Ep. 86 - Behind the Scenes at a Top University Press (with Editor Alison Kalett)

Acquisitions editors, developmental editors, copy editors... How many different kinds of editors are there? What do they even do? And what are they looking for in a project?

On this episode I chat with Alison Kalett, Editorial Director at Princeton University Press, where she supports a team of six science editors and acquires books in biology. She's been their science editor since 2007, and prior to this, she was editor for American History at Cornell University Press. 

In this episode, Alison gives us a behind-the-scenes look at the world of scholarly publishing. As a non-scientist who acquires science books, she lends a useful and unique perspective that will help all scholars figure out the academic publishing world.

Check out Leslie's website at www.YourWordsUnleashed.com!

The three ways Leslie can help you in 2025:

#1: Six-month Your Words Unleashed signature book writing coaching program. Through 8 hour-long sessions tailored to your own needs and goals, we will pinpoint what’s keeping you stuck. We’ll figure out personalized solutions and strategies so you can create direction and lasting momentum with your book writing. I’ll also provide detailed feedback on your writing throughout

#2: Four-month Career Reset Program for Overwhelmed Academics who want to reconnect with purpose. Over the course of 6 hour-long sessions, we’ll clarify your personal career vision, create space for what matters, overcome internal obstacles to change, and define what success means on your own terms so you can work less and live more.

#3: Group Zoom Workshops that balance personal well-being with writing productivity. Topics include transforming your dissertation into a book; connecting to the deeper purpose of your work; as well as boundary setting.

Check everything out on my website and if you are interested in any of these, please shoot me an email at ...

Transcript

Leslie: I am so pleased to welcome Alison Kalett onto your Words Unleashed. Alison is Editorial Director at Princeton University Press, where she supports a team of six science editors and acquires books in biology. She's been a science editor at Princeton University Press since 2007. Prior to this, she was editor for American History at Cornell University Press and got her start in publishing also at Princeton University Press as an editorial assistant to the History editor and the Math editor. Alison has a BA in History from Davidson College in Davidson, North Carolina. 
 
Alison and I know each other through Princeton University Press's Supporting Diverse Voices Book Proposal Development Grants program, which I first became involved with in 2023. We have since worked together to help new authors in biology move their exciting projects forward. I really wanted to talk with her to get a behind-the-scenes look at the world of scholarly publishing. And I also think that Alison has a really unique viewpoint as a non-scientist who acquires science books. 

Alison, welcome to the show!

Alison: 

Thanks, Leslie, for having me. I'm really delighted to be here.

Leslie: 

Me too. So, what I always like to ask people is to talk a bit about your background and also your experience in academic publishing. I'm really curious to know what attracted you to a career in publishing.

Alison: 

Yeah, it's always fun to talk about this. As you mentioned, I've been in academic publishing since 2003, and I have a BA in history from Davidson. And I think, like a lot of people, I thought about various career paths with the humanities degree. And I considered pursuing my own PhD in history, but I decided not to pursue that route and I just started talking to people. And my 23-year-old self thought that academic publishing sounded like a lot of fun. So that's how I got my start, as you mentioned, as an editorial assistant to a history editor and a math editor. And that just happened to be what the job was posted. I didn't realize that this was a great way to see two very different types of scholarly publishing in the science world and the non-science world.

But I think what attracted me to getting into scholarly publishing was getting to be in the world of ideas in a different way. I toyed with my own PhD because I like this world. And then I realized, as I learned more about academic publishing and as, of course, I got my start in it, that you really get to know this world in a different way. You get to be in the world of ideas, you get to be a bit of a generalist, as I sometimes like to say. You get to know a little about a lot. And so that's what really attracted me to being in science publishing. And I think what still attracts me is being in this world of ideas.

Leslie:  

I am very curious about exploring your thoughts as a non-scientist who acquires science books. So, it seems like many scientists there, they're moving from articles into book writing. So this is their first time doing it. What have you noticed are the biggest challenges that scientists face when it comes to writing their own books?

