While I sorted some things out in my live over the past year and a half, my short fiction submissions trickled down to nothing. Yes, I still have work in inventory, but it has sat on my hard drive.
Last night, I started looking for markets to send that material. I use Ralan for two reasons, it gets me to markets that prefer the type of material I write, and I have financially supported him in the past.
I discovered a few things while going through my inventory and the available markets on Ralan. First, I was astonished that it had been 572 days since I last submitted to John Joseph Adams’ wonderful start-up publication Lightspeed. I tweeted something to the effect that I had a 565-day margin of error on the Lighspeed 7-day wait period between submissions.
It was an innocent enough tweet meant to get people to chuckle, but it was apparently misunderstood out of the context inside my head. For that misunderstanding, I apologize. I certainly meant no harm to Lightspeed or to John by that remark. John has always been the utmost professional in his editorial endeavors, and his success in that area underscores that sentiment. I have the utmost respect for John and his work.
That said, I did run across another publication listed under the professional rate markets. This one is called Digital Science Fiction.  I do not know anyone involved with the production of this online market, nor have I even heard of the names on the editorial board. My first impression of this market came from their submission guidelines, where they demand compliance to something they call Editorial Schedule “A.”
This is something I find abhorrent and completely objectionable in a fiction market. Substantially, it says that if the editor demands a change, the author MUST comply and make the change or the contract is revoked. They also reserve editorial authority to make changes without notification to the author in situations they deem to be minor.
I sent some commentary into the twitterverse after I had sent that innocent tweet involving Lightspeed, and I suspect the DSF tweets became convoluted with that one. Again, I want to emphasize that those tweets, which encompass what I am saying in this essay, are directed only at DSF and are completely irrelevant to Adams and to Lightspeed. His is a class operation.
Editorial Schedule A, on the other hand, is either arrogant or ignorant, and perhaps a little of both. Let me be clear. When I write, regardless of whether it is fiction or non-fiction, it’s my name that goes on the byline. It’s my reputation that is at stake.
Editorial professionalism is not dictating changes to an author, it is a negotiation. The professional editor recognizes that the work belongs to the author. that doesn’t mean that there will be no conflict, nor does it mean that the author will always be allowed to stet everything.
The editor with a strong concern will approach the author with that concern. While the concern may be a deal-breaker, the solution is not for the editor to demand a certain change. The professional editor will voice the concern and make suggestions, sometimes emphatically. however, the actual change is left to the author because often the author has an even better solution. A good editor does not want to disallow that better solution.
If the author and editor cannot come to an agreement on changes, generally the editor and author both come to the decision that the material is not right for the market and both part ways amicably.
This is not the case for Digital Science Fiction. In their case, the editor will dictate a change or pull the contract. This makes the editor a de facto co-author, something that neither author or editor likely desire.
To me, this Exhibit A is a complete deal-breaker. I will not submit to such a market. Here is why. I have published non-fiction material that was modified without my consent. In fact, it was modified after I expressly stated that the change in question changes the sentence from true to false, yet the change was made anyway.
The article in question discussed the construction of the Lick Observatory. When the new telescope was originally tested, it could not be focused. The telescope-maker used a hacksaw to remove a portion of the tube containing the ocular. The editor refused to believe that, despite the fact that I had well-documented proof. When I received my contributor copy, I learned that the telescope-maker had now removed the end of the table. Not only is it false, it is both the only mention of a table in the entire 5000-word article and it is a completely absurd statement.
Bottom line is this: I will not submit to Digital Science Fiction until the editorial mandate described in their Exhibit A is removed from their policies. It is bad policy, and thoroughly unprofessional regardless of the professional payment offered by this market.
Hello Rick
I read your post with much interest and am disappointed you won’t consider submitting to Digital Science Fiction for the reason you site. We’ve never intended “Schedule A†to be a “complete deal-breaker†for anyone and it certainly has not been for any of the authors in our first three anthologies. In fact, more than one author has expressed how fair and reasonable our overall contract is and/or responded favorably to our editorial process.
With respect to the specifics of your post, I’d just like to point out what may be some areas in which I don’t share your interpretation or, perhaps, your opinion.
You said,
“Editorial Schedule A, on the other hand, is either arrogant or ignorant, and perhaps a little of both. Let me be clear. When I write, regardless of whether it is fiction or non-fiction, it’s my name that goes on the byline. It’s my reputation that is at stake.â€
While I confess to a little ignorance in these matters, and agree that your reputation is at stake here, it’s not just your name that goes on a Digital Science Fiction anthology. There are ten writers, our editor, and the publisher’s reputation that need to be protected as well. Your name goes on one of ten bylines.
