence and total control over what we were doing, but meant that we lacked the distribution channels that a publisher has. This was pre-online publishing, therefore getting the message out in the world was difficult. We have spent many hours pushing product and seeking modes of distribution, none of which has proven easy. Other than that the editing end was typical of many other journals: forming a board, seeking out reliable and learned readers, allocating jobs, deciding on an editorial style, matching books with reviewers, and so on.
My other journal experience was quite different. I guest edited a special section for the Bulletin of Latin American Research which was a selection of papers from a panel I had organised at the Society of Latin American Studies conference. This was working within the infrastructure of an existing journal and involved engaging with their sub-editors and conforming to their style and formatting guidelines. The work rested in liaising between the authors and the editors of the journal and the other co-editor. This had its challenges, but mostly proved very straightforward.
The Books
Each one has been with a different co-editor, all grew out of conference conversations. Two grew out of conference themes, but were not quite proceedings. Each one has involved building working relations with people with whom I had previously worked or had friendly relationships through professional encounters at conferences. This does not always lead you to know how another will be when you need to rely on them to meet deadlines, agree on the text for the introduction or decide on the division of labour. Thus far I have been lucky. Whilst there have been moments of frustration at them for not meeting promises or me for not being able to always meet mine, it has been a very positive experience and one which I’d recommend. I have a few suggestions for those considering embarking on a project.
The Rules
- Be very clear on the ground rules and who does what.
- Be open to re-negotiate these. People have real lives outside of work and complicated lives at work that may interfere with what they projected they could do. Equally, you may have events that intervene. But, do not let things slide too much as a result. It leads to resentments. How will you feel if their name is also on the book and you feel like you’ve done all the work? Or, vice versa? Talk things out.
- Whilst email is great, document sharing spaces are extremely useful, make sure you have either face-to-face meetings or phone/Skype meets at regular intervals. This is an efficient way to agree ground rules, negotiate tasks and tease out any issues that arise.
- Agree on a style and format for the documents early on, tell your authors and make it their responsibility to conform to it. We expect it of students, why not expect it of academics. You may find some who are resistant and it’s taking you more time chasing them than it’s worth, then by all means do it.
- When you give feedback to authors always remember that they have put time and effort (and maybe a little bit of their soul) into this chapter or article, give clear feedback but do it kindly. There is no reason that you have to give a literal transcription of what the reader has said. Read the feedback and see what their main points and guidance are and give that. Some people are unnecessarily harsh, but their insights can be useful and were important enough for you to seek out. Remember to be particularly sensitive to younger inexperienced researchers they can find criticism most difficult.
- Have a very defined sense of what you are doing. Think early on what your proposal will be and what publishers you should approach. The sooner you have a publisher, the sooner you have definite dates and a stylesheet. It also makes your project more credible with your potential authors.
- Set clear deadlines with your authors and readers and stick to them. A little wiggle room is allowed (but don’t tell them that). What you need are: date of first draft, approximate date to expect feedback from your readers and you, date you want those returned to you, date you want their bio for the book, and, expected final submission date of the complete manuscript. The publisher may be good at telling you a possible publication date, not all are. Some of these can only be set when you have a publisher, some you will need to have to get a publisher. Be clear, realistic, and be prepared for some flexibility.
- Try and include a mix of experienced and post-graduate/early career researchers, the former give it gravitas and may be a selling point to your publisher and future purchasers, the latter, gives them a chance and shows the range of research in the field.
- You will have to think like a marketer to pitch it to a publisher and to attract authors. (a) What are its unique selling points, (b) who will be interested and (c) how will you get the message out. (a) should be clear in your carefully worded proposal and call for papers. With (b) you will need to think whether it’s for a general reader, undergraduate course, researchers or others. As for (c) you may want to think about social networking and listservs, but also draw up a list of journals that may be interested in reviewing it.
- Be flexible, remember that you decided to work on this because it was a theme that interested you and you thought was worth publishing about, and importantly, your co-editor(s) was (were) an academic (academics) you respected and liked before this project began don’t let minor resentments or frustrations cloud this relationship.
When it goes well (and I have been lucky with my collaborators so far) it is a very rewarding experience for four main reasons for me. Firstly, it means collaborating with others when a lot of our writing and research is in isolation. It builds strong bonds with others because you have carried through a major project together. Secondly, I have learnt about my writing through editing others. Thirdly, I have learnt a lot about the publishing process. When readers pull apart an article that in my judgement was very strong, I appreciated the value of constructive feedback and ensured I always do it, and made me realise how much academic judgement can vary and ensured that I take rejection less personally next time. I have dealt with different publishers and realised how important it is to understand their modus operandi and what they offer. Fourthly, it is a project I care enough about to want to publish on and go to all that extra work for, but it isn’t my baby in the way that other publishing projects in isolation are. This means that I have found that I can treat it more dispassionately and learn from it as an experience. Also, when it’s out it’s easier to promote and sell, because you’re working for others and can’t hide behind false modesty, which made me realise how important it is to sell my own work. Why do more work for others than I’m will to do for myself?
In short, it is something that I would recommend to others. I would love to know your experience. Click on the no comment/comment tag at the top to leave your comments.