Attachment 0002-Book Process SOP_Afghan Book.docx
DOCX document 43 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W56HZV-23-R-L095
About this file
This document outlines standard operating procedures for research and writing projects conducted by the Center of Military History. It details all aspects of the process from project initiation and prospectus development through final publication and marketing. Key details include research requirements and milestones, chapter draft and review procedures, production tasks for authors, and performance evaluation standards.
The related federal contract opportunity solicits research and writing services from qualified offerors to produce an official U.S. Army history covering operations in Afghanistan from 2014 to 2021. The Department of the Army Materiel Command TACOM Life Cycle Management Command is the contracting agency. The solicitation seeks a contractor to research, write, edit, and assist with publishing the history in accordance with the standards described in the SOP document.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Questions and Answers-Afghan Book.docx | DOCX document | |
| W56HZV-23-R-L095 Amendment 0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment 0001-Pricing Workbook_Afghan Book.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Solicitation-W56HZV-23-R-L095_Afghan Book.pdf | ||
| Attachment 0004-Use of Existing Government-Furnished Property_Afghan Book.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 0003-Past Performance Questionnaire_Afghan Book.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 0005-CMH Style Guide 2023_Afghan Book.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
MAJOR PUBLICATION PROCESS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOP)
29 Sep 2020 (Revised Draft)
| 1. | Objective | ||
| Foster a culture and a program that maintains the Center of Military History (CMH) as the premier publisher of official history in the Federal Government. That entails hiring and nurturing the best researchers/writers, ensuring that they can focus on their projects, providing timely and clear editorial guidance, and efficiently producing well-regarded books that prove valuable to the Army, academia, and the American public. This SOP applies to any writing project that involves a prospectus or a significant commitment of time (such as a campaign pamphlet), although some steps may be modified based on the type of project. | |||
| 2. | Organization and Responsibilities | ||
| A. | Editorial Board | ||
| The Chief Historian, History Directorate (HD) Director, and writing division chiefs serve as the Editorial Board for CMH book projects. The full board acts on general tasks such as approving project ideas. Review of chapters generally will be conducted by the Chief Historian, HD Director, the Division Chief overseeing that book project, and additional authors with relevant experience as appropriate. | |||
| B. | Advisory Committee | ||
| The Chief Historian may appoint a group of experts external to CMH to provide advice as needed on a given project, particularly on the prospectus and the first complete draft of the manuscript. | |||
| C. | The HD consists of one (1) or more book writing divisions, the Publishing Division (HPD), and master authors. The combination of authors, editors, and visual information specialists in the same directorate ensures that there generally are no seams in the process of researching, writing, and producing a book—everyone involved works for a single Director. While most authors will be a part of HD, some may come from other sources. | ||
| D. | Chief Historian | ||
| Army Regulation (AR) 870-5 states that the Chief Historian will “ensure that all publications produced by CMH are of sufficient quality to become official history of the U.S. Army.” In that role, the Chief Historian relies on the advice of the Editorial Board, but the Chief Historian makes all final decisions on editorial issues (subject to the ultimate approval of the Executive Director). | |||
| E. | HD Director | ||
| The HD Director oversees the book process from the idea stage through final publication, providing guidance as needed to the Division Chiefs and their subordinates, as well as performing typical supervisory functions. The HD Director is responsible for ensuring that book projects remain on track and initiating action to solve issues that arise. | |||
| F. | Writing Division Chiefs | ||
| The writing Division Chiefs provide day-to-day supervision to their authors and any assigned research assistants and contract authors. They work closely with the authors to shape the research and writing process, ensuring that any issues (editorial or otherwise) are addressed as soon as possible, if necessary, seeking assistance from the HD Director or other sources of relevant expertise throughout CMH. Division Chiefs may have writing projects of their own, but their primary job is supervising their authors. | |||
| G. | Historical Products Division Chief | ||
| The HDP Chief oversees the process of book production and distribution, coordinating as necessary with elements outside CMH such as the Army Publishing Directorate, the Government Publishing Office, and Public Affairs. The HDP Chief ensures that production deadlines are met and deals with any issues that arise. | |||
| H. | Master Authors | ||
| Master authors are General Schedule (GS)-14 historians who have earned that designation and rank through successful completion of multiple major books. They have demonstrated exceptional ability that enables them to take on especially complex or difficult book projects and allows them to work with unusual freedom from supervision. Their high level of skill and depth of experience contributes to efficiency and economy in completing projects. They are recognized as experts in the military history community and sought out by peers for their historical knowledge and advice. | |||
| I. | HD Authors | ||
| The primary duty of authors is to research and write significant Army histories. In general, they should not receive major additional duties, especially ones that do not require historical expertise. On occasion they may be assigned projects that require their specific expertise, such as writing an info paper in a subject in which they are the resident CMH expert. | |||
| J. | Contract Authors | ||
| CMH may use contract authors for some projects. This SOP will not discuss the contracting system but will note as appropriate how contract projects differ from the standard. | |||