Alison: 

Yeah, for sure. And I mean, I think it's so wonderful for scientists to write books. And of course, as I think you know, and some of your listeners probably know, books are not the baked-in method of communication. Articles in scholarly journals--that's how research is published and advanced. 

But in terms of what are the challenges that scientists face when considering book writing? I mean, the number one thing that we talk about all the time is really time and scheduling. And of course, I think this goes for any author. But even more so when a book feels like something additive, right? It's something different. It's not going to get you tenure or even after tenure, it's not often rewarded in the same way. 

So yeah, time is the biggest thing. And particularly as I said for scholars who are considering this even before tenure, which is more unusual or obviously scientists who aren't retired or women or scholars from underrepresented groups, it can really be hard to know how to fit a book in among running a lab, among total writing, among teaching, writing articles, supervising students, the myriad of administrative responsibilities, and of course just life in general as well. 

So, time is the biggest thing, and sometimes the timing just isn't right. So, a lot of what I do, what my fellow science editors do, is keep in touch with people and wait for the right time. Maybe that has to do with when kids are older, when a sabbatical is available. So yeah, I would say time is the biggest thing. 

Many scientists, of course, do find the time. And I think finding that time can come from a few things. It can come from external support, as I mentioned, a sabbatical. It can come from the support of a publisher. Sometimes it's as simple as just staying in touch, nudging someone along, knowing someone else is invested in the completion of your book. 

And it can be also just about being intentional about the book writing process. I do tell people that a decision to write a book is a decision to prioritize that piece of writing, not at the expense of everything else. But it is a decision to prioritize that for some period of time. So, I think it also requires the intentional kind of carving out of time. Some scientists talk about taking mornings off to work on their book or a couple of days a week. So, I think it requires that intentionality as well.

Beyond time, I think the biggest other challenge, and again, this isn't totally unique to scientists, but one we frequently encounter, is really how to engage an audience, or I think one of my science colleagues put it well, how to earn the attention of your reader.

Leslie: 

I love that! 

Alison: 

Yeah. And obviously I would say that kind of goes for any book, but it's probably most pronounced in terms of– and I know we'll probably talk a little about book types and genres a little later, but it goes particularly for trade books or crossover books, which are understandably often the furthest from the kind of writing scientists are doing regularly or have been trained to write. 

If you've ever read a scientific article, of course, it's a very different style of writing. So that challenge of engaging an audience can really manifest in a few ways. And I think some of the things I observe are the challenge of anticipating what questions a reader might have or where they might get confused and where you need to do more explaining versus less explaining. 

Another kind of challenge, and I think this is one of the biggest ones, is just how much background and context to give the reader in the writing of the book. So sometimes, very understandably, I'll have manuscripts that say, “well, I'm gonna have a whole first chapter on, let's say, on Evolution 101.” And that's a lot of background to give someone.

Leslie: 

Right.

Alison: 

And so, trying to figure out kind of what the right level of background and context is so the reader understands, but also you stay focused on your core message and argument. So that's another kind of frequent challenge. 

Some other things: how to build the right structure in a book. How to build an argument. How to push the reader from chapter to chapter and really build a narrative. and I think the last one is, and this one maybe specific to particularly science book writing, is trying to figure out what level of detail is of interest to the reader. 

I think there's great value in science books and popular science books in explaining not just what is known, but how it's known; the process of science. And that's a great thing about many of these books. But under the hood of that, I think there's a challenge in knowing what of those details. How deeply to describe this experiment, maybe to talk about that really interesting piece of field work you did, but not the paper that resulted from it. So, trying to figure out that level of detail is I would say another challenge particular that scientists have to work through.
 
 And of course, there are the mechanical aspects that I think a lot of book writers that no doubt through your own developmental editing work you encounter. Transitions, a good introduction, signposting those sorts of things. But I think those are a little less science-specific.

Leslie: 

Yeah, I mean, those are all great points and definitely applicable to I think all book writers. There's always that question of audience. And I think that the one thing that can potentially liberate scientists who are writing books, I think, is that they are definitely going to have a different audience for their book than social science and humanities writers. 

