Demystifying the publication process

Announcing a new series of blog posts for academic authors

If you feel confused or anxious about publishing your work, you’re not alone. The publication process can be incredibly opaque. In a recent online webinar on academic publishing, a seasoned acquisitions editor described the process as follows:

‘Publishing is a weird thing that you don’t understand until you’ve done it – and I’m still learning’. 

— Senior Acquisitions Editor, University Press.

I believe that part of this strangeness is due to the fact that the industry is changing all the time, not only with trends that transform content but also with shifts in production technology. Every publisher and every project is different. No matter how much publishing experience we may have, we’re always learning.

I’m fortunate to have published my own writing with a variety of different presses: university, academic, and trade publishers. I remember having to navigate the publication process as a new author and I understand the feelings of uncertainty. I bring this personal experience to my editing practice.

I have worked with authors at every level of academia, from students to professors, publishing across a wide range of disciplines. Despite this diversity, I’m consistently asked the same types of questions. Some queries relate to the intellectual and practical challenges of submitting a work for publication, whereas others have a technical focus on production. The common issues tend to fall into four categories:

Finding a publisher

Perhaps the most important decision is where to publish. How and when should we approach acquisitions editors? There is also uncertainty around how to frame a book proposal. This stage involves a degree of self-marketing, which is an uncomfortable prospect for many authors.

Converting a PhD into a book

A common challenge is how to edit a perfectly complete thesis into a new book format. It’s hard to structurally edit and revise a document that is already in a finished form. There is also a question mark over how much previously published material (e.g., material published in journal articles or book chapters) can be republished in a monograph.

Dealing with reviewer feedback

Following the submission of an initial manuscript, authors will receive feedback from the acquisitions editor or peer reviewers (or from both sources). We may then face a dilemma: how can we navigate conflicting or negative feedback? And how should we interact with the acquisitions editor in this scenario? Following some simple protocols can ease the revision and resubmission process.

Navigating the production process

We’ve found a publisher, sent in our work, and dealt with any feedback. The manuscript has been prepared and resubmitted according to the publisher’s style, reference, and submission guidelines. We feel like the hard work is done. For many authors, submission is a huge milestone, but it is not where our involvement ends. We are now an essential cog in the machine of the production process – but what exactly happens, and in what order?

***

Over the course of this summer, I will publish a series of blog posts that will address these issues from the perspective of academic authors. Many of the basic principles will also apply to non-fiction authors working outside the academy.

The goal is to help demystify the publication process. The series will form a practical step-by-step guide for anyone who is considering publishing for the first time – or is still learning about this magical and weird process.

***

Does this topic resonate with you? If so, sign up to my monthly newsletter to make sure you don’t miss a post.

If you have a specific issue that you’d like me to cover, or a burning question about publishing or editing, I’d also love to hear from you. Please get in touch with your questions or request a free consultation to find out how I can help you with your project.

Publication date: 22 June 2026