Methodology

Evidence first. Missing means missing.

Our launch methodology favors source transparency over confident-sounding conclusions.

How we evaluate publishing companies

We compare disclosures, not popularity. There is no overall score, paid ranking or implied certification. The directory is alphabetical.

Seven disclosure dimensions

  • Pricing: a current public amount, its scope and extras.
  • Royalties: both the percentage and its calculation basis.
  • Rights: copyright ownership separately from publishing licenses and reversion.
  • Contracts: a publicly accessible agreement and whether it applies to new offers.
  • Distribution: retail availability separately from active sales representation.
  • Editorial process: the specific editing stages and acceptance requirements.
  • Marketing: named deliverables rather than promises of success.

Sources and verification

Official contracts, pricing pages, FAQs and service pages support company terms. Each profile links its factual fields to the relevant source. A “Last verified” date describes our source review; it is not a guarantee that an individual offer matches the website.

“Not publicly disclosed” means the reviewed source does not state the term. “Could not verify” means we could not establish it reliably, including when a source was unreadable. Neither means the company lacks that service.

Classifying the model

We distinguish author-funded publishing, assisted self-publishing, service businesses and entrepreneurial models. Mixed offerings retain a mixed label. Categories are editorial descriptions, not certification that a provider satisfies every industry criterion.

Updates

Material changes are recorded in the profile’s dated notes. Conflicting or inaccessible evidence is marked unresolved. We prefer a missing field to a guessed contract term.