Because, like, my husband is a scientist. I cannot understand his journal articles because I literally am not trained, whereas I can read most social science and history. And maybe I don't know certain terms, events and that sort of thing, but I can figure it out. And so I think it could be kind of freeing to be like, “I’m going to write something that is going to appeal to a wider audience.” But it's true, getting that balance right of not too far in, but also not too far out, I think is a big challenge. And that's why I always recommend that people really hone down an ideal audience member that's like one person.

That they really, they would want them to read the book, and this person would want to also read the book even if they didn't know them. Because it helps direct the author and make decisions around, like, what is too much to include or what do I have to include. So, I think you make some really great points about that.

Alison: 

Yeah, everything you said is truly resonant. I think it's frequent advice, but I think it's good advice to really imagine that reader and think about who are you writing for in this book. One point you just made, I think you're right that if it was scientists, you're going to be writing for a different audience because of the nature of the form. And I think that goes for academic books too, and not just the popular books. 

And I think going back to challenges, I think some of the things I talked about are certainly applied to monographs, for other scholars. And I think one of the big challenges I encounter there is this sense among scientists that the book will be out of date by the time it's published. And maybe that's true in other fields. I can think of some social sciences as well, but I think that's a very frequent question. 

My colleagues in the sciences and I get, “well, why write a book? It's going to be out of date.” And certainly, any field of research that is interesting and dynamic is moving on. But I think the thing I would say there to address that challenge is to keep in mind the book serves a different role from the journal article, from the research article. It is not the place people are going to go for the absolute latest research.

Leslie: Right.

Alison: 

It's really playing a different role in the world. It's playing a role of synthesis or it's playing a role of a bridge to the primary literature for a first introduction. For a student or scholar, it's obviously a place to make a new argument and spark debate and maybe venture to say a little more freedom than you might have in a research type article. So, I always encourage people, for any book, but particularly thinking about the more scholarly end of the books, to liberate from the feeling that the book will be out of date and to understand the book is doing something different in the world.

Leslie: 

Definitely. Yeah, that it will have lasting power even as the field is moving forward.

Alison: Right.

Leslie: 

I think that's a great point. And so, I think that a lot of first-time authors are very unclear about what editors actually do, and the different kinds of editors that there are. They know that there's acquiring editors, and they need to talk to them, but they don't know which one does what. Anyway, can you give some insight into what do acquisitions editors do? And then, also, what are acquisitions editors looking for in a project?

Alison: 

Yeah. All right, so this is a big question. I'll do my best here. So, I'm an acquisitions editor. And as I guess implied by the name, it's my job (and other people in this role) to go acquire content and authors. And as you mentioned there are other types of editors - developmental editors, copy editors, and I won't spend a lot of time on that.

So, an acquisitions editor, often we're called list builders. And why are we called list builders? It's because acquisitions editors, at least in university press settings, are responsible for building an intellectually exciting and financially healthy list of books, in one or sometimes two disciplines. So, one of my colleagues uses this phrase, and I like it. He says, “when you think about what acquisitions editors do, one of our roles is to be an expert on experts.” 

And I think it's, apt. And why that is, is what we're doing is we're getting to know the disciplines in which we're acquiring, in my case, biology. We're getting to know the questions a field is asking, we're getting to know the curriculum of a field, what's the progression that students take, how a field is connected with other fields, how it's connected to what's happening in the world, and who are the people operating in these fields, what's the direction a field is pushing in. And then we think about all that and we think about how it maps onto books. So that's where kind of the list building comes from. 

So, in terms of what we do, we do lots and lots of networking, I would say, and that takes the form of travel to campuses, to academic conferences, takes these days a lot of zoom conversations. We spend a lot of time looking at general interests and academic publications. We often have our eye on articles that might be expanded into books or ideas that might make good books. And that often leads to writing to authors directly for books. 

And of course, authors write to us to submit proposals and manuscripts, and agents write to us as well. But we do a lot of commissioning as well. So, acquisitions editors often also write to authors and say, “hey, would you like to write a book on X? I noticed this article you wrote or think the world needs a new book on Y, and you're the person to do it.” So, we do a lot of that. 