| K. | Army Authors Outside Histories Directorate | ||
| CMH may assign writing projects to authors in other directorates or may rely on historians at other commands to complete projects that will be published under a CMH imprint. In such cases, the author will be assigned to an appropriate Writing Division Chief for the purposes of the editorial review process. Thus, a command historian doing a volume for the Tan Books series would seek assistance and guidance from, and submit a prospectus or draft chapter to, the appropriate Division Chief. | |||
| 3. | Project Initiation | ||
| A. | Topic Selection. | ||
| AR 870-5, paragraph 3-2.a. specifies that projects must be approved via the Historical Projects Development Process. While that has previously been a highly bureaucratic process, it is now simplified and informal. Ideas for projects can come from any level, from the Executive Director down through the individual author, or even from outside the Center. If any idea comes from any point in the chain of command below the Chief Historian, it should be brought up through the chain to the attention of the Chief Historian. Ideas originating outside CMH must be brought to the attention of the Chief Historian. No particular form or format is required, just sufficient explanation of the topic and its importance to permit evaluation. The full Editorial Board will evaluate the idea. If the Board agrees upon its merits, the Chief Historian will present the idea to the Executive Director for approval to proceed. | |||
| B. | Author Assignment | ||
| Once the Executive Director has approved the project idea, the Chief Historian, with advice from the full Editorial Board, formally assigns an author and provides the author with a deadline to complete a draft prospectus. If the project is to be done by a contract author, the Chief Historian works through the contracting process to award a contract to a qualified author. That contract author will be assigned to one of the Writing Division Chiefs for the life of the project. The Writing Division Chief will act on behalf of the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) to supervise day-to-day work on the project. In the case of authors working in other parts of CMH or for other Army commands, the author will continue to fall under their normal supervisory chain of command, but the assigned Writing Division Chief will serve as the primary point of contact for the author with regard to review of the prospectus and draft and revised chapters, and will serve as a source of advice and guidance on the project as needed. No project will be initiated with an Army author outside CMH without the express written approval of the author’s chain of command, to ensure that the project has command support. | |||
| C. | Prospectus Development. | ||
| 1) Scope: Smaller projects, such as a campaign pamphlet, should have a prospectus so that the author and the Editorial Board embark on the project with full understanding what the end product should be. However, the prospectus and the time to complete it should conform to the scale of the project. A campaign pamphlet, for example, may involve little or no archival research, thus minimizing that aspect of the prospectus. | |||
| 2) Initial Drafting: Normally the author will have several weeks or even months to do initial research in secondary literature and archival repositories to develop the contents of the prospectus. This time period should be set individually for each project based on the Editorial Board’s assessment of the author’s expertise in the field, the amount of research required to develop a good prospectus, and the scale of the project. In the case of a contract author, the contracting process may require a bare bones prospectus as part of the bid. The signed contract will include time for completion of a full prospectus meeting the same requirements as one from a HD author. | |||
| 3) Advisory Committee: If an Advisory Committee is established for a project, it may include other Army historians, other Government historians, non-government historians, and Army military and civilian leaders—all selected for their expertise in the topic or its broader field. If the project will be drafted at a classified level, all members of the committee must have the appropriate clearances and the ability to receive and work with a classified manuscript. The author and the Editorial Board should develop a list of candidates early in the process of developing the prospectus. The Chief Historian will then reach out to the candidates and ensure that they are able to participate in a timely fashion. Ideally, these same committee members will also serve as reviewers of the draft manuscript throughout the life of the process. (The Executive Director and Chief Historian will identify a source of funds to compensate non-government members in a fashion similar to historians reviewing manuscripts for publishers.) | |||
| 4) Review and Approval: Once a draft is complete, members of the full Editorial Board will review individually and then meet with the author to develop any necessary guidance for revision of the prospectus and determine a deadline to complete the revision. The full Editorial Board reviews and gives tentative approval to the revised prospectus. At that point the Chief Historian sends it to the Advisory Committee for review and comment. Once those comments are received, the full Editorial Board evaluates them and determines which ones to incorporate in the prospectus. Once the author incorporates that guidance into the prospectus, the Chief Historian gives final approval to the prospectus. During this review process, the author conducts initial research. | |||
| C. | Prospectus Content. | ||
| A prospectus follows the format of the examples in Appendix A. It must include the following sections: | |||
| 1) Scope of Project: Addresses the topic in broad terms, how it fits within existing or future CMH publication plans/series, and the target audiences for the publication. The target audience may help define the project—is it destined to serve as an educational text for officer candidates (American Military History), to advance a particular Army interest (A History of Innovation), or to serve broad purposes and diverse audiences (the Cold War or Vietnam series)? | |||
| 2) Sources: Describes the type, location, and potential quantity of primary sources the author will focus on in conducting research. This information should include enough specifics so that the chain of command can evaluate the time and resources needed to complete research. It should highlight research trips that will require travel funds. It should also describe the key secondary literature on the topic. | |||
