Peer Reviews: Seek Quality in Your Beta Readers, Not Quantity

I have never been scared of showing others my writing. I have just never really found great value in it, until recently. In writing workshops back in college, I made the mandatory copies and distributed them to my classmates. The comments I received tended to reflect my peers’ personalities more than their writing craft. Their suggestions were almost all stylistic and almost all different. Reading them I became lost, unsure which direction to take. My solution was to employ their suggestions only on the rare occasion when several students had the same comment. I came to consider the whole exercise a waste of paper and as I continued my writing career avoided writing workshops and groups.

(Learn how to protect yourself when considering a independent editor for your book.)




Guest column by Katya Cengel, who has written about everything from
retired dancing bears in Bulgaria to the world’s largest machine gun shoot
in Kentucky. Her work has appeared in
The Wall Street Journal, Marie Claire,
Salon, Esquire and Southwest Airlines Spirit magazine among others. Katya is
(2012, Univ. of Nebraska Press). She is also a writing instructor at U.C.
Berkeley Extension. You can connect with her via her website, Twitter,
Facebook, and Goodreads.




As a journalist, I became adept at self-editing and even more convinced of the uselessness of outside criticism. Don’t get me wrong, I have had some great editors and they have done a stellar job in helping to craft my stories. But I have also witnessed what happens when a story is edited by several different editors, each of them determined to leave their mark. I have had one editor remove a section only to have another put it back in. I have read stories so thick with markings that I once again lost track of what I was originally trying to say. I developed strategies to avoid multiple editors, turning work in close to the deadline so there was less time for it to be passed around. In my personal writing I sent my work to two close relatives who I knew would challenge me but also trust my skills.

Then my publisher sent my original manuscript for Bluegrass Baseball: A Year in the Minor League Life to two of my peers for review. The first review was glowing, the second damning. Both came from authors of books on Minor League baseball. They had experience crafting similar manuscripts and understood who my audience was and what I was trying to accomplish. I considered their recommendations carefully, employing the ones I felt would enhance the story I wanted to tell.


When the book was finally released in summer 2012, it received positive reviews, a fact I credit partially to the insights provided by those two peer reviewers. Nevertheless, I was not fully won over by the process until I started teaching.

(Can your query be longer than one page?)

Around the same time Bluegrass Baseball was released, I took a position as a journalism workshop instructor at U.C. Berkeley Extension. During the workshop, I led group critiques of my students’ work, allowing me to see the merits and shortcomings of peer reviews from an outside perspective. The students had many suggestions for their peers, but the ones that proved most helpful were those that came from writers who understood their classmates’ subject matter and style. It may seem obvious, but it hadn’t occurred to me before that I needed to share my writing with a peer who understood my style and subject matter. And that that person would probably be different for different projects.


I understand now that reviewers are best when picked for quality not quantity. And just as you would not submit your writing to an agent or publisher without researching them first, you must research the reviewer you want to read your work. You have to find a fellow writer who understands at core what you are trying to do and can help you accomplish it. You don’t need a bunch of people who will tell you what they would do. You need one or two people who can help you do what you want to do in the best way possible. So I guess I am still not convinced of the merit of mass peer reviews, but I do believe in the value of targeted peer reviews. The key is to take the time to find and identify your reviewers.


Don’t let your submission be rejected for
improper formatting. The third edition of
Formatting & Submitting Your Manuscript
has more than 100 examples of queries,
synopses, proposals, book text, and more.
Buy it online here at a discount.


Other writing/publishing articles & links for you:


Want to build your visibility and sell more books?
Create Your Writer Platform shows you how to
promote yourself and your books through social
media, public speaking, article writing, branding,
and more.
Order the book from WD at a discount.






You might also like:

  • No Related Posts

One thought on “Peer Reviews: Seek Quality in Your Beta Readers, Not Quantity

  1. Heather Marsten

    Excellent post. When I began writing my memoir, I posted it on Critique Circle. In this venue people needed to critique other’s posts to earn credits to post manuscript pages. I learned a lot by critiquing others. It helped me to be a better writer. Sadly, my initial critiques were not great. I got better as I learned more. Still, I hope they helped.

    I was also the recipient of critiques. Some were very helpful; others not. I learned to discriminate. One critique I received was particularly hurtful, wanting me to scrap whole chapters of my memoir to advance what she called the plot line. I was dubious. What I wrote seemed so important. LOL. She was right and in my revisions, having learned more through writing, the chapters and scenes she suggested I drop were ones that needed discarding. Even with a tough edit, sometimes time will change your perspective about the person’s opinion.

    Lately, I’ve been editing on my own, not posting to any critique group. I figure I’ll seek a Beta reader after I edit my MS through once.

    Have a wonderful and blessed Christmas.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.