The original inspiration as co-authored by an in-house Acquisition Editor and Industry Reader and submitted to their employer, a renown book publisher. It addresses the volume of amateurish, unsolicited manuscripts piling unread in the mail room...
Obviously, readers could not just be turned loose to critique without guidance. It would also be negligent to totally ignore the process and criteria evolved out of experience over the decades. In fact, the existing process is very logical. By sequentially applying the scrutiny of the different editors, it works. Unfortunately, it is susceptible to volume.
The 4gR critiquing model [9] consists of a sequential testing of rules which draw from various editorial skill-sets. It enables readers outside the industry to evaluate a manuscript through each editor's eyes. The process remains intact to consistent standards, independent of volume.
To do so, however, required the establishment of standards to be followed.
Oops! This image does not follow our content guidelines. To continue publishing, please remove it or upload a different image.
Editorial Filtering Standards
The Editorial Filtering Standards are lists of generic rules to be applied uniformly to every manuscript. Each precept evaluates either plot development, characterization, dialogue or style. The testing sequence makes it clearly evident in the fewest number of pages that rejection is justified. Manuscripts must continue to fulfill expected standards, page by page, for the reading to continue.
Rules regarding plot development, characterization, dialogue and style were crystallized from the House Style Guide, typical of every publisher. It is one of their in-house bibles when it comes to publishing.
For example:
The ending must materialize from character and situation.
The problem or conflict must be clearly evident to the reader.
Next, statements were rephrased with an intentional bias to highlight deficiencies. Negative wording supports the assumption that rejection is statistically probable. Again, based on experience and the fact that limited resources restrict most publishers to ten or less manuscripts per year.
The above examples were reworded to:
The ending did not materialize from character and situation.
There was a failure to describe the problem or conflict.
Statements were then sequenced according to their ability to justify rejection of the manuscript in the fewest number of pages, that is, the time invested to read. From the publisher's POV, this encourages the best use of resources. From the POV of the ultimate consumer, it appreciates that the reading of fiction is for entertainment, so there is never an obligation to finish. By this method, the ability of the author to engage the reader is constantly being tested.
In the above example, the order would be changed. Failure to describe the problem or conflict can be determined in the first twenty-five pages, whereas, The ending did not materialize from character and situation requires a complete read.
