Nathan Bransford - The Forums

I'll admit that I don't know much about the business side of publishingso take this with a 1/2 grain of salt. It seems that the role of publishers is to (1) print/distribute the book; (2) market the book/get the book in stores; (3) quality control of books. Is that about fair?
(1) Printing/distributing - it seems like this can be done by anyone now (see the plethora of POD/self-pubbing/e-pubbing tools available now).
(2) ? I'm clueless about this, but it seems that to get in stores a big publishing house has to have blessed (published) your work. Correct? Marketing - I'm not sure what they do. Like I said, i'm clueless.
(3) Quality control of books - they provide extensive editorial oversight to make the book better.

So, I'm going to ignore points 1 & 2, and focus on 3. Quality control/editing.

In academia when you want to publish articles in a journal, your paper goes to an editor who sends it out to 3-5 reviewers who judge the merit of your work, provide critical feedback, try to improve it's readability and impact, and make a suggestion on it's publishability. They provide the feedback to the editor, who then distributes it to the author (and usually says it will be published pending review or will flat out reject it). The author will review it, make changes, and then re-submit it to the editor who will either judge it as publishable or send it out for a second round of review, or if it is still unacceptable they will reject it. In some journals it isn't uncommon for less than 20% of articles to be published, and even then only on a second or third submission.

Editors take the responsibility for a small stipend and the prestige of holding the position - mainly the latter. Reviewers do the work b/c they want to make sure that the journals stay high quality and want their own work treated the same way in the future. Authors submit the work b/c it will enhance their reputation and lead to a better career and more funding (i.e., more cash).

The result of this process is high-quality scientific literature that gets the greenlight for publishing.

Idea time: Could authors adopt an "academic" model for publishing their work and cutting out the Publishing House? What you need: A large pool of authors across a number of genres that are willing to offer brutally honest suggestions/edits/feedback on manuscripts in return for the same. Authors submit their work b/c they want it published and want the royalties (cash). The reviewers do their job because they want to make sure that if/when their work is published that it is by an organization that has a reputation for putting out great work - because it will lead to more cash for them when they publish a work. The editor - you need someone who likes the prestige, but in this case we'll have to motivate with cash. The output are many novels/year of high quality. As far as money goes it would have to involve some sort of profit share (note I say profits, not royalties) where a portion goes to the organization (for support, costs, to pay editor, etc) and a portion to the editor.

Your problem then lies in distribution - it is impossible to think you could distribute books to booksellers, otherwise you'd have the same problems they do... but, if you exclusively used eBooks/POD services in combination with storefronts like Amazon, B&N.com, etc you might be able to overcome some of the problems of traditional publishers.

I know the above sounds like a support group, but if you had a solid structure at the top, I think it could be far more than that. Thoughts?

p.s., this is how I'm procrastinating at work today!

casnow wrote: Idea time: Could authors adopt an "academic" model for publishing their work and cutting out the Publishing House? What you need: A large pool of authors across a number of genres that are willing to offer brutally honest suggestions/edits/feedback on manuscripts in return for the same.

Unfortunately, I think this is going to be your weakest link. I say initially this because of what I am told about how Authonomy works. As I understand it, there is a lot of gaming of the system there; I'll back your book if you back mine without regard to quality. How would you create a large pool of authors who genuinely want brutally honest feedback versus ego stroking? This is related to the problem of critiques currently being discussed over at Absolute Write. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/sho ... p?t=165266

How do you separate authors who only claim to want brutally honest feedback from those who genuinely do? How do you prevent collusion in reviews to get things published without regard to actual merit? What is your criteria for inclusion? The pool of aspiring authors is much different from and larger than the pool of doctorate holders in a particular academic field and lacks the intense socialization process of the phd program to inculcate shared standards and expectations regarding publication.

Trust me, I know the Authonomy problem - want to move up the ranks? Be nice to people.

The reason it works in Academia is that people know that only 5-10% of articles will see the light of day in a high impact journal, and that those have to be the best ones... it also works because they are often governed by professional societies that demand high quality. The editor and reviewers are key - especially the editor. (I have edited and reviewed 100's of academic articles - and authored about 25). If an editor reads the abstract and it is poorly written and then flips through and sees a couple of errors or bad graphics, he'll kick it out.

Also in academia reviews are ANONYMOUS, so there is no need to be nice to anyone. You can rip them to shreds and no one will ever know who you are - you can choose to make your name known, but it is assumed anonymous unless otherwise stated. That is key. People don't like being critical/harsh - but if you take away the name they will be more honest and objective.

Also the editors will learn who gives creampuff reviews and who gives serious reviews. You also let it be known to creampuff reviewers that if they don't shape up and get with it that they won't have the opportunity to publish their own work.

Alternative would be to have a pool of very qualified editors/reviewers, and to split a royalty between them for their efforts (i.e., part of the profit to the author, part to the editorial staff). Just throwing out random ideas.

I think the difference between book publishing and publishing in academia is the reasoning behind being published. If you're going for fiction (non-fiction is different of course), one of the first things a publisher needs to know is whether or not the person can write well. Then they have to consider whether or not the story is good, marketable, etc.

In academia, at least in my field (psychology), none of that matters. You have a person who has conducted research of some sort, and the judgment on whether or not to publish is going to come more from the way in which that research was set up and the value seen in it. A poor research study won't be published. A good one on an important topic of the moment will. That means an editor doesn't have to judge based on quality of writing or anything of that sort. They need experts willing to peer-review to reassure that the study was well-done and takes into account other research properly, and as an attempt to guarantee nothing is being misrepresented.

I just really don't see how the two are enough alike to really use the same method. I suppose an editor's assistant is basically a peer review. I have a hard time seeing how a random author (without training) would be able to determine all of the aspects such as marketability, knowing the publisher's other lines, what books are being picked up elsewhere, trends, etc. They could determine whether or not a story worked or if the writing was okay, but I think there are just too many factors for a lay person to really make up their mind on. And keep in mind, an academic peer-review doesn't equate to random people, but to experts in the field. So to do something equivalent, you would still need to have experts doing the reading.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but that's my take on it. I just don't see how the two are really comparable.