Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/29413
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/29413
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Personally I would not favor looking for anonymous online beta readers for a project like this. Any project on the relationship of science and religion is going to attract cranks on both sides of the spectrum and the opinion of cranks is of no value.

There are really three types of beta readers worth having for a non-fiction project:

- Experts who can check your facts and your conclusions and alert you to any relevant research you may have missed.

- Members of your target audience. 

- Editorial experts who can check your grammar and style.

My current non-fiction book is in this stage now (though the publisher calls it "technical review" and administers it as part of the publication process). The publisher provides the editorial expertise and finds some of the technical and audience representatives (I have also done reviews for other of their books in the past). I recruit the rest myself from people I know in the industry. Some of these are people I have met and some I only know from online. LinkedIn is a great way to find and establish a relationship with these people.

As I said, this beta reading program was set up and is being administered by my publisher. This highlights an important point about non-fiction. Non-fiction should be sold before it is written. You sell non-fiction based on a proposal and your credentials to write about the subject. The publisher then works with you to plan and shape the book, which often includes reviews such as I have described. Publishers want their non-fiction titles to be authoritative (or at least to seem authoritative) and since they can't always judge the subject matter themselves, the credentials of the author and the judgement of other professionals in the field are key to them in making their publishing decisions.

Original score: 2