Of course, we spend a lot of time fielding submissions in proposal form or manuscript form. We spend a lot of time reading those submissions. So that's a lot of what I would call maybe external facing work of, an acquisitions editor. And then there's the internal facing work, I guess. And they're not strict divides here. 

But an acquisitions editor is very much the partner for an author through the publication process, particularly in the early stages before the book maybe enters production or the authors start interfacing with the marketing colleagues. We're kind of their interface between the press and other colleagues. So we present the book to our colleagues at the press to talk about it in early stage, to make sure there's internal agreement about who the audience is. We talk about the financial plans around the book. We steward the peer review process, we negotiate contracts, we collaborate with our colleagues in the press and with the author around things like title and cover discussions. Those are the very broad brushstrokes, external and internal facing roles of an acquisitions editor. 

And you might be surprised, I mean, it's kind of funny. I get to the end of that and, I realize I haven't mentioned editing yet, which is, of course, what many people understandably assume editors do. And we, of course, my colleagues and I do spend time editing proposals and editing manuscripts to ensure obviously they are reaching the audience that we envision for the book. But, yeah, people are sometimes surprised to hear that the editing itself doesn't occupy the vast majority of my time. There's a lot else in the world of an acquisitions editor.

Leslie: 

Yeah. So I'm sure you look at hundreds of proposals. What are the qualities of a proposal that really stand out to you as being like, “I am very interested in this and I want to pursue it?”

Alison: 

Yeah, yeah. I am going to answer your question, I promise. But the first thing I'll say before getting to the specifics of proposal is that I would say we think about-- I think about, my colleagues think about--what I said earlier too, about the kind of list building. That we have a sense of the kind of list we're looking to develop at a press, whether that's expanding into another subfield, whether it's building a new area of strength, whether it's now saying, “hey, we want to do more of this other type of book that maybe we didn't do as much.” Maybe that's more books or general readers or more textbooks or whatever it might be. 

So, I would say before I get into the specifics of what I look for is against that backdrop is also this larger frame of what I'm looking for for the list and also what the press is looking for. And I say that because sometimes I think editors all get very worthy proposals that maybe check a lot of the boxes I'll talk about. But we can't do them all. I mean, one, there are constraints on the number of books we do. But as I said, there's also a broader framework in which we're operating in. So I say that so people sometimes know when they get a rejection, it's not necessarily about what you presented. There is a broader context.

Leslie: 

That makes sense.

Alison: 

Yeah. But now I can actually answer your specific question about what we're looking for. Obviously, we look at the author and their connection to the subject matter. What's their connection to the subject matter? What kind of expertise or knowledge are they bringing to this topic they want to write on? Have they been researching it for many years? Or, if they're proposing a textbook, have they been teaching this course for many years? 

So when we think about authorship, we look at the argument and idea that's being presented in a proposal or manuscript. Does it feel original, and does it feel like it's saying something important and new -- whether it's a debate in the field or something for general readers? And this goes back to what I was saying too, about editors networking and being aware of the conversation happening in their discipline. I think we have a sense of what is needed. And does that idea or argument come through in that proposal as something new and resonant?

A big one, which we talked about before, is audience. Does the author articulate a sense of who they're writing for? Sometimes, understandably, I think we see some proposals where authors try and articulate a very broad audience. The book will be for everyone, or the book will be for specialists and general readers and students. And certainly, there are books. And I don't mean to suggest that books can't bridge certain audiences. 

But I encourage people to think fairly specifically about who they're writing for. I'll use examples from my world. Okay, “I'm writing my book for readers who read books on evolutionary biology or human behavior.” “Readers who read books like XYZ or listen to podcasts like xyz, or read magazines like xyz.” So I look for a sense that the author has thought about who they're writing for. 

And then, we think about how the book is written. Does it indicate in a proposal that the author has a sense of how to clearly present the ideas and arguments? For example, in the context of a trade book for a broad readership, does the proposal indicate a good sense of how to carry the reader through from chapter to chapter? Is there a sense of narrative? Is there a balance? 

