Talk:Vanity press

message: I'm interested how the vanity press can charge for copies if they are not even bound.  Can anyone give any source on this?  How common is this problem?  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:21, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a discussion of that phenomenon in Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. I don't remember the details, but I think that the publisher pretends to market copies to libraries etc..., but doesn't, and saves money by not even finishing to bind them. David.Monniaux 16:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: In some cases librarians will reluctantly accept a vanity publication coming from somebody with the political power to close down the library or from somebody who makes regular contributions of extremely large amounts of money to the library budget. Other librarians will choose to resign rather than accept such publications.
These are some rather extreme claims. Evidence? --203.206.52.13 06:55, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Extreme? On the contrary, we are talking about frequent occurences in small towns with a small library and only one professional librarian holding the fort.  There are stories about this in books dealing with library acquisitions methods.  And of course, the Library Journal, which is the main publication of the A.L.A., (the American Library Association) has chronicled the phenomenon for sevral generations. When we do our master's in Library Science we have a special course just on the acquisition of materials.  One of the main goals of an acquisition policy (but not the only one) is to establlish solid grounds for refusing unwanted gifts.  When this crucial policy is flouted, by imposing vanity books or other books (old books usually) which we know by experince that the library patrons will not be interested in reading, the very basis of the collection is imperiled.  Of course, the wise librarian will start looking for a job elsewhere, find one, and after that resign while stating as a basis the flouting of reckognized principles in the field of Library and Information Science.  --AlainV 13:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, you've yet to provide any evidence, only generic references to "small towns" and "some librarians."  A citation to a specific issue of the Library Journal to substantiate your claims would be helpful.  You present a false dichotomy of librarians either begrudgingly accepting such work on pain of dispossession or resigning in protest. There is a third possibility: the librarian takes the book knowing no one else will ever read it but attended by no rancor.  This selective reporting should be indicative of POV problems.  Lastly the collections problems presented by donations of marginal works (vanity published or otherwise) belongs more properly to an article on library science. —  207.24.168.10 05:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Library Controversy

message: I just merged Vanity publisher into Vanity press. The latter needs a lot of cleanup. Basically it needs sorting into various sub-heading so that the information is organissed. It could probably stand to be trimmed a little too--XmarkX 07:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge and Cleanup 

message: I know this is barely relevant to vanity presses or even to wikipedia, but I was very suprised to see this figure quoted for the processing of a book for a library. I just don't see how it could possibly cost that much. What is involved? 
Entering the book into the computer system, making a label and barcode, stamping the book, laminating (possibly) and putting the book in the shelves. Am I missing anything? That couldn't possibly take more than 15 minutes per book at the most. What is driving the cost up so high?
:My thoughts also, having worked in a library for a few months recently. Though there were a few extended discussions on how to classify particular niche or cross-category items between the senior staff, processing most books (at the time I took the post, they had just received a large delivery, and took a couple more during my tenure) was a rapid and straightforward affair. Look up the appropriate dewey code (not much more involved than actually looking for a book to read) or see if it had been pre-supplied with one (common) IF it was reference, or check the author name and produce a typewritten spine label appropriately; insert selfadhesive loan stamp label, security alarm strip and serial asset ID barcode; add a few possession rubber-stamps throughout the pages and on the page-edges; plastic-jacket it if necessary. Then click onto the 'add item' icon in the cataloguing software (continually running on several PCs), scan the barcode, type in a surprisingly small number of pertinent details, do a quick check for typos, hit OK and dump the book onto the re-shelving trolley. If that represents $50 of work (or, about 5 hours at my junior rate of pay), then I'll be suing the library for a significant amount of underpayment... the materials certainly couldn't be worth more than a few cents per title. As an aside, the quality of these alternatively-published materials must be pretty awful given some of the trash I had to process from major publishers! :) --tahrey 22/5/07
It can take several hours just to catalogue a book if the book is not already in common cataloging databases like OCLC's, all neatly prepared for "copy cataloguing" or "derived cataloguing".  And the library pays a certain amount to OCLC (or other suppliers) for the data needed for cataloging.  Yes, if we are talking of a book which is already in one of those cataloging databases it can take less tha an hour to catalogue and process the book, but most vanity books never make it to the Library of Congress databases or to the OCLC databases (and some rare books which sometimes end up as donations to the library are not completely described by Library of Congress databases, OCLC et alia) so they have to go through a process called "original cataloging", which sometimes requires hours.  In other words a professional librarian (somebody with a master's degree in Library and information Science) has to nearly read the book then look up comparable books on the databases to know not only in which part of the Library classification it will be placed but also what other elements are necessary for a useful description of the book, using both that library's adaptation of rules derived from the International Standard Bibliographic Description and possibly the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR). Whew! This means heavy labour costs, so big libraries (university, State or national libraries) break up the process among several types of library employees (paid at different scales), with the library clerks (persons with a high school diploma) doing the tagging and shelving, the library technicians (persons with a junior college or tech college diploma in library techniques) doing the preliminary intellectual work and the professional librarians (master's degree) doing the final work and approval of the cataloguing.  This "assembly-line" process is usually integrated with the book-selecting and book-buying acquisitions process so donations to the library, wether they are vanity press books or not, can very easily screw thing up completely, unless provisions are made beforehand to treat donations in another process.  --AlainV 03:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  $50 per book! 

