Obviously 1 publication of any type is better than none.
But with such a clear hierarchy of journal desirability, where do book chapters fit in?
Does it depend somewhat on any of the following: the publisher, editor, press, length of chapter and/or volume?
Are there any circumstances where a book chapter is valued equally to a journal article?
This is another instance of what is common practice versus what might make more sense. Can't sociologists on their own sometimes weigh the merits of a chapter and decide whether it's an important contribution, maybe more so than a typical article? Yes, journal articles have gone through the peer review process that is suppose to be blind and a department might lack anyone in a field to make such an evaluation, but does that clearly always elevate an article above a book chapter? Or are SCs and those deciding tenure too busy to dig more deeply than the ranking of the publication outlet?
Publishing a chapter in an edited volume devoted to a particular topic might mean that it was better vetted by qualified people and is more accessible to and useful for potential readers. I've often profited in my research and teaching from those kinds of books. An issue here is the amount of time it can take to get in print, which is normally on the side of journals.
OP here. I was recruited to write a chapter in an edited volume (and though I haven't yet gotten to this point in the process, I assume it's going to be peer-reviewed, since it's an academic press (!?)).
I'm going on the job market in 2 years. While I certainly have other things in the pipeline, this chapter may end up being the only real publication that's safely out there in print by the time I hit the market. Does it help me that the chapter is in a volume edited by a star in the sub-field and published by a reputed academic press with a large distribution?
I get your point. I'm not on a SC but my guess is that its about metrics. People rely on metrics out of convenience, even if they know deep down that the metrics are imperfect. Journals offer what seems like the best metric because there are impact factors and at least the skeleton of consensus about how various journals rank. No such thing exists with books. If we lived in a world where people were incentivized to do the extra work and come up with their own informed opinion about the quality of someone's work, it might be different.
This is another instance of what is common practice versus what might make more sense. Can't sociologists on their own sometimes weigh the merits of a chapter and decide whether it's an important contribution, maybe more so than a typical article? Yes, journal articles have gone through the peer review process that is suppose to be blind and a department might lack anyone in a field to make such an evaluation, but does that clearly always elevate an article above a book chapter? Or are SCs and those deciding tenure too busy to dig more deeply than the ranking of the publication outlet?
Publishing a chapter in an edited volume devoted to a particular topic might mean that it was better vetted by qualified people and is more accessible to and useful for potential readers. I've often profited in my research and teaching from those kinds of books. An issue here is the amount of time it can take to get in print, which is normally on the side of journals.
I see your point, 9218. But given that this is such an insiders game, does a book chapter under an editor who is well established in the sub-field do some heavy lifting for me? At the very least, I'm getting my name out there among the right people (this small community of folks in my sub-field)? The book is a 'state-of-the-field' volume with 40 chapters. It will probably go out primarily to libraries and be used as a textbook.
I think there's a big difference between not having published at all, and having published a book chapter. And then there's a smaller difference between having book chapter in a well-known or interesting book, and a lower-ranked sole-authored journal pub. Then there's another big difference between that level and the elite journals (with different variants and tiers in between).
I see your point, 9218. But given that this is such an insiders game, does a book chapter under an editor who is well established in the sub-field do some heavy lifting for me? At the very least, I'm getting my name out there among the right people (this small community of folks in my sub-field)? The book is a 'state-of-the-field' volume with 40 chapters. It will probably go out primarily to libraries and be used as a textbook.
Even at my meager SLAC, you've got to publish an article or two (at journals we've heard of) to get tenure. The process of getting an article published and a book chapter published are very different. We need to know you can go through the article process.
If you haven't ever published an article before, it is hard for us to predict your chances of getting one published (and getting tenure) while at our place.
I see your point, 9218. But given that this is such an insiders game, does a book chapter under an editor who is well established in the sub-field do some heavy lifting for me? At the very least, I'm getting my name out there among the right people (this small community of folks in my sub-field)? The book is a 'state-of-the-field' volume with 40 chapters. It will probably go out primarily to libraries and be used as a textbook.
It won't do any 'heavy lifting' for you at top schools. But that doesn't mean it's a bad idea, especially if it's relatively easy to do. Think of it as one more way of networking and expanding your name recognition, as well as recognition of your intellectual contributions.
