Thanks Phoebe - I’ve been shocked by the level of ghosting - it just wasn’t something I had prepared for. Rejections, yes - had plenty in my time as have most people! But not hearing anything at all is soul destroying.
It's great that you are raising this. I've been on both sides (editor/writer) and I think the very strange and difficult thing for authors is that they are often not in the room (literally) when their work is discussed and decisions are taken that materially affect their livelihood. So there can be a deep sense of being on the 'outside' and a power imbalance. A great editor will communicate openly and regularly with their authors – however, it's very time-consuming for them, and relies on other teams in the publishing house communicating well too, so that they actually have the info to share!
When it comes to new authors and querying, the balance of power (and financial incentive) is entirely one way and so it's only inherent professionalism that means the best editors and agents communicate proactively and well (until and unless a submission is so incredible the author rises above the pack). I imagine new agents can find submitting psychologically tough, too. Then once an agent has a great track record that gives them clout and the balance of power tips in their favour.
I have observed ghosting and lack of communication get distinctly worse since the pandemic. People who would once have responded within 24 hours started taking a week to get back. I think remote working must be incredibly hard – publishing thrives on collaboration and quickly resolving issues in corridors. And of course, so many people wrote a novel during Covid! It's great there is so much information available for writers now – I benefit from it myself – but it must also mean agent inboxes are totally swamped.
Thank you for this - I've often wondered about it. My agent has more than a dozen submissions of my novel for which she has been waiting for a response for almost two years, but she feels confident those responses will come and that, as everyone always says, "you just need one yes." It's so hard to stay hopeful, but I'm trying!
Well, yes to be honest. Two years is a long time. I mean it is not impossible, but if your agent has chased them and it initially went out two years ago, I don't think they are very viable options. What you could do is ask the agent to submit to new editors - different imprints or new editors at existing imprints, and go out fresh. Some agents have a round 1 and a round 2 (sometimes round 2 includes Amazon, digital publishers, etc). I am so sorry to sound brutal but I am being honest in the hope that it is helpful. The next option is to write another novel - so so many authors do not sell their debut, but go on to sell brilliantly after that. Sometimes authors don't sell until book 4 or 5! So definitely don't give up, and keep writing, but I think those editors will be unlikely to respond after two years...
It’s more than editing jobs too unfortunately. I’ve have been looking for any job relating to my skill set, I’ve had interviews, I’ve had second round interviews, and those people have ghosted me. Though some are good about responding that they are moving on, most of the jobs I have applied to, editing or not, has not reached out. At. All. It’s incredibly frustrating.
My thanks to the author for at least putting some focus on the issue, but I don't believe this article goes nearly far enough in acknowledging either the scale of ghosting from editors in publishing or its effects. I also think authors ghosting authors is such a tiny issue by comparison that it's disingenuous to present both alongside each other like this. It's like comparing the critical mass of Mount Everest alongside a garden pea.
I have seen highly skillful, exceptionally talented writers walk away from a future they were born to because publishing is so desperately broken, and the epidemic of ghosting from editors is the clearest evidence of that. There's been no real dissection of the mental health implications of ghosting in this article either. How, for example, are writers expected to experience the reality of their agents subbing to thirty editors, only to have heard back from half a dozen of them in eighteen months time? And YES, the stats really ARE that bad.
Have a think about what that actually DOES to the psyche of a highly creative person; the horrible sensation of sinking, of bleeding out creatively, of just being robbed of every ounce of creative energy, like having the artistic marrow sucked from your bones - and ultimately, as a consequence, of turning your back on your own manuscript and on writing itself, all because a majority of editors couldn't be bothered to click a button and send a one-line form rejection.
Let me be clear that this is not about works being rejected. A rejection is closure and as someone else said, rejections are infinitely preferable to being ignored. The problem isn't work not being accepted; the problem is work not being acknowledged. This is the only industry in my awareness that behaves in such a flagrantly unprofessional manner as a matter of course.
Editors who don't bother responding to agents unless they want to pursue a submission should really go and find something else to do with themselves, because they are causing great harm to this industry in general and to its writers in particular. Perhaps they should spend a year of their lives crafting a manuscript and submit it. A good dose of their own medicine might have an illuminating effect.
And finally, people need to stop pretending that this either isn't happening, or isn't happening much, or isn't happening enough to merit acknowledgment and examination, because it is, and that acceptance and scrutiny are desperately needed as first steps towards rectifying the damage caused by this institutionalised form of laziness.
That's fair enough, but those two things are just not comparable. One of the many differences between them is that authors are not professionally obliged to respond to other authors requests for blurbs or endorsements. Editors *are* obliged to respond to agents one way or the other, and a good six times out of ten they don't bother their backsides. It's a disgrace.
Your articles are fab. What about when editors ghost agents on submissions?! It’s so hard because as you know we cannot submit to more than one editor within an imprint so if they just never reply (and ignore follow ups) you have lost the chance to send elsewhere.
Thank you Alice! Yes, I should have added that in. To be honest I guess you could just email another editor in the team, or the head of the team. As a team head, I would be happy to receive an email from an agent saying someone on the team had not responded to a submission, and I could then ask them about it in person.
I've had editors go quiet on me (due to being overwhelmed, I think), so I was pleased when I moved to Bookouture because they have a rule that all emails from their authors have to be replied to within a certain number of days. I think other publishers could do something similar. I found it so reassuring, even though I'm not hovering over my inbox waiting for a reply! "Well, that email got a reply with 10 minutes to spare!" ;)
It's especially important given that many authors don't feel like they can chase - as if it'd make us sound difficult or ungrateful. So we sit there, the weeks going by, wondering if we'll ever get a response. Knowing I'll get a reply, even a holding email like, "don't worry we're looking into it" if it's the rights department for example, is, as I say, reassuring.