| 3) Approach and Methodology: Describes the primary issues the publication will seek to address, which indicate what readers might learn from this publication. The author is not setting out a particular thesis or advancing an argument in the usual academic sense. Instead, this describes the focus of the work. Does the book cover everything from the tactical level through the Army’s role in shaping national policy, or does it focus more narrowly on a particular level of war or command echelon or organization? Does it look at every aspect of the war, or is it focused on one or more aspects such as operations, logistics, doctrine, personnel, training, and technology? Is it meant to merely describe a particular operation or mission or program, or also to explain why the Army decided to do things the way it did and to assess how well it performed and why? The focus should be captured in clear statements, such as: “The book will assess the impact of U.S. Army intelligence on the evolution of U.S. and NATO strategy for the defense of Western Europe.” In general, the prospectus should not set out pre-determined conclusions—the conclusions should flow from the results of research. | |||
| 4) Classification: Discusses any issues involving classification, such as the need to access classified sources, whether the manuscript will need to be written on the SIPRNet, and whether there will be any potential issues with access to classified records outside CMH or obtaining declassification of important research sources or the manuscript itself. Where CMH does not hold the classified sources, preliminary work on the prospectus should show whether the author will be able to gain access to those materials in a timely manner. | |||
| 5) Outline: Provides a detailed outline of the project by chapter, with enough information to determine the level of coverage of specific topics. This section should include a projected page count (double-spaced in Arial 12), exclusive of footnotes. The more detail this section contains, the easier it will be to develop appropriate milestones and to determine an appropriate scope for the project. It will also ensure that the author and the Editorial Board mutually agree upon what is to be included and what is to be excluded. This section of the prospectus is critical to the overall process of ensuring the project meets its deadlines and results in a product that fulfills its objectives. | |||
| 6) Production Milestones: These milestones must include dates for the completion of the research phases, and the number of chapters to be completed each year, taking into account the amount of time needed for each particular chapter (i.e. some may be longer or more complex than others), as well as known distractions such as Civilian Education System (CES) completion, conference attendance, and major additional duties. If the author anticipates any possible obstacles (such as access to research sources) that might impact milestones, they should note those in this section. The research phases should be clearly described with appropriate deadlines (e.g. all research in a particular repository or collection or on a particular topic area completed on this date, etc.). Research deadlines should be frequent enough and contain enough specifics about the work to be accomplished that they will permit periodic assessment that research is on track for timely completion. The Division Chief establishes specific deadlines for chapters in each author’s annual performance plan. | |||
| a) In general, the scope of each project should be such that an approved manuscript goes into the book production process about five (5) years or less after approval of the project directive. The exact length of time will be specific to each project. | |||
| b) Particularly with first-time book authors, the schedule should include completion of initial chapters during the research process, so that the chain of command can evaluate the author’s work well before a long period passes. Initial chapters need not be the first chapters; they can be selected based upon the ability to focus research early in the process on a particular topic or time period. | |||
| c) While it is not easy to predict exactly how long a task could take, it is imperative to make our best educated estimate as to what it should take. As with any assigned task, we could always do better with more time or more resources, but each book project will receive the amount of resources (primarily in an author’s time) that the Editorial Board deems appropriate. The author and the Editorial Board need to ensure that the project stays within those resource limitations, absent any major unforeseen change (such as discovery of important and substantial but previously unknown research sources). The Chief Historian, with advice from the Editorial Board, must approve any significant changes to the schedule. | |||
| D. | Project Directive | ||
| Once the prospectus is approved, the Chief Historian drafts a project directive that incorporates the prospectus by reference (and command approval for any non-CMH Army author), and obtains the Executive Director’s signature. The project directive is the formal initiating action for the project and authorizes further work beyond the prospectus. | |||
| 4. | Research | ||
| A. | Process | ||
| The author should conduct research in the manner he or she feels most comfortable with, whether that involves note-taking, photo-copying, scanning, etc. The key elements are that the research is routinely archived in a manner that reduces the possibility of it being lost (e.g. digital files must be backed up in more than one location; paper copies are filed within Histories Directorate, etc.), and that it is routinely organized in a way that a supervisor or follow-on author can readily access (e.g. material that supports a chapter is filed together and folder lists or other finding aids are updated to reflect added material). CMH will seek approval for use of appropriate research software (such as Filemaker Pro) and ensure that licenses are available so that authors can use this software if desired. | |||
| B. | Reports | ||
| During periods devoted to research, the author makes brief written monthly reports to the Division Chief summarizing the nature, quantity, and significance of material collected, and estimating the percentage of completion of work in various repositories and/or collections described in the prospectus. If the author sees difficulties in meeting the research schedule in the prospectus, he or she should emphasize that in a report as soon as the problem becomes known. | |||