And this is one of the trickier things. But I think a really important thing, is there a balance between this storytelling proposed in the book and also the underlying scholarship? Because, all these books are undergirded by scholarship and research. So is there a way that you can present that scholarship and that knowledge in a package and in a way that is engaging for someone who is interested, but of course not expert. 

So these are some of the things we look for in a proposal. And that's not to say that all proposals tick all these boxes or take them right away if there's promise. There's often back and forth involved with the author proposing the book. But those are, I would say, the kind of main buckets.

Leslie: 

Yeah, that's super helpful! And so, you've been mentioning different kinds of books, like monographs, trade books, that sort of thing. Can you talk about the different categories? And I think, especially for science authors who could choose different pathways, how should authors decide?

Alison: 

Right, right, yeah. We have our own jargon of different book types, of course, and as you mentioned, we tend to think of them. And I think you mentioned there's scholarly monographs, there's textbooks, there's trade books. And I think scholars, including scientists, don't understandably always recognize that one of the great things about university presses, including Princeton, is the range of our publishing.

And so, yeah, I'll say a little about each of the book types. As I said, it can be somewhat porous. But generally speaking, a monograph is a book making typically a singular argument for an audience of other scholars, or maybe scholars from allied fields to or advanced students. But it's really a book obviously written by a scholar for other scholars, primarily as the audience. 

Textbooks, of course, have a pedagogical approach. The goal is to reach an audience of students, and that could be obviously for undergraduate students enrolled in a course. It could be for graduate students, or it could also be a pedagogical book, though that's meant for people to self-study from. One of the types of textbooks that I've worked on a lot, that the press publishes quite frequently and successfully are what we call methods books. Maybe it's data analysis or how to use R or things like that, and these sort of skills books in many ways. And those are books that might be used in a graduate seminar, or they might be often used for self-study. It might be a book on mathematical modeling. And those are really also very important books, written with a  pedagogical approach and thinking about students, but students at different levels. 

And then of course we talked about their trade books. And trade books are written for an audience primarily of non-experts, people who are interested, but don't necessarily bring any disciplinary expertise to the book or the topic. There are trade books that obviously engage scholars too. So they're not, not for scholars, but obviously they're primarily written for people who are not reading the primary literature. They're coming at the topic from a pure place of curiosity, and engagement. 

And what distinguishes among these books is not only the topic. Because actually many times there are topics that can be very well suited at multiple levels. You can have a topic that could be great for a monograph or great for a textbook, or great for a trade book. But the distinctions really lie in the organization of the book, the narrative approach, the level, the depth, those sorts of things. I would say, particularly in the sciences, really distinguish among the different types of books.

Leslie: 

I feel like a lot of people lately that I work with, like social science and humanities folks, they want something between the scholarly monograph and the trade book. They want the storytelling, but they want the empirical research. And the argument is that almost its own category or… 

Alison: 

I would say, yeah. And I think those are- I want to encourage those books also while I've used this opportunity. Yeah, I mean, sometimes we call those crossover books where we might see an audience that's both robust broadly across academic fields as well as, some crossover into a general readership. So I think that's a wonderful kind of genre, so to speak. 

But, also, sometimes a book we might publish as a trade book also fits that space as well. Because all of the books we publish as trade books, as well as many other university presses, still have very much that scholarly foundation, that scholarly backbone. And I think it's a matter of how it's communicated. So, I really do believe that one doesn't have to sacrifice their scholarship or people often say “dumb things down” to communicate with a more general readership. 

I mean, you have to think obviously about these things I talked about in terms of level and narrative and depth and, organization and things like that. All those things really matter. But I think you can still write a book that is still very well served by the scholarship and still reach a broader audience. And yeah, and I think we talk about a lot in-house, how big that broader readership is, or whether the book primarily lies within a broad crusted disciplinary audience and some reach into a general readership. Or whether we think it will have a very robust reach into the general readership by virtue of his presentation. Or maybe it's topic or maybe it's author.

Leslie: 

You know, while I have you here and we can continue to pull back the curtain on some of these processes, I'm wondering if you could spend a little time talking about peer review of manuscripts and how that works. A lot of folks just, they literally have no idea how peer review works for books. So any insights you can share?