However, don't be under any illusion that it will be used as evidence of your research capacity, which will need to be demonstrated elsewhere. At least for top schools.
THEY ARE NOT PEER REVIEWED! EVER! If you are really excited about the volume, the other contributors, and are not gonna write something that would have been a big part of the diss for it [i.e., you are not wasting a paper that could go to a good journal], by all means do it. But if you are doing it because you want to bolster your CV, don't bother, it barely counts for anything precisely b/c it is not peer reviewed and because everyone knows that edited volumes are the definition of nepotism. I get so angry about this sometimes, I actually think people take advantage of grad students to fill out their edited volumes sometimes. Whether it is intentional exploitation or not, a grad student is so thrilled by being "recruited" to contribute a book and see their name in print that they jump at it without realizing it may do them more harm than good [if they submit a paper that could have a shot at a decent journal].
-Associate prof
OP here. I was recruited to write a chapter in an edited volume (and though I haven't yet gotten to this point in the process, I assume it's going to be peer-reviewed, since it's an academic press (!?)).
I'm going on the job market in 2 years. While I certainly have other things in the pipeline, this chapter may end up being the only real publication that's safely out there in print by the time I hit the market. Does it help me that the chapter is in a volume edited by a star in the sub-field and published by a reputed academic press with a large distribution?
First, in print in two years? Don't hold your breath my friend.
Second, if you can knock out the chapter in a fairly short time, I see no reason not to do it. But if it seriously takes you away from your more important projects, then let it go.
I don't think anyone writes a book chapter because it will do much for them on the job market. I've written a couple chapters when asked to contribute a chapter on a topic that interests me and when it is for a collection with big name authors and editors. If you value writing for grad students this is a useful way to guide the next generation because quality chapters end up on syllabi. That also helps with name recognition. I like the idea that things I write get read. These chapters have gotten a decent number of cites--more so than the average journal article.
Look, the whole "only articles count" logic is actually relatively recent. It's an interesting development because if you look at sociologists who were "book people" historically, then they'd have a few articles and a reasonable number of book chapters. So I think part of why you see these harsh opinions is that if you look at what was reasonable in the past--chapters plus your book project--unfortunately those things are not going to count for as much these days.
That said, I think that google scholar and other projects are likely to make it possible to give a better proxy for book and book chapter impacts eventually, though I guess if you're thinking of going on the market soon, then probably it won't be ready in time for you.
OP here. I was recruited to write a chapter in an edited volume (and though I haven't yet gotten to this point in the process, I assume it's going to be peer-reviewed, since it's an academic press (!?)).
I'm going on the job market in 2 years. While I certainly have other things in the pipeline, this chapter may end up being the only real publication that's safely out there in print by the time I hit the market. Does it help me that the chapter is in a volume edited by a star in the sub-field and published by a reputed academic press with a large distribution?
It sounds like you have a number of projects in progress. Rather than worrying about whether this particular one will help on the market, you could evaluate it in terms of whether it's something you'd like to work on. I realize that your original question was about the job market and it's certainly a good idea to evaluate the allotment of time in those terms. Perhaps, though, it's worth setting aside some amount of time to work on a project/research for its own sake. Of course, perhaps you have more projects that you'd like to work on than time, in which case you might as well just choose the ones that will come with career rewards.
THEY ARE NOT PEER REVIEWED! EVER!
This is not true. Most book chapters are not peer reviewed, but some are. I have published a couple book chapters that went through the same peer review process as articles - sent to 2-3 blind reviewers who I had to make revisions for, etc. I clearly mark them as peer reviewed on the CV, and no on has ever raised this as an issue.
The real value of a book chapter is networking. You now have a connection with the editor of the book, who could be a big name or on a search committee.
I once did a conference interview with a committee that included an editor of a volume that I contributed to. I felt more comfortable during the interview because of it, especially because he remembered I was one of the only people whose chapters were in on time.
I would say go for it if you are really interested in the topic and/or it won't take up much time that you could devote to journal articles.
Find out whether the book will be distributed online and whether its chapters will show up in online databases. This makes a huge difference to its visibility.
If the piece you write is a kind of broader bird's-eye view of your work (or your area) that you wouldn't be able to publish in a good journal but that people will find useful and remember you for, do it.
If the piece you write would make a good journal article, send it to a journal.
Remember that everything takes more time than you think it will, even after you try to account for this principle.