Academic Book Proposal example

Example of an academic book proposal

You can download a template to learn how to prepare an academic book proposal. Combination of theoretical and ethnographic writing on religious rituals ensures that your manuscript is no substitute for a proposal. We at Routledge are very interested in examining proposals for new academic books at the research level. This book proposal is both a sales receipt and a plan of the difference between the trade press, academic press, agents and editors.

Template for an academic book proposal| How do I create an academic book proposal?

As a rule, academic book suggestions contain six main categories of information. It' important to know the use of each section, as different balers use slightly different words for each section. This introduction will describe your subject, your general messages and the extent of your subject. Rational elucidates why your book is needed, what it means in practice and how it will fit into the catalog of your destination compactor.

This structure describes your organizational chart for the book, often with a table of contents. In The Competing Works we summarize how your book fit into the market place of idea on this subject, how it is like other great works on the subject, and what it provides that these works do not.

It is the author's background that tells you why you are the right people for writing your book through a short story of your biography, resume or both. To find out how to get your proposal ready, please use the ACW Book Proposal form. Akademische Buchvorschläge contain: Writers should check the website of their targeted media and review their book proposal submission policy as there is a wide variety of demands.

Take a look at the different rules of two outstanding college balers, for example. For more information on academic publishers, please see the website of the American Association of Universities Presse. For more information on how college newspapers work, please see this blog entry from the U.Minnesota Newspaper.

Concurrent works section of academic book suggestions

Out of all the parts of a book proposal, the section "competing works" (sometimes also known as " competitive works ", "competing works ", "market contest " or just "competition ") is probably the most discouraging and least well-informed section for first-time academicists. Usually we do not have a tendency to regard our work as "competition", and the notion that we have to put together a listing of all our similar works makes us fear that the publishing house thinks the book is already over-saturated, or that our book is not "new enough".

There are two things a scientific book proposal for a college newspaper has to do to be a success: Demonstrate that there is a book for you. Easily distinguish your book from others on the open bookstand. The media is in the book sales industry and therefore wants to be sure that your book is participating in an ongoing debate (and hopefully driving it forward in some way).

First book writers often get anxious when they have to put together a shortlist of "competing works" because they fear that their future publishers already see the markets in which they are hoping to publish too satiated. A lot of powerful books that have been released in the last 5-7 years on a particular subject show that there is a sound interest in your area and that your book is likely to be sold.

But of course you also need to express how your book adds something new to the scientific discussion. Here, first-time writers usually go awry. You have a tendency to think that the whole book must be new, otherwise it is not pubblic. Thus, they have a tendency to use an aggressively tonal approach by beating all other "competing" songs and hope that emphasizing the mistakes of the other ones will make their book more alluring.

First of all, determine why this autobiography is important in your area. Determine the volume, method, and body of proof, then specify how your book supplements this previous report by expanding the volume, using a new method, or using a new body of proof (or a mix of all three). If you write about the arts of basket weavers, for example, and there is a complete monography on the topic, but the book ends in the early 2000s, while yours ends in 2015, you may find that your book is based on the previous one and expands its analysis into the present.

Or if the same book only looks at masculine basket weavers, you can explain that your fellowship complements the current fellowship by including the sex dimensions in the interview. Or perhaps the previous book only analyses the work itself, but disregards the histories of basket weavers - and you know that undergraduates and other scientists will find the histories they need for their own scientific research.

You can present your book as a more comprehensive view of the life of these performers. You should always be a good listener and concentrate on how your book follows, expands or even challenged by earlier research, but in a cooperative way. Since your book is a single publication, the competitive title lists should primarily consist of other scientific books.

Except they are classic in this area, the tracks should have been released in the last 10 years; 5-7 is best. When your book is in dialogue with other headlines of the same media or serial, it is important to emphasize these headlines. You should also look out for the "authors" with whom your book is in dialogue.

He used his own acquaintance (through earlier publications or in newsletters and anthologies he had acquired) with the writers I had included in my rival works (whether or not these works themselves were released with my targeted press) to judge whether my book was a good match for the show.

This was the only fellowship currently available in a particular field to which I was hoping my book would help and because it had been released within the last six month, indicating that this field would expand.

Being the only fellowship in one of the sections of my book that was an anthology, not a monography, became a sales argument for my book. Rather, when looking at several books, the authors might ask themselves whether the promising writer can understand the distinction between a monography and an edited one.

The advice given by reputable university press about the competitive work: Don't be deceived by apparently straightforward demands like these policies that NYU University Press is offering to its future academic authors: You should enclose a checklist of three or four competitive titles and how your book differs from the competitors.

The Oxford University Press asks academic writers to do so: Look at the available ledgers in this area and specifically discusss their strength and weakness. Specify how your book differs from rival works. Which themes were omitted from rival titles and which from yours?

Each concurrent book should be discussed in a dedicated section. MIT University Press says academic mono-graphic writers should: Look at the available ledgers in this area and discus their strengths and shortcomings, individual and specific. Describe how your book resembles and differs from the rest of the competitors in terms of styles, timeliness and profundity.

Now that significant ledgers are available, you should tell why you are writing another book in this area. You should include all relevant title, even if they only competing with part of your book. The Clemson University Press advises academic book authors: They should be listed all the works they publish in immediate rivalry to your suggested book and what makes them different.

For each competitor book (author, cover, editor, publication date), please specify. Which further issues do you have on the "competing works" of the scientific book suggestions?

Mehr zum Thema