Couple of questions

From: Michael Fitzgerald <[email protected]>

Janet, what you said in your second sentence sounds reasonable. Looking
beyond that, however--philosophically speaking--might one wonder why a
hostile review up-front would carry more weight? Is it just the timing?
Seems like a very flawed process that does not accomplish its goal--like a
contract that only one party has to abide by. Know what I mean? Thanks so
much for your insights. MRF
****

>From: Janet Staiger <[email protected]>
>
>If this was a university press, the editor would probably have been
required
>to submit all reviews to the press's governing board.  The editor may have
>realized that this review would sink the project even if the editor found
>another sympathetic reader.  The editor apparently decided to "cut" losses
>at the start since all reviews cost presses money and time.
>Not exactly an excuse for other parts of the process (was the editor well
>enough informed when he/she picked this reviewer in the first place?), just
>an explanation for the decision not to pursue the project further.