CIS will provide funding up to $10,000 for Manuscript Review Workshops for CIS-affiliated faculty seeking feedback on monographs prior to submission for publication.
Proposals should be submitted to CIS at email@example.com. Click here to download the “2023-24 Call for Manuscript Review Proposal” as a PDF.
The four-hour workshop features three invited external reviewers who engage the author along with a small group of faculty and PhD students with the goal of collectively devising strategies for strengthening the final text.
The budget covers travel, lodging, and honoraria for three discussants ($500 each) as well as meals during and after the workshop.
Priority is given to first-time authors. Applicants must submit the following three items:
1. One-paragraph book précis
2. Ideal date for the manuscript review (manuscript must be completed and distributed to discussants one month prior to the session)
3. List of six possible discussants, three directly in the author’s field, three in a +1 field
The center needs as much time as possible (six months or more) to confirm senior discussants for a manuscript. The best way to finalize a date is for the author to think about a realistic but somewhat ambitious hard deadline by which the author can have a complete manuscript ready. Then we move one month further and schedule that date as the actual review. The author must realize that the actual date will have to adjust to the availability of three external discussants, and thus might occur near but not on the ideal date.
One month before the scheduled review is a hard deadline for the author to submit the full manuscript to CIS to ensure that the discussants have plenty of time to read it carefully. The author must choose a realistic date by which to complete a full draft.
In general, the manuscript is an author’s first, and thus, tenure, book. Therefore, the author needs it to speak to as wide an audience as possible. In terms of discussants, it does not benefit the author to have three discussants from the same field, or who know either the book or the author too well. Rather, this is an important opportunity for the author to meet and impress three senior scholars who may review the book for a press, or who may write a tenure letter. This means that the choice of discussants should be strategic – there are some excellent scholars who are unlikely to review the book or write tenure letters, and in general they should be avoided unless there is a compelling reason not to. That is, the review is partly about helping the author market the book and the ideas and to increase the author’s visibility, in addition to getting help for the actual book. The list should include roughly half senior scholars who are directly in the author’s field, and roughly half who are in a “+1” field – a related field that is similar to but not directly in the author’s field. It is important to have discussants from related fields – most books must speak to larger audiences, and certainly any tenure decision will include scholars from related fields. For example, a book on nuclear deterrence might have a discussant who is a specialist in IPE; or a book on Asian security might have a discussant who is conversant on alliances but not a regional expert.