You also said,
“My first impression of this market came from their submission guidelines, where they demand compliance to something they call Editorial Schedule “A.â€â€¦ This is something I find abhorrent and completely objectionable in a fiction market. Substantially, it says that if the editor demands a change, the author MUST comply and make the change or the contract is revoked.â€
This is simply not what Schedule A “substantially†says at all. Schedule A says an author must make “required†editorial changes, but that not all changes are “requiredâ€. It also sets out the process by which proposed edits, changes, and refusals to change are communicated between the parties.
It seems to me that this is a perfectly clear expression of your own statement of how it should work, where you say in your own words, “If the author and editor cannot come to an agreement on changes, generally the editor and author both come to the decision that the material is not right for the market and both part ways amicably.†If a required change is refused at Digital Science Fiction then I suppose we would part ways amicably, although in thirty comprehensive story edits ways have not yet parted, amicably or otherwise.
Yes, we do reserve the right to make minor changes after the process is complete and before publication. This is typically limited to things like spelling errors missed, spacing, and formatting. Certainly nothing like the example you describe involving a table being deleted would occur with us. Furthermore, we would never make a change that had been discussed and rejected by the author. In this regard you imply a fairly dim view of our intentions without either knowing us or asking us.
You go on to reinforce your position with this statement,
“This is not the case for Digital Science Fiction. In their case, the editor will dictate a change or pull the contract. This makes the editor a de facto co-author, something that neither author or editor likely desire.â€
I have no idea where you get this notion from and would value your input so that we can clear up any confusing language, at least to the extent that our language differs from your view, which seems to be that in the absence of an agreement on changes the story does not get published?
In the meantime, Schedule A will stand notwithstanding your opinion that it is a bad policy. I’m also sorry you feel the need to describe us as arrogant and thoroughly unprofessional. That’s a description that certainly isn’t consistent with our mission to be an author friendly venue that provides a professional market for science fiction stories, and I’ve taken notice that we have come across that way to you, Rick.
Hello Michael,
Thank you for stopping by and taking the trouble to write such a detailed response, and also thank you for keeping it civil. I would be a fool to assume that this blog post would go unnoticed by Digital Science Fiction. In fact, I was hoping you would notice it.
One thing I would like to clarify, though. My assertion was not that Digital Science Fiction or the publication’s editors and staff are arrogant or unprofessional. The issue is with a written policy that seems heavy-handed and not altogether author-friendly.
That may not be the intention of the Schedule A document, and your comment supports the premise that my interpretation is incorrect. This I truly hope is the case. That said, I have been told in confidence by other writers that they share my interpretation.
But this dialog could ultimately end up being good for both you and the writers. I know for a fact that certain writers are not submitting to your publication, and that is a loss to everyone. If their interpretation (as well as mine) are in error, then this is a real opportunity for Digital Science Fiction to close a rift that you may not have even known exists. In return, you will receive stories from authors who have not sent you anything in the past.
We have all seen far too many genre publications fold. Just look at Ralan’s dead market page, it’s a sad cemetery. I do not wish to see another market join that list. To that end, I am willing to go through the “Schedule A” document and provide feedback as to what rankles me. It may be that a simple rewording of a key phrase or two will abate the reservations that some writers have about submitting here. If this is an easy fix, then everybody wins.
Terrific idea. In fact, I’ve worked with a few SFWA authors on the complete contract, which includes Schedule A, in an effort to smooth out the bumps. While none of them took issue with the Schedule that does not mean there isn’t room for improvement.
For starters, on further review and reflection, I can see that paragraph 5 is not entirely consistent with my response to you. Paragraph 5 alone could use some clarification on what a “minor” change might be. You may suggest something else, or even removal of the paragraph, but I’ll leave that to you. Any feedback or suggestions will be welcomed with open arms.
It is too bad you took such a good run at us on Twitter though. Surviving in this market, as a new paying venue for writers, is going to be hard enough as it is.
Cheers,
Mike
Sometimes it takes a squeaky wheel. But, what Twitter taketh away, Twitter can giveth back. If I have nothing else, I do have integrity.
I have already tweeted that you responded here, and also that I am very optimistic about your response. I had nearly instant feedback from one person in particular who is very excited that this may get resolved to the satisfaction of the genre community at large. That would end up being a huge win. I will be the first to shout that out to the world.