| C. | Research Assistants | ||
| An author may be assigned a research assistant for some or all of the research phase, and possibly for the production phase. In addition to doing textual research, the assistant can help with the archiving and organizing of the research, researching illustrations, and preparing initial map requirements. The author will have full responsibility and authority for directing the work of the assistant and making the most efficient use of the assistant’s time. The deadlines in a prospectus should reflect this assistance if it is provided. | |||
| 5. | Writing | ||
| A. | Drafting Chapters | ||
| Draft chapters should follow the requirements of the CMH Style Guide and be double-spaced using 12-point Times New Roman font. Footnotes should be single-spaced and 10-point font. (During the draft stages, shortened versions of footnotes may be used, but should be sufficient that the author and reviewers will have no difficulty identifying the source. For Example, “New York Times story” is insufficient; “Headline, New York Times, date” is acceptable.) Generally, footnotes should be attached to the specific material in the draft that they support, so that if material is shifted in the revision process, the appropriate footnote automatically goes with it (i.e. don’t use a catch-all footnote at the end of a paragraph, if different parts of the paragraph are drawn from different sources). The author’s first complete draft submitted to the Editorial Board for review should be as close to final as possible—the author should not view the revision process as an opportunity to complete unfinished work. If the author runs into problems during the drafting process that indicate he or she cannot meet the deadline for a chapter, they must immediately inform their supervisor. The author should routinely consult with the Division Chief and other colleagues in HD whenever they feel it would be useful to obtain guidance or thoughts on their work. In turn, the Division Chief should routinely discuss the project with the author and provide guidance as appropriate, rather than waiting until receipt of a draft chapter to assess the state of the project. The HD Director will act in the role of a Division Chief for master authors. Division Chiefs may choose to conduct periodic works-in-progress seminars where other authors in the division review a draft chapter and discuss it in a group with the author. | |||
| B. | Draft Chapter Review | ||
| The author submits a completed draft chapter to their Division Chief, who sends it on to the rest of the Editorial Board. The members of the Board should review the draft within three (3) weeks and meet with the author to discuss it, answer any questions or concerns that arise, and determine the final guidance during the course of that conversation. The Chief Historian will summarize that guidance in a formal memo. The guidance may or may not require an immediate revision of the chapter, depending on the extent of changes needed. During this review period, the author begins work on the next chapter (or additional research, as appropriate, depending on the production milestones in the prospectus). Review of each draft chapter as it is complete ensures that no project gets seriously off track due to insufficient guidance, or a misunderstanding of that guidance. Through regular review, the Editorial Board can readily identify challenges and immediately respond to them. | |||
| C. | Revised Draft Chapter | ||
| Once the author receives guidance on how to revise a draft chapter, he or she immediately turns to the revision process. This ensures that revisions are done while the author is still close to the original work on the chapter and guidance from the Editorial Board is fresh. The deadline for completion of a revised draft should follow that set out in the production milestones of the prospectus. Those milestones should already reflect the length and anticipated difficulty of the chapter and the revision deadline should not be adjusted based on the quality of the initial draft (i.e. an author does not receive additional time to fix a poor draft, unless the quality was affected by something beyond the author’s control). Once the author completes the revision and submits it to the Division Chief, it goes through another round of simultaneous review by the Editorial Board. The revised draft should require only minor further revision, except in cases where subsequent work reveals a need to significantly change an earlier chapter (in which case those revisions would be accomplished as part of the general revision process after a complete first draft of the manuscript is finished). In most cases those minor revisions can wait until all chapters are complete and the entire draft is ready for final revisions, but the Editorial Board should still immediately communicate guidance for revisions to the author in case it impacts future chapters. | |||
| D. | Advisory Committee | ||
| When appropriate, the Chief Historian may submit a revised chapter or a group of revised chapters to the Advisory Committee for review. The Editorial Board will assess the committee’s comments, in consultation with the author, and decide which ones should be implemented. In the rare case that these are extensive, the Editorial Board would amend the production milestones to add in time to accomplish these revisions. Minor revisions can generally wait until all chapters are complete and the entire draft is ready for any final revisions, but again the Editorial Board should immediately communicate this guidance to the author in case it impacts future chapters. | |||
| 6. | Final Manuscript Review | ||
| A. | Final Revisions | ||
| Once all chapters have gone through the chapter-by-chapter revision process described in Section 5 B and C above, the editorial board meets with the author to determine if any revisions are needed prior to submission of the entire manuscript to the Advisory Committee. These revisions may include the need to account for the impact of subsequent research or insights on the content or approach of earlier chapters. Once those revisions are complete, the full Editorial Board and the Advisory Committee review the manuscript. The Board meets with the Committee to discuss the comments of Committee members. Afterward, the Board may meet to assist the Chief Historian in developing any guidance to the author for final revisions. The author then makes final revisions. During this review process the author works on gathering and captioning illustrations, working with HPD to create maps, and so forth, so that forward progress on the project continues pending guidance to make final revisions. | |||