message: History my rear end.  That was nothing but a polemical screed against the publishing industry.  Nothing salvagable from an NPoV perspective, so it's gone.  If somebody wants to write a history of vanity presses (which has absolutely nothing to do with the history of independent and self publication), go right ahead. Iceberg3k 04:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragrpah of this section, which indicated that the equation of self or vanity publication with low status is comparitively recent was factual (I drafted a version of this as one of my first few edits to wikipedia). I have reestored this paragraph without the PoV screed that had become attached to it.  DES (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "History" deletion 

message: Much of the text reads like a how-to not get ripped off. While scams are noteable, it should be written in an encyclopedic way. Andjam 14:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate tone 

message: It should be pointed out that self-publishing is legitimate: for example small societies, local museums, fanzines and other persons groups produce publications which they know will have small print runs. They are buying a service and know what they are doing. Libraries (particularly the local history sections) may well stock such publications if appropriate.
Jackiespeel 22:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Self publishing and vanity publishing

message: I note that every single example of a Vanity Publisher in the list has had "citation needed" added.  In the Vanity gallery article there is a useful list of galleries and what they charge, but not a question as to whether they are or are not vanity galleries.  While I recognize that publishers do not want to be identified as vanity presses, is there perhaps some way to verify their status?  Artemis-Arethusa 16:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I found the source of the list and added reference links to all relevant publishers. Artemis-Arethusa 17:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, answers.com is not the source of the list, but a copy of an older version of this article.  I've removed items that were sourced only to this article, after a brief google search for appropriate sources.  We still have a reasonably substantial list, which seems like enough to me. JulesH 23:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to Verify Vanity Publishers?

message: Based on various sources of information, I thought Xlibris was a vanity press, but when I added that information to its Wikipedia page it was removed without comment.  Frankly, that whole page reads like little more than an advertisement for Xlibris, not a balanced article.  So is it or isn't it? Artemis-Arethusa 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Xlibris or isn't it?

message: We have become used to the idea of large publishers offering mega-contracts to super-star authors (who it seems not infrequently write "with" someone).  Such publishers also carry lots of books that are less spectacular, but perhaps not altogether unremunerative.  On the other hand, Academic press is far more likely to involve strange boondoggles. I remember walking into Peter Lang with my cities-book ms. and being given a fee schedule. The last time I looked, this was more or less typical of many Euro-based academic publishing houses, and UPA here. Even when an academic book is offered by a legit house, it is taken on merely for esteem reasons, and the academic author gets little if any money. The polite term for this is "subvention" and it is commonplace not only for books but for academic journals; it is, in fact, expected.  There are other variants on the theme.  The New Press, e. g., has published some very dubious things from CUNY; one would be interested in knowing what the 
The article talks about "peer review".   In such a case, a subventer has some influence? And anyway, peer-review is pretty much a crock; doesn't guarantee much beyond assuring that the journals using it are reviews-of-our-research.
The article appears to think "legitimate" publishers market books.  Nonsense!  They market some books.  A very different matter.  Panelists fielded by the Authors' Guild, talking about book marketing, have continually recommended an author engage his own publicist and do his own marketing.  If you ain't a superstar, you ain't gonna get much.
There is also an inherent view of knowledge and "intellectual property" implicit to this article that is seriously flawed.  The late-60s/early-70s views of folks such as Habermas and Lyotard (who quotes Habermas approvingly in Postmodern Condition), that knowledge becomes somehow proprietary, and therefore controlled distribution somehow valuable, are clearly not on the mark.  This in turn changes the nature of publishing, which assumes that proprietary and valuable character.  --djenner 14:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessively Perjorative 

message: I don't know what an attack site is, but Making Light isn't one. It's a widely read, oft-cited, notable website edited by some of science fiction's most prominent editors, people with long, deep histories in the field and in publishing. The citation removed is to a piece of original investigative work that is supported by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America's "Author Beware" clearing house of information on scam presses.
:I've replied on your user page.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 23:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Making Light is not an attack site

