Welcome to the second and final installment of the first ever serial editorial from the incumbent Choice editor and publisher. As suggested by the title, the topic is “Can I get my Choice reviews faster?” A good question that one, and this month we will do our best to provide an answer, albeit a preliminary one.

We ended last month by noting that our basic goal is to review a work as soon as possible, and by listing the key steps in the review publishing process. Currently, this process results in the appearance of the published review anywhere from a few months to as much as a year following publication of the title, with the average interval being somewhere in the vicinity of five to seven months.  While Choice reviews typically appear far sooner than the reviews found in most scholarly journals, even five months is a long interval in a world of e-mail, instant messaging, and electronic communications. What can be done to shorten this interval?

To be sure, there are some things that are beyond Choice’s control. It makes sense, therefore, to focus on those that we can control, and where success will generate the most bang for the buck.  If we do that, the possibilities quickly narrow down to the following three steps in Choice’s internal work flow:

1. The interval between receipt of the book and shipment to the reviewer
2. The interval between receipt of the review and completion of editing
3. The interval between completion of editing and publication

Moreover—based on a recent and wholly unscientific sample of twenty-five reviews from a recent issue of Choice—our best move appears to be to further narrow our focus to item 3 above, the interval between completion of editing, or “finished copy,” and publication of the review.  The bad news is that this interval currently accounts for nearly one-third of the total elapsed time between receipt of a title by Choice and publication of the review.  The good news is that something can be done about this.

And while the specifics of that something remain to be determined, it will almost surely have two major components: a thorough redesign of Choice’s production work flow, and an investment in a new content management system or CMS.

A CMS is the publishing equivalent of an Integrated Library System, or ILS.  Invisible to outside observers, the CMS is in practice a critical factor in the efficiency of a publisher’s workflow.  CMSs are also expensive, and like many ILSs, their selection, set up, and installation require a major investment of staff time and energy.  Purchasing a new CMS is an easy decision to postpone.  Choice has probably done so for longer than is optimal, but we hear you, dear reader.  We’re on it, and we’ll stay on it until the day when our answer to your question about getting your Choice reviews sooner is the answer you want to hear, “Yes!”  In the end, dear reader, it’s the answer we want to hear too.—IER