Detailed Overview for Accepted Special Volume Editors

Once a special volume proposal is accepted by the series editors, a multi-part process begins that runs over an approximately twenty-four to thirty period (at minimum). This document lays out the major steps in that process.

Writing a Proposal for the Series Editors

Writing a Call for Papers (CFP)

Selecting Essays

Writing a Book Proposal for the Press

Running the Peer-Review Process on Manifold

Sample Publication Timeline

Specifications

Promoting the Volume

Writing a Formal Proposal for the Series Editors

Once the series editors have expressed interest in the idea for the volume, the next step is for the volume editors to prepare a formal proposal. This process allows the volume editors and series editors to ensure that their goals are aligned, and that the volume will be a good fit for the series. This process often involves several rounds of feedback and revision, resulting in a document that–with only minor modifications–becomes the proposal that is later submitted to the press for formal peer review.

This proposal should include the following sections: 

• Narrative overview: A roughly 500-word overview of the volume, including how it will contribute to conversations currently underway in the digital humanities.
• Theoretical Framework: A description of the theoretical principles that will help determine how the volume is curated and organized.
• Primary Aims: A short list of 3-5 goals for / interventions of the volume.
• Main contributions: The specific areas the volume will cover/address.
• Comparison to Existing Work: A discussion about other DDH volumes that the volume will build on, and other publications outside of the series with which the volume might be in conversation.
• Target Audience or Audiences: This can be as specific as academic associations that the volume might speak to and could be marketed to, or could speak to a type of audience.
• Manuscript Specifications: This should include total approximate word count, median length of chapters and/or other types of contributions, delivery date, and number and type of illustrations. (Can be modified later.)
• Timeline: Offer a tentative timeline for the volume. (Can be modified later.)

• About the editors: bios for each special volume editor. 

Here is a folder with some sample proposals that provide examples of each of these components.

Writing a Call for Papers (CFP)

As the proposal revision process nears completion, the series editors will also ask for a draft of the CFP for the volume. Special volume CFPs typically describe the guiding questions for the volume, and specify possible essay topics/areas. If the volume will include any non-standard formats for contributions (e.g. blog posts, short essays, artworks, lists), those should also be described. Logistics–such as word limits, deadlines, and a basic description of the peer-to-peer process–should also be included. Examples of past CFPs can be found here.

As with the proposal, the CFP often undergoes a few rounds of revision to align the proposal with the series goals. Once it is finalized, it is posted on the DDH website and can be publicized through social media, listservs, and other venues.

Selecting the Essays

Upon the close of the CFP, the volume editors prepare a spreadsheet of information about all of the proposals, indicating the author names, affiliations, and role/rank, as well as whether the editorial team intends to accept or decline the proposals. This spreadsheet is then sent to the series editors for approval.

Upon approval, the volume editors inform all those who proposed contributions of their acceptance status. Those with accepted contributions should also be informed of the timeline for submitting their first drafts.  Here is a template for sharing an overview of the editorial process with volume contributors.

Writing a Book Proposal for the Press

Once the editors have determined the contents of the volume, they can finalize the book proposal to submit to the press for formal peer review. To do this, volume editors should add two additional components to the series proposal:

• Table of contents 
• Essay Abstracts

At this point, the volume editors send the proposal to the press, cc’ing the series editors. Peer review typically takes 2-3 months and results in an advance contract for the volume.

Running a Peer-to-Peer Review Process on Manifold

When all of the essay drafts have been received, the peer-to-peer review process can begin. This is a signature aspect of the DDH series. Through this process, volume contributors review one another’s work, offering comments and suggestions on the essay as well as thoughts about connections to other essays in the book. Typically, each contributor is assigned two essays that they must review, but they are encouraged to read and comment upon any additional essays that interest them. We have found that this collective review of contributions builds cohesion across the volume and gives contributors a helpful sense of the whole project. Here is a template for communicating with contributors about the peer-to-peer review process.

More specifically, this process involves the following:

• Volume editors submit all essays as Word documents to Matt, who transmits them to the Manifold team.

• The Manifold team creates the peer-to-peer review publication on the DDH Manifold site and an associated “Reading Group.” This ensures that the publication will be private and accessible only to those invited to take part in the peer-to-peer review
• Editors create review assignments. Typically, each essay receives at least two peer reviews and each author contributes at least two reviews. At the editors’ discretion, authors of shorter essays can be assigned only one review.
• Editors prepare the following information for authors, modifying the peer-to-peer review template linked as a resource above:

• Welcome message and overview of Manifold
• Instructions to authors about registering and commenting on Manifold projects
• Review process and guidelines
• Full list of contributions
• Review assignmentsd
• Code of conduct

• Editors should aim to give authors three weeks to complete the peer review assignments.
• Following the conclusion of the peer-to-peer review, editors should write editorial letters for each of the essays, summarizing any revision requests based on their own reading of the essays and their summary of the feedback the essays received during peer-to-peer review. At this point, editors may also return marked up versions of the essays with more detailed / line-level feedback, or they may wait to see the next draft.
• Additional rounds of editorial review are often required, either before or after the peer-to-peer review process. As above, this may involve marked-up versions of the essays so as to provide detailed / line-level feedback. Volume editors may consult series editors in order to discuss revision requests or other editorial concerns that cannot be resolved within the volume’s editorial team.  