| B. | Final Manuscript Approval | ||
| Once the author has completed revisions, the full Editorial Board simultaneously reviews the complete revised draft and meets to discuss final approval. If further revision is needed, the Chief Historian, with the advice of the Editorial Board, determines if this will be accomplished by the author or someone else, and how much time will be devoted to it. Once the Chief Historian is satisfied with the manuscript, it goes to HDP for copy editing. | |||
| C. | Security and Public Release Review | ||
| 1) | To facilitate declassification of the final manuscript, authors should identify key classified documents at the completion of each chapter and submit them for declassification. Ideally many of the most significant underlying documents would be declassified by the time the final manuscript goes out for declassification review, thus easing that task. Due to the heavy reliance of the Tan Books on more recently classified material, the Chief Historian will continue to push for a Department of Defense (DoD)-directed program to declassify as much of this material as possible. | ||
| 2) | For any project involving classified information, the final version of the manuscript that is ready for production must designate pages and paragraphs with appropriate markings to reflect the level of classification. This version will be sent out for required review for declassification. HDP must update some position descriptions to reflect a requirement for security clearances, obtain security clearances for those editors, and move these personnel into secure space so that the editorial process can move ahead concurrently with declassification review. | ||
| 3) | CMH manuscripts covering post-World War II topics and those focusing on intelligence must go through the Office of Security Review under the Chief of Public Affairs. Public Affairs makes the final determination on public release. To expedite the process, HDP should provide a final edited manuscript to Public Affairs for review, thus allowing review to be done concurrently with layout. | ||
| 7. | Production | ||
| A. | Production Schedule | ||
| The overall production schedule is set by the HDP Chief and HD Director, based on the nature of the particular project and competing priorities. The director of HDP manages all aspects of the production schedule to balance the requirements of the project with other CMH production priorities. The primary task of the author during this phase is providing prompt answers to production team questions so production remains on schedule. In general it will take about 12-18 months, depending on the size of the book, from the time a manuscript is submitted to HDP until it appears in print. | |||
| B. | Copy Editing | ||
| The HDP Chief assigns an editor to the approved manuscript. The copy editor works closely with the author as needed to complete the process. The editorial team lead reviews the copy editor’s work. The copy editor will provide the author an edited version of the manuscript for review with tracked changes and comments or questions. The author will review the edits to ensure they do not alter intended meaning or factual accuracy and respond appropriately. The author and the copy editor work together to ensure a common understanding of stylistic issues. The CMH Style Guide does not always offer a solution for proper referencing and terminology. When new technologies influence the collection, storage, and access to source documents, the author and copy editor will develop a standardized citation format. Likewise, in cases where U.S. Army doctrine or force structure outpaces the CMH Style Guide, the author and copy editor will make necessary style adjustments. While the editorial team brings considerable experience to stylistic issues and should generally have the best answer, they should remain cognizant of an author’s voice in the manuscript and not revise it unnecessarily (i.e. ‘happy’ to ‘glad’ changes). Any issues that cannot be solved between the author and HDP must be raised to the HD Director. The copy editor has final responsibility for incorporating changes and preparing the manuscript for lay out. Although the copy editor will ensure that the manuscript follows the CMH Style Guide, this stage should clean up inadvertent errors. Authors must follow the Style Guide when writing and not rely on copy editors to do this work for them | |||
| C. | Supplemental Material | ||
| Once the author submits the complete revised manuscript for final review (section 6 B), he or she should resume work on front and back matter, illustrations, captions, maps, and so forth. The deadlines for completing this work are worked out with the Division Chief and HDP Chief. The author is responsible for the following tasks: | |||
| 1) | Graphics Planning: Prepare a basic graphics plan that estimates how many maps, photos, and tables will appear in the manuscript. During the production process, prepare a comprehensive graphics index that lists all the graphics that will appear in the final product. The index will identify where the graphics should go in the manuscript and reference information (titles, captions, and sources). There is no set preference on the number of graphics included in a CMH product, but one (1) graphic per five (5) manuscript pages is a good starting point. | ||
| 2) | Maps: The cartographer produces maps for the project. The author should begin preliminary map work well before submitting the manuscript to HDP. The author will discuss base maps with the cartographer to establish scale, geographic parameters, and map sizes. If possible, the author should provide the cartographer will examples and source maps. The author will explain what information needs to be conveyed on the maps and the cartographer will determine the best method to achieve the desired result. The cartographer will prepare prototypes for the author’s review, and the author will review the prototypes for factual accuracy. The Chief Historian provides final approval for all maps. | ||
