In putting together a book manuscript, one always hopes for a wide range of writers who can address a broad collection of issues from unique points-of-view. As an editor, one generally does not want to have to jump in and write chapters—because, frankly, it shows that there were gaps in information that the editor had to jump in to address.

Wide Solicitation of Work

To draw out writing from subject matter experts around the world, one does try to reach out widely—by posting to various electronic mailing lists, contacting colleagues directly, presenting at various conferences, and making personal calls. One will use the various contact lists of the publisher—only to find that quite a few email addresses have decayed and are defunct. There are brief expressions of interest. But as with many issues of human commitments, early expressions of interest and ideas often come to nothing when it is time to deliver. This is true not only of those who are strangers to me but also sometimes colleagues (although much rarer in this latter group).

Also, one is often aiming for a very narrow bull’s eye. One has to connect with those with doctorates who are working in academia or the professional field who has knowledge on a narrow sliver of a topic and who has the time / good will / interest to write a whole chapter on the topic and undergo peer critique in order to publish. At every level of a requirement, more and more potential contributors drop to the side.

So inevitably, one is left with some gaps in the table of contents (TOC). Further, the gaps are harder to fill in some cases when one has ideas that are a little edgy or unusual. In the research literature, there are certain papers that were brief but high-impact (think Alan Turing’s work on what became known as the “Turing Test” as one example). It may be worth taking that risk to push a work forward. The problem though is ensuring that the work is not just isolated to the originator’s mind. After all, every human researcher has severe limits, and if one has access to helpful reviewers, one has to tap that resource. That was my thinking on a recent project anyway. (An editor should never exempt his / her own work from severe peer review.)

Using an Editorial Board

I am working with an editorial board on this particular work. Knowing some of the members directly, I know many of them would pull the punch if it came to knowing that it was my work. For me, that would not be very helpful because I truly want to know where I may improve.

So when I sent out chapter drafts, I erased every sign I could think of of authorship and dribbled my work out with the others. When I got the feedback, it was fantastic. Both came back with irritated tones, and one was wonderfully precise with some very astute suggestions about a section that needed to be added. One clearly felt that the chapter was maybe a little too intellectual and not sufficiently practical. Both critiques offered some very solid suggestions that helped evolve the chapter further.

It’s totally possible that the reviewers were aware of authorship. Both are very bright and highly achieved…and both know how to dig into a digital file for metadata. I don’t know that they have suspected necessarily, but I am grateful that neither withheld criticism. I’m all for collegiality, but if pulling a punch ultimately hurts one’s work, then I’d rather the justified punch come full force. Otherwise, what’s the point?