Sample Publication Timeline

Here is a sample publication timeline for a DDH special volume.

Month 1: Editors draft series proposal and CFP in consultation with the series editors.

Month 2: CFP circulated

Month 4: Abstracts due from contributors; acceptances/rejections sent out

Months 5/6/7: Accepted authors begin drafting essays. Meanwhile, editors finalize proposal with TOC and abstracts and submit to UMP editor. The proposal is then sent out for initial outside peer review.

Note: Peer review takes 8-10 weeks once the press has secured a reader. The timeline depends on how long it takes to find a reader and how long the reader needs, so it often takes longer.

Month 8: Peer-to-peer review on the DDH Manifold platform (three week window). Meanwhile, the volume editors submit their response letter to UMP peer review. The project then goes to UMP New Projects meeting with volume editor response and series editor endorsement:

Note: These meetings are held a couple times a month. The editor needs all responses and materials the week before. It’s best to budget 2-3 weeks for this step.

Month 9: Editors review peer-to-peer comments, perform editorial review, and send revision requests to contributors. At the same time, they begin collecting contributor agreements. (See note on Month 11, below). They may also choose to begin drafting the volume’s introduction. Meanwhile, at the press, the project goes to the faculty board.

Note: There is no action required by the volume editors for the faculty board approval step; it is overseen by the UMP editor. The board meets once a month so here again, it’s best to budget 2-3 weeks after the New Projects meeting for a decision on this.

Month 10: Volume editors continue to work on introduction. Advance contract issued.

Note: UMP editor can give the news that the press is offering a contract the day of the board meeting, but it generally takes a bit longer to address any questions re: length, images, delivery date, etc., and then to pull the official contract together and circulate it among the volume editors.The University of Minnesota Press considers an advance contract to be a fully enforceable contract to which the Press is committed. The only difference between an advance contract and full contract is that the publication is contingent on a final “confirming” review.

Month 11: Final essays due from contributors, along with contributor agreements, permission forms, etc. Volume editors finalize introduction.

Note: The forms are often a major hold-up, so it’s best to request these forms when the initial revision requests are sent to authors; that’s usually the earliest time you can confirm that a particular essay will be included in the volume.

Month 12: Submit final production-ready manuscript, including contributor agreements, permission forms, etc, to press, cc’ing series editors.  

Months 12/13/14: Confirming review. The Press will send the completed manuscript for a confirming review (usually to the same external reviewer who read the proposal at an earlier stage). Note that this is highly variable depending on reader availability. Series editors also review manuscript at this point.

Month 13/14/15: Special Volume editors (and/or series editors if needed) respond to confirming review and/or series editors if needed.

Month 14/15/16: Final faculty board approval. Production process begins.

Months 14-26: Production

The production process involves several steps with variable timelines. Volume editors should look for updates from UMP for their book’s production timeline. Generally speaking, the steps are as follows:

Copyediting

Minnesota sends the project out to their copyeditors, who will return the copyedited manuscript to the volume editors. Volume editors then distribute individual chapters to authors for review. Note that the copyeditors often ask for a rapid (i.e. 2 week) turnaround, so editors should be prepared to take action on the copyedits as soon as they are received.

Volume editors send copyedited essays back to the copyeditors after contributors have reviewed and responded to them (you can ask the copyeditors whether they prefer these to be sent in batches or in a single group). Note that this is the last stage at which substantive changes to the chapter manuscripts can be made, so as above, preparing for this process so that authors can have as much time as possible to review their copyedits is ideal.

Page Proofs

The copyeditors produce page proofs of the copyedited files, which volume editors distribute to contributors for final review as above, with the caveat that only small corrections can be made at this stage. Volume editors collect proofs and send them back to the copyeditors.

Month 24-26: End of production process. Minimum 12 months from final submission date, ten months from start of production to end.

Month 27-30: OA edition launched on the Debates in the Digital Humanities Manifold Website (always three months after print publication).

Specifications

Style

Share the DDH Style Guide and Template with contributors and consult the guide as needed.

Length

DDH Special Volumes should contain no more than 15-20 contributions, and an overall limit of 100,000 words (including any blog posts that might be included).

Images

DDH special volumes can include roughly 30 images across the volume. Please encourage contributors to be judicial about the images they choose. Some things to consider: are they *essential* to the reader in order to understand the argument? Is there a way to point the reader to images elsewhere? Will we have permission and a high-resolution digital file to work with?

Communications with the Press:

Please cc the series editors on your communications with the Press. This helps keep us all in the loop on the project as it progresses through the stages of editorial and production work.

Required forms from the Press

The following forms are created by UMP and sent to volume editors to circulate to their contributors:

• Contributor forms
• Image permissions
• Promotional form
• Image/Media Accessibility Spreadsheet

Promoting the Volume

We ask that special volume editors help to promote the volume on social media and across their networks. In the past, we have used #dhdebates across social media platforms.