| 3) | Images: The author provides scanned copies of photos and images that follow HDP’s minimum resolution requirements and preferred file formats. In general these images should be in the public domain. If not, the author must provide sufficient information so that HPD can obtain the rights to use the image. | ||
| 4) | Captions: The author provides captions that conform to the CMH Style Guide. | ||
| 5) | Charts & Tables: The author provides the information for any chart and table. The visual information specialist determines methods for presenting this information that are most appealing and easily understood. In general, CMH should use pie charts, bar graphs, or other means of presentation that allow a reader to quickly grasp the significance of the information. | ||
| 6) | Lists of Units: Submit a list of U.S. Army units appearing in the manuscript, organized by chapters, and identified by page number along with general time frame (month/year), to FPO to confirm proper unit designations. The author should also compile a list of all U.S. service units (i.e., USN, USAF, and USMC) and foreign units. If possible, these should be verified with relevant service lineage organizations. For foreign units, the author and copy editor establish a standard format that adheres to the CMH Style Guide. HD and FP leadership determine the schedule for unit reviews. | ||
| 3) | Front matter and back matter. | ||
| D. | Book Design | ||
| The HDP Chief assigns a visual information specialist to design and layout the publication. The graphics/layout designer creates the project’s tables, charts, and graphs and determines how the product will appear in printed form. The author must respond expeditiously to graphics questions to keep the project on track. The author and the Editorial Board will participate in deciding major design issues, such as cover design, the quantity of illustrations, and the format (if that isn’t already dictated by the nature of the project itself, such as a campaign pamphlet). The Chief Historian makes the final decision regarding product format (i.e., printed or digital copies, cloth back or paperback, type of binding) based on recommendations from HDP. | |||
| E. | Final Review | ||
| Once HDP has prepared a physical proof, the author reviews it and notes any needed corrections of factual errors or inclusion of necessary additional material. Once those changes are incorporated, the proof undergoes final review by the HD Director and the Chief Historian, with the Chief Historian providing final approval for it to go to the printers. | |||
| F. | Publication Process | ||
| Once the project goes to GPO, it is out of CMH hands. GPO will send a printer’s proof copy to CMH for review by HDP. The author may participate in this review, but it is not required. This review will not permit style edits. HDP conducts quality review of the printing process, manages distribution of the publication, and ensures it is posted to the CMH public web site. | |||
| G. | ePublications | ||
| In the future, CMH may begin to produce ePublications. This SOP will be amended to cover the nuances of that medium. | |||
| 8. | Book Launch and Follow-up | ||
| CMH will make extensive efforts to market each publication. During the production phase, the author (with guidance and assistance from the Editorial Board and the strategic communications planner) will plan the marketing of the publication and produce the necessary presentations and articles to execute it. The marketing plan should allow for possible delays in the printing process, so that the launch event, for example, does not take place without a book in hand. These efforts should include, as appropriate: | |||
| - book launch event at the Pentagon with a presentation by the author (normally in conjunction with the DoD History Speaker Series) | |||
| - external book launch event (generally with a partner such as the National Archives, a national commemoration commission, a university, etc.); contact C-SPAN for television coverage | |||
| - submission of copies to journals that have book review sections (HDP should maintain a mailing list of these journals) | |||
| - provision of copies to historians with a definite interest in the field, with a cover letter asking them to consider doing a review of the publication | |||
| - provision of copies to relevant Headquarters Department of Army (HQDA) offices and to commands around the Army (the specific offices/commands and quantities of publications for each should be adjusted based on the topic of the publication) | |||
| - feature attention on the CMH public web site, Facebook page, Twitter account, etc. | |||
| - issuance of a press release via strategic communications planner and OCPA | |||
| - provision of press release and review copies to appropriate veteran organizations | |||
| - excerpt article in Army History magazine | |||
| - spin-off article(s) in professional journals (Army and/or academic) | |||
| - panel on the book’s topic, featuring the author and other experts, at the Society for Military History annual meeting and/or other relevant conferences | |||
| - public sale by GPO and marketing coordination with GPO | |||
| - submission for relevant writing awards | |||
| 9. | Personnel Aspects | ||
| A. | Role of Performance Evaluation System | ||
| 1) | The research and writing elements of evaluation forms are tied directly to production milestones. Those milestones will be adjusted as unanticipated events occur that take time away from work on the project (e.g., assignment to write a major info paper, extended illness, etc.) or result in unanticipated delays or difficulties. To ensure that all authors are treated similarly, the same performance elements will be used for all major writing projects. These performance elements meet the requirements to be specific, measurable, aligned with mission, realistic, and time-bound, along with stating measures for the assessment of the quality of the work. | ||
| 2) | Since a project begins with a prospectus, that will be the initial performance element for an author. The prospectus-writing element follows: |
“Research and prepare an acceptable prospectus by (date) for a book on (subject). The prospectus should follow the guidance in the Book Process SOP and describe the scope, sources, approach and methodology, classification, outline, and production milestones for the volume as well as any anticipated obstacles. Content and style must meet accepted scholarly standards, the CMH Style Guide, and the Chicago Manual of Style. Prospectus should require no more than 30 percent revisions. Complete revised prospectus conforming to guidance from supervisor within X weeks of receiving guidance.”