message: I made changes to this article because it was very negative.  There are many good reasons for an author to choose a vanity press and just because someone had a bad experience doesn't make them all scams.  Real vanity presses should be listed here as a resource for people looking to publish books for personal use, etc.  I think there is also a COI going on here with SFWA and it's memebers.  Please don't make this article about personal attacks.  This just isn't the place for it.-- Showauthor (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought "vanity press" was supposed to be a negative term, and this article dealt specifically with printers, authors and practices that make up "vanity press". While some of your edits do address POV, others seem skewed in the other direction. Flowanda | Talk 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My take on the article was that the term "vanity press" was similar to the way that "astroturfing" or "front group" was used when discussing lobby groups or grassroots organizations...that it was about specific practices that involve deception or taking advantage of someone's inexperience or desire to get published, not self-publishing in general. I also thought you were looking for feedback (there's nothing like making a bunch of edits and having no response, right?), but I don't have any experience in this area to make much more than wikistyle or tone (like the "you" how-to tone you've since edited) comments. Flowanda | Talk 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think if you drew a Venn diagram (remember these?), neither circle would subsume the other, but neither would they be disjunct: the vanity publishing circle and the self-publishing circle would overlap. What vanity publishing is not self-publishing? Vanity publishing that uses an independent company, of course (other than a simple printer). What self-publishing is not vanity publishing? Self-publishing that makes itself absolutely clear on this matter, that never tries, in any way, to deceive potential readers, book stores, libraries, newspapers, friends, relatives, or anyone else--ever. Is vanity publishing always unethical? Well, in my opinion it is--on the part of the "published" as well as on the part of the "publisher"--, but you'd might as well ask whether prostitution is always unethical (in my opinion prostitution--literal prostitution is not--, but that's neither here nor there). Both are considered always unethical by the culture at large although individual members of the culture may disagree. Individual disagreement or agreement is POV, but the general culture's attitude is not, and this article may be--and should be--written from that standpoint. TheScotch (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: All Vanity Presses are Not Unethical Scams

message: I'm a publisher who charges writers a small amount because I have no other way to perform the service. I have to have some income from the books, and it's been my experience that only the very big well-known publishers actually sell enough copies to make money that way. I firmly believe that anyone should be able to get their work in print, and that's what vanity presses are for. However, I am not a vanity press. I take exception to the definition from Merriam-Webster. In my view, a vanity press will in fact publish anything, as long as they get money for it. A small, or independent, press will publish only work that meets their quality standards. My own standards are quite high and I have turned down many more submissions than I have published. That's why there are only 4 books out from my press--actually 3 currently since the first is now out of print. I believe the criterion 'lack of selectivity' must be included in the definition of a vanity press. I'm trying to find some references to justify an edit of the page, to at least include a competing definition if not a replacement one.
The whole publishing industry is in transition. POD printing is becoming more accessible to the general public; Lulu, CreateSpace, iUniverse, and others may be thought of as publishers or as printers depending on whose definitions are used. All of these entities facilitate self-publishing for the masses; in one sense they are the modern version of a vanity press. However, I use CreateSpace as my vehicle for POD printing and distribution, while putting my company name and my isbn on the books. So, for me, CreateSpace is a printer, not a publisher. I am the publisher, but not the writer. I am selective, and therefore not a 'vanity' publisher. IMHO.
I'd like to see this page clarified and improved. I'd be happy to help but it is quite clear that I am too involved with the industry. If no-one picks it up, I'll do my best to make the changes, and I'll maintain an impartial POV, but I really think it would be best for someone else to do it. I do hope that I can serve as a consultant, though.
I'll watch this page and I'd be glad to have any less general comments appear on my talk page.--Chuck Gregory (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, would be happy to see changes you make along these lines, as long as they are sourced to reliable sources.  There are plenty of us here who can watch for any POV issues, and fix them as they crop up.  In case you haven't read it, WP:COI has good advice. JulesH (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I want to help fix this page but have potential conflict of interest

message: "Such a term is not used in other art forms, i.e., a filmmaker who "publishes" a film and distributes it is not considered a "vanity filmmaker," a sculptor who creates a work through a foundry is not considered less of a sculptor."
A book producer who publishes a book and distributes it is also not considered a "vanity book producer! Thus the comparison is here wrong, for the comparable case probably would be used in such art forms: an actor who pays to participate in a movie would be considered a "vanity actor" and a sculptor who pays to have his work on display might be considered less of a sculptor.
Harald88 (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Academics must publish articles in scholarly journals or have their books published by notable scholarly publishers.  In both cases there will be selection committees made up of academic peers who will decide if the article or book is worthy of publication, based on scholarly criteria. This excludes vanity press publications because a vanity press has no valid selection criteria.  With them money is the only condition for getting published.--AlainV (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor comparison 

message: The History section seems to be talking specifically about self-publishing, not vanity publishing. If there's debate over the overlap of these subjects then it should be made clearer. Mark Twain publishing his own work through his own printing press may be vain but it certainly doesn't constitute being a 'vanity publisher' - it's self-publishing.
 80.0.27.240 (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "History" section confusing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Vanity press. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141122164005/http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11/20/bogus-journal-accepts-profanity-laced-anti-spam-paper/ to http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11/20/bogus-journal-accepts-profanity-laced-anti-spam-paper/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927090018/http://media.www.dailyvanguard.com/media/storage/paper941/news/2007/02/14/News/Paying.For.Prestige.The.Cost.Of.Recognition-2718460.shtml to http://media.www.dailyvanguard.com/media/storage/paper941/news/2007/02/14/News/Paying.For.Prestige.The.Cost.Of.Recognition-2718460.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We currently have the line The term vanity press appeared in mainstream U.S. publications as early as 1941. sourced to a 1941 article, rather than one that points that out as an early usage. I can quickly find the term being used in mainstream papers in 1936 and 1937, at times in relation to a piece that Ben Belitt did for The Nation in May, 1936. (I've not seen that article.)  -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of the term