Bottom line: Do some homework about the editors

In the not-so-distant past, I’ve received an invitation to submit a book chapter to an edited volume or handbook where the process of submission and revision seemed to turn into a guessing game to say what the editors wanted me say. This has turned in to the requirement to revise and then revise again, and then perhaps one more time to draw closer to the editor’s point of view.  In some cases, I might be to blame for not reading a call carefully enough. In others, the invitation itself might not be very detailed about what the editors are hoping I’d be interested in writing. In other cases, reviewers introduce a whole new point of view.

The situation is usually that an editor has a well-established reputation in the field. He/she has read something that you have have published and is interested in you elaborating your ideas in that vein.

I have two recommendations for handling this situation. Number 1, read and reread the invitation with details of the purpose of the book and the expected content of your chapter until you are deeply and thoroughly familiar with it. Do not just glance at it and proceed from there. Correspond with the editor to clarify their intent and what they have in mind. In writing, stick as closely to the guidelines provided in the call. 

My second recommendation is to become familiar with the editor’s points of view by reading some recent publications of theirs. The purpose for this is two-fold. It is strategic to cite the editor’s work. The purpose is not just political, though. It is to see how your ideas resonate and do not resonate with theirs. You can avoid topics where they do not resonate, or you can acknowledge the point of view and explain why yours differs. Like any article or chapter, you are joining an on-going conversation that started before you entered the scene.