3) The research portion of work on a major writing project is a separate performance element. This ensures that it can be evaluated even during a period when it is the primary duty of the author and little or nothing is being written based on the production milestones. The production milestones must lay out research phases based on collections, archives, or other logical categories that permit reasonable means of evaluating the completion of research. This is envisioned in the OPM classification standards, which note that assignments may “require the historian to ‘segment’ the research, either for accomplishment as a team effort, or to reduce the assignment to component parts of manageable proportions.” The number of research phases should be sufficient, in combination with chapter deadlines, to ensure that there are at least two (2) deadlines (of either or both types) in any evaluation year. The common research element follows:
“Complete research phase x by (date), research phase xx by (date), and research phase xxx by (date) [or alternatively, “and x percent of research phase xxx by the end of the evaluation year”]. Make brief written monthly reports summarizing the nature, quantity, and significance of material collected, and estimating the percentage of completion of work in various repositories and/or collections. Research must meet accepted scholarly history research standards, which encompass a good understanding of the purposes of the project and the time limitations governing the project; persistence and imagination in seeking out sources; sound critical judgment in determining which sources are most valuable to the project and in evaluating the accuracy of the sources and their relationship to establishing historical fact; proper documentation of the origin of sources; and proper organization and storage of sources.”
4) The time period set aside for drafting and then revising each chapter is governed by the original milestones and established in the author’s annual performance plan, and should be set based on the estimated length and difficulty of each chapter (as opposed to a standard period for every chapter). Tying the revision deadline to the timeframe of receipt of guidance ensures that the author is not penalized if the chain of command is slow in reviewing the draft. The overall milestones should not change since the author is working on the next chapter or research phase while awaiting guidance on revision. The common writing element follows:
“Complete draft chapter # by (date), draft chapter ## by (date), and draft chapter ### by (date) [or alternatively, “and x percent of chapter ### by the end of the evaluation year”]. Each chapter must address the topics specified in the prospectus and conform in content and style to accepted scholarly history standards, the CMH Style Guide, and the Chicago Manual of Style. Accepted professional history writing standards encompass appropriate evaluation of evidence, reasonable and balanced analysis of the facts developed, clarification of causal relationships, a well-supported and clear thesis, logical narrative flow, correct grammar, and prose that is appealing to readers. Complete revised drafts of chapters conforming to guidance from the Editorial Board on the following schedule of days after receipt of that guidance: chapter # (x days), ## (y days), and ### (z days).”
5) The time period set aside for the production phase will be determined by the HD Director in consultation with the HDP and Writing Division Chiefs. That overall schedule will determine deadlines for tasks to be completed by the author. The production phase may overlap with the beginning of work on a prospectus for the next volume, and deadlines for both should reflect how much time must be devoted to production at any given point. The production element follows:
“Provide source maps to HDP by (date). Complete a graphics plan by (date), comprehensive graphics index by (date), a list of U.S. Army, other service, and foreign units by (date), front matter by (date), back matter by (date) and captions by (date). Provide tables, charts, graphs, and photographs by (date). Review and respond to the copy-edited version of the manuscript within (x period of time) after receipt. Prepare a draft marketing plan by (date). All tasks should conform to accepted scholarly historical standards for accuracy, logical presentation, and readability.”
