Log in

Publication dilemma - Academics On or Near the Tenure Track [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Academics On or Near the Tenure Track

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Publication dilemma [Oct. 23rd, 2006|10:29 am]
Academics On or Near the Tenure Track


[Current Location |Office]
[mood |thoughtfulthoughtful]

Okay, here's a question: what do you all think about publishing an article (or multiple articles?) just to get the line on your CV? I was discussing book manuscripts with my colleague in English this weekend, and she was saying how she thought she had 2 chapters that she could basically just pull, and send out as articles which would then be double-published when her book comes out. (Like me, she's at the proposal-but-no-contract-yet stage, but neither of us figures we'll fail completely at getting the book published.) She said in her field this was considered fine by pretty much everyone involved as long as less than a third of the book, when it finally comes out, had been previously published. (She also said Ashgate didn't seem to care if ALL of the book had been previously published, which strikes me as odd.)

My book manuscript is basically done, and so far I haven't published any of it as articles, though I have cannibalized several chapters of it for conference papers. I didn't figure there was a point in publishing separately if it was going straight into book form. But my colleague seemed to think that doing it just to have the separate line on the CV was worthwhile, and I wouldn't wish to shoot myself in the foot tenure-wise if (as they say) everyone's doing it.

Thoughts of a Monday morning...?

From: neogrammarian
2006-10-23 04:12 pm (UTC)
Sounds like there's more than one question hiding in there, actually.

re: prepub. It's my understanding that this can vary quite a bit by specialization and press. If you're already sending out proposals, why not check & see what each press specifies? In some specializations, at least, I have heard that a bit of a chapter prepubbed can demonstrate to a press that there is already interest in the topic. (Conference papers don't seem to matter to anyone but the scholar giving them, as far as T&P goes).

re: CV envy- given all the above, I think I'd get a bit of the ms out as an article or two just to drum up interest in the topic. Of course, doing so will add a line or 2 to the cv.

lol and I envy your confidence that you can get the ms picked up by a publisher! I wish I could find that confidence!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lollardfish
2006-10-23 04:12 pm (UTC)
In history, as I am aware of it, most people publish an article or two on the subject before the full book is done. I'm certainly publishing two based on my dissertation, although neither is actually a chapter (one is an expansion of a note from my epilogue, one is a source-study/translation of a text I use heavily).
(Reply) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: dracsmith
2006-10-24 04:23 pm (UTC)
so you don't end up scooped my some other scholar who is also banging away in isolation at a too-similar MS.

That's a really good point - while articles can take a couple of years to come out, books can take even longer.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: eulistes
2006-10-24 02:24 am (UTC)
Right--that seems a pretty overwhelming vote for just do it. Have just added "figure out which chapter will require least work as an article, and send it out" to my to-do list. Thanks muchly, all!
(Reply) (Thread)