Alison: 

Yeah, I mean, I think all university presses, all of our books are peer reviewed prior to publication as our book proposal. Sometimes in the proposal process it can vary a little bit. But in general, all of our books certainly go through peer review prior to publication. And typically, what we do is we send a proposal or manuscript to typically two people who we think are well positioned obviously to speak to the scholarly merits and quality of a book. And we always explain who the proposal or book is for so people understand in which context they're evaluating it. 

Particularly in the context of science books, sometimes very understandably, peer reviewers, particularly those who haven't reviewed books before, maybe don't understand the difference between the goals of a science book versus an article and that it may well not be to break new ground, but to synthesize and encourage people to evaluate the book and peer review the book based on the goals of the book. 

So other things about peer review, particularly related to science books, is that the peer review process, I mean, I've never worked at a science journal, so I should preface that with that explanation. But I think the peer review process for a book, as I understand it, is more expansive than it would be for a journal research article. We're of course asking peer reviewers to comment first and foremost on the scholarly merit and quality of the work. And that goes for any work. 

But we're also asking peer reviewers’ perspective on audience. We're asking their perspective on the structure of the book. And very importantly, we're asking their perspective also on its function in the market particularly. I use the case of textbooks, for example. These get peer reviewed extensively. And it's really important for us to ask the market in the form of these peer reviewers, how would this function in a classroom setting? Does it cover the topics? Would you be able to use this?

So, I think the peer review process is expansive, I think in a good way. And I think the peer review process certainly for us is very much the conversation between the peer reviewer, the publisher, the editor, the author. So when I get peer reviews, I of course share them with the authors and we talk them through. We talk about, “okay, what has emerged in the peer review process, what do we really need to confront?” Obviously if there are any whoppers we need to deal with them. But also, what really came out of this process that we need to confront?

But we also talk about things the reviewers flag that maybe don't make sense to change, that maybe they want a new chapter on this, but we don't think that's quite right. Or maybe it's a reflection about how they, as the reviewer, might have written this book, but it fundamentally isn't what the author wants. So, it is very much a conversation and it's not a mandate to accept all the recommendations of the peer reviewer. And maybe that's distinct in some ways from some journal publishing peer reviews. As one of my colleagues put it, when it works well, it really builds the book up and does make it better.

Leslie: 

Yeah, I think that's helpful and maybe it's not that different from peer reviews of journal articles. And I'm actually curious about this. My authors are always asking me, “are there people I can specifically request that this not get sent to?”

Alison: 

Yes, right, I would say as a matter of course, and I think many of my colleagues do too, I do ask for recommendations for potential reviewers as well as people I should avoid. Now of course the process is anonymous, and we have discretion on who we go to and we avoid conflicts of interests and we often are thinking about, particularly about the audience for a book. 

For example, if it's a cross disciplinary book, we want to obviously get complimentary expertise and things like that. But yeah, we are obviously, despite the fact, as I said, we are networked in the field, we can't know everybody and everything going on. And recommendations are helpful and yes, it is helpful to know, “please do not send it to So-and-So.” I often like to know why that's the case. I mean, I don't need to know gossip, but you know, because of course I'm looking for the book to have a fair and rigorous review. 

But I'm also, you know, I don't think we're looking for the books to be unfairly maligned for reasons that maybe have nothing to do with the book. In that case it might just be some background issues. So I always ask. And I think it's fine for authors to say, “well, here's who I would recommend and here's who I would not recommend.” And I would say also it's interesting to see the recommendations because it does tell me something too about how the authors are thinking about their own readership too.

Leslie: 

Okay, that is super helpful. We've talked about a lot of different, more specific things about writing books and getting them through the process. Now I kind of want to ask you a question about publishing as a career.

Alison: Okay.

Leslie: 

As you know, higher ed is in a state of contraction. A lot of people are moving out of the academy either by choice or not by choice. For a lot of folks, I think a career in publishing sounds very interesting and intriguing, but they have no idea where to start.

Do you have any practical steps people can take if they want to explore this as a career option?

Alison: 

Publishing is a great career and I've loved the whole time I've spent publishing. But I know it can seem a little confusing and daunting how to enter this world. If someone's already in the world of academia and higher ed, the good thing, of course, is that they're already interested in a lot of the things that a career as a publisher would entail in terms of liking ideas and learning and research and this world. 

But I think in terms of practical steps, the first one is, I guess a big one, is to just find ways to get to know the world of academic publishing. And there are a few ways you can do that. One is if there's a university press on your campus, try and visit it and maybe have some informational interviews with people who work there just to get to know what it is they do, what the publisher is looking for, just what this world is like to see if it seems interesting. 

Similarly, a lot of academics go to academic conferences. They're often people from editorial departments and marketing departments and sales departments go to these conferences too. So that's another occasion. Editors are taking meetings to talk about potential books. But I think they're also happy to talk about the world of publishing as a career.

Leslie: 

That's good to know. That is a great thing for people to know.

Alison: 

Yeah. And also, the marketers you’ll often see at these booths too, they have great experience in publishing. So I think chatting people up, I would say. And obviously there are websites people can visit. There's the Association of University Presses, there's Publishers Marketplace, there's periodicals like Publishers Weekly. So there are lots of places and people to gain knowledge from. So I think that's the first thing I would say. 

I would also think as you talk to people in publishing or get to know academic publishing, to think broadly about the opportunities. People very understandably think first about editorial, what I do, acquisitions. But that's, as you, I'm sure you know, a small part of the publishing staff and an organization. There are designers, the people who work in production. There are people in marketing and sales and foreign rights and data analysis. There's others I'm neglecting who I'm sure we'll hear about, but there are lots of roles within a publisher and that might be surprising to people. 

So I think what I would say is, be broad minded as you think potentially about publishing. And also keep in mind that where you start may not be where you end up. Sometimes with publishing, it's about getting in the door a bit too. 

And then maybe the other couple things I'd say in terms of trying to be helpful and practical here is there are publishing programs that provide overviews of publishing and practical skills. There are places like the NYU Publishing course, Denver Publishing Institute. I think LA Review of Books might run a publishing program. 

I can follow up with you and send you more specifics. But there are very specific publishing programs and these are not necessarily years long commitment. I think maybe the some of these are just like a summer or a month long. So these are also not necessarily expensive advanced degrees. They're programs that provide good overviews, often taught by people in the industry. So there are re great networking opportunities too.

And there're also internships these days, and wonderfully, more publishing internships are paid. So there's also ways to try out publishing a little that way and gain some experience. And then even within one's current role in academia or higher ed, whatever, there are ways to engage with the publishing world by saying yes to peer reviews if asked or offering to do book reviews. It's another way to connect yourself with the book world.

Leslie: 

Yeah, those are super helpful. And I think it also requires academics to have a different mindset, too, because networking, it sounds like it's number one. And that is not something that many academics feel comfortable doing. But you know what, it's just talking to people, it's just making connections and creating relationships and then also knowing that getting your foot in the door is actually is step one. It's not a tenure track position where you may be married to that for the rest of your life.

Alison: Right, right.

Leslie: 

So you can move around, you can explore things, you gain more experience, you move up, you move laterally. So that idea I think is also something that may not just be the first thing on people's minds.

Alison: 

Right. My mentor at publishing, she was the history editor when I started working for her, but she also worked in foreign rights, she worked in sales, and now she's taken on other leadership roles so yeah, there are lots of paths within publishing and within a publishing house too.

Leslie: 

Oh awesome. So good! So Alison, thank you so much for taking the time to share your insights and wisdom and practical tips with my listeners. What's the best way for people to connect with you?

Alison: 

First of all, thank you so much for having me on. This was a lot of fun. I love talking books and publishing and science publishing in particular. If people want to reach out to me, my email address is on the Princeton University Press website. I'm happy to be reached out. I'm a little quiet on social media but I am on LinkedIn and Bluesky. I'm happy to be reached out to if people have follow-up questions about this wonderful crazy world.

Leslie: 

Absolutely. And if you are a biologist with a great book idea, make sure to reach out to her!