| 6) | Authors will be evaluated on their ability to meet deadlines and quality standards. Those who beat deadlines and/or exceed quality will receive ratings above the acceptable ranking, while those who fail to meet deadlines or quality standards will be graded below the acceptable ranking. The Editorial Board’s review of draft and revised chapters will serve as the basis for midterm discussions on the author’s progress on the writing performance standard. |
| 7) | All employees are required to have an Individual Development Plan (IDP). Certain aspects of the IDP are driven by regulation, such as requirements governing the Civilian Education System. For authors, the CP61 aspects should dovetail as much as possible with their assigned project or otherwise enhance their expertise as historians and authors. Whenever possible, the IDP should facilitate completion of the author’s project, rather than serving as an added distraction from the project. As an example, the IDP might include a goal for the author to deliver a paper on his project at a relevant historical conference (see B.2 below). |
| 8) | The evaluation forms of those in the chain of command are also tied to their review work, which needs to take place in a timely manner to keep projects on track. The following performance standard will be used for this aspect of the work of Division Chiefs, HD Director, and Chief Historian: |
“Complete review of draft and revised chapters within three weeks of receipt. Ensure that each chapter addresses the topics specified in the prospectus and conforms in content and style to accepted professional history standards, the CMH Style Guide, and the Chicago Manual of Style. The review process includes comments to the Editorial Board that will provide constructive guidance for revision to the author.”
| 9) | The goal of the evaluation system as it relates to writing projects is to ensure that quality step increases, monetary and time-off awards, and promotions are focused on those who are performing best. | |
| B. | Writing Historian Life Cycle at CMH | |
| 1) | Historians may be hired into HD at a high level or may begin their career there and rise through the ranks. The focus in either case is to bring in historians who are well qualified to research and write Army history, to develop them as necessary to take on assignments of greater scope, and to entice the best to remain at CMH for the remainder of their career. The latter increases productivity as historians acquire ever-greater knowledge in the field of Army history. | |
| 2) | Throughout their career at CMH, historians are encouraged and required to participate in professional development activities. Each historian must have an IDP. In addition to required Army education and training, historians should participate in scholarly conferences. Where practical, they might deliver papers based on ongoing work on a writing project, which will enable them to obtain the perspective of fellow historians. To maintain efficient focus on the project, such ‘papers’ should essentially be portions of the draft manuscript or off-the-cuff summaries of what the author proposes to write, rather than a formal academic paper written specifically for a conference. The goal is to inform the author’s work via discussion with fellow historians, not to add a requirement that delays work on the project. | |
| 3) | The following would be a typical career path for a new historian who is entering the field: | |
| - As a graduate student, serve one (1) year as a Graduate Research Assistant at CMH, learning about CMH and Army history, and demonstrating ability as a researcher and writer. Alternatively, or in addition, a graduate student may receive a Dissertation Year Fellowship, which will allow CMH to gain some familiarity with them and their work. | ||
| - Enter the civil service through the Pathways Recent Graduate program or as a Pathways Intern on a GS-7/9/11 ladder or as a Presidential Management Fellow on a GS-9/11/12 ladder. Recent Graduates and Presidential Management Fellows serve a two (2)-year apprenticeship, during which they complete an initial period of reading and essay writing to gain familiarity with CMH standards, complete individual development goals, research and write a campaign pamphlet or a short monograph, and complete a prospectus for a major volume. Assignment to do a prospectus generally comes in the last six months or so of the program and is contingent on successful work on the campaign pamphlet or monograph. The performance of the apprentice on the initial writing project and the prospectus demonstrates whether they are likely to succeed as an author of major works and whether they should be converted to a permanent position. Pathways Interns serve an apprenticeship of at least two (2) years, depending on the length of time needed to complete their dissertation and earn their degree. They follow the same program as a Recent Graduate but must also successfully earn their degree in the designated timeframe in order to qualify for conversion to a permanent position. | ||
| - As a new permanent civilian at the GS-12 level, complete the revised manuscript for a first book. Authors who significantly exceeds goals of quality and timeliness are candidates for competitive promotion to GS-13. | ||
| - At the GS-13 level, continue to research and write major books. Historians demonstrating exceptional ability at this level are candidates for competitive promotion into a vacant Division Chief position or to a position as a GS-14 master author. | ||
| 4) | Position descriptions in HD will be standardized based on the GS level and not reflect the requirements of individual projects assigned (i.e. every GS-12 author will have the same PD). | |
| 5) | The goal is to develop talent in house to fill vacancies at the higher levels. HD as a whole will be more productive if good employees remain in HD and build upon the knowledge and expertise they have acquired in previous research, writing, and production projects. | |
| 6) | If historians are hired directly into HD at the GS-12 or higher level, they should have already demonstrated their ability to research and write based on prior major publications that directly relate to the mission of HD. The specialized experience for GS-12 and higher positions must reflect this type of research and writing experience to weed out candidates who might have general history experience at the next lower grade without any record of substantial publication or knowledge of military history or military affairs. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .