Prepare the library pitch
Collect professional review links for librarians
Gather the links and short excerpts from trade and professional reviews, labeled by outlet and model, into one list that library staff can check in the sources they trust.
Why it matters
A purchase suggestion that cites 'starred review, Booklist, March issue' gives a librarian something to verify in a database they already use, and that is often what tips a maybe into an order. A list of enthusiastic quotes with no sources does the opposite. Keeping the library list separate keeps it credible.
Your part
- What you do
- Do it. You normally do this yourself.
- Who normally owns it
- Author and Publicist. Author or publicist maintains; publisher forwards trade reviews
- When
- As reviews publish, starting before publication for trade outlets (Prepare the library pitch: three months before publication, before you contact any library)
Your part changes with your publishing route.
How to do it
The full walkthrough
Librarians justify purchases with professional reviews, and many collection policies name the sources that count: Booklist, Library Journal, School Library Journal, Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Choice, The Horn Book, and subject journals. A review in one of those is evidence a librarian can cite. A reader review or a blog post, however kind, usually is not.
The task is to keep a short list, separate from your general review file, of the reviews that count for libraries: the outlet, the date, a link, a one- or two-sentence excerpt, and the model (editorial consideration or paid review). Include starred reviews and designations prominently. Include paid reviews from recognized services honestly labeled; some libraries accept them as evidence and some do not, and labeling lets the librarian decide. Leave out reader reviews and media features, which belong in other materials.
On the traditional path, your publisher receives most trade reviews; ask to be sent each one and add it. On the hybrid path, reviews may arrive through the press or directly. On the self-published path, they come to you. In every case, the list feeds the library information sheet and every purchase suggestion you make.
Start it as reviews publish, which for trade outlets is often before publication, and keep it current.
Common mistakes
- Mixing reader reviews and blog posts into the library list.
- Quoting a paid review without saying so.
- Omitting the date and issue, which is how librarians look reviews up.
- Not asking the publisher to forward trade reviews.
- Letting the list fall out of date after launch.
What done looks like
- A list of professional reviews with outlet, date, link, short excerpt, and model.
- Starred reviews and designations noted prominently.
- Paid reviews included only with clear labeling.
- Reader reviews and media features kept out of this list.
- The list used in the library information sheet and in every purchase suggestion, and updated as reviews arrive.
Sources and last checked
- Official source
- No single official page for this step.
- Last checked
- Not checked against its source yet.
- How confident we are
- Verified