I really don’t mind if authors chase!! I was told to reply to authors within 24h when I was junior editor so I guess it mainly stuck for me, and generally it is something we are meant to prioritise but I don’t know the experience everyone has of course. Thank you so much for reading and engaging, Helen.
"Another part of my role is regular contact with my list of authors - updating them on the publishing processes, showing them their covers, copy, early reader reviews, and of course editorial notes." Outside of actual changes in the ms, why is the author informed of any of this stuff?
You may think you have a right. But once your ms is sold your involvement is limited, as per the contract. This is as it should be. A major publisher doesn't want you bothering them, they are the experts on "publishing processes... covers, copy, early reader reviews". Not you. Most writers' two cent's worth on these issues is just about that to a professional publisher.
If I am lucky enough to have a novel accepted, I hope I'm smart enough to keep my mouth closed. I've got more to publish, and I don't want the reputation of being a meddlesome, emailing, irritating amateur. Thanks for your input.
The disconnect between author and reality is famous. This is why the industry generally avoids interactions, and always has. They learned their lesson : )
I’d find it weird if the publishing world doesn’t already use Teams or Slack or GoogleMeet in this fashion, is that really the case? I agree with Julian it would be a good idea but I’m not sure another platform would be worth developing specific to publishing. Since GoogleMeet requires more integration I’d guess Slack or Teams is your best bet; while most people I know use Teams for work and Slack for family/social I couldn’t tell you why one would be better than the other. Agents, Authors, Editors: if you’re not presented with a project platform option you could perhaps suggest using Chanty. I’ve personally not played with it much yet because it doesn’t seem to offer enough 3P apps but maybe that wouldn’t be an issue with an in-house project? I hear that it’s user-friendly, and really focuses on task management, multiple people can be assigned to the same task, you can turn messages into tasks, keep everyone on the same page with @mentions, and it uses a Kanban view, which I think would be more intuitive for authors (kanban is like seeing index cards on your screen that you can move around and customize, so an author could choose to see only the tasks they’re most interested in at the top, e.g. “Sales” or “Cover Design” or Edit Status”, something like that.) I can’t imagine trying to stay on top of all the emails per book project, especially with such varied levels of priority/relevance. Yes, it’s annoying to hear the constant pings from Teams when it’s not stuff you personally are responding to, but you can mute to various degrees.
Of course, this only helps with ghosting re once an author is already attached to an agent, editor, publisher house; for ghosting re querying we’re back to Phoebe’s insights and, you know, Human Nature. I’ve worked with several people who are personally very nice, professional people but they will never respond to anything that has not been lit on fire in front of them, it’s just how they are — once they first get into crisis mode management they put down roots and deflect hits from there from a bolted-in swivel chair. I suspect this will never change. Phoebe’s advice about communicating at the start about what is expected and/or normal for each side of the venture, with each side trying to accommodate the other, is no doubt the best all around practice.
Yes we do use Teams internally of course, and some companies use Slack. There obviously need to be internal conversations without authors, but then I guess the issue comes when the key parts of those aren’t communicated externally. But I agree a portal or something could work - companies have trialled things like that before - where authors can access own sales figures - but I don’t know the reasons why they didn’t become more mainstream…
I can only speak for myself, but I'd always rather that editors are honest and deliver bad news rather than say nothing. I run a business – a creative one, sure, but a business nonetheless – and appreciate being treated as such by partners such as publishers, which includes honesty and transparency. Of course bad news is disappointing, but we can't do anything about a problem if we don't know it exists.
Regarding Julian's idea of a comms platform, I've had similar ideas. Imagine having something similar to a Discord for each book project, where you, your agent, your editor, marketers, etc can all post shared information. I've worked for game studios with dozens of staffers who all but ban email, using such platforms instead, and they really can work. I fear publishing as a whole is still too old-fashioned for it, though.
This is a really interesting article and gets to the heart of a lot of author's issues with communication. I feel sometimes editors are so enmeshed in the industry they assume a lot of knowledge for authors, where in reality a lot of us don't know the business side of the industry at all, might not know the lingo, or the significance of, say for example, supermarket deals.
We also don't often have any idea of what publishers consider good sales - and I think we're often too afraid to ask. Like Susie says below, we don't want to come across as a troublemaker, or high maintenance. I know this industry can be tough to predict, but I think if a publisher outlined their hopes, and their realistic goals, a lot of us would feel more comfortable. Boldwood do this to an extent -- in that they set targets for pre-orders and keep authors informed of them. Of course, if things aren't going as hoped it can be a bit of a downer, but I think most of us would rather know the honest picture than exist in a bubble of worry.
Phoebe, what a great article. This wasn't a ramble at all, only a lot of thoughtful reflection. I've heard so many people complain about all-but-spectral colleagues, often not realising that at times they become phantoms themselves. Maybe we can all be unresponsive correspondents if the right buttons are pushed. I think your suggestions here will help a lot of people.
In the 2010s I often met agents, editors and writers who found twitter liberating because it was asynchronous, but it could never be truly private even with direct messaging. The removal of the obligation to reply, or to expect a reply, really did trigger something though. This makes me think thst there might be a useful tool to cater for the varied attitudes of individual professionals you've described here. If we treat each book, series or brand as a separate project and create an online teamspace shared only by those working on the project, each can provide regular timely updates to the portal, and other members can read them, and add to the conversation around them, only when they wish to. Marketeers update with territory stats and feedback from the stores, for example, and the agent and author review accumulated updates when they are ready to. Ideally the whole chain, from author through agent and editors to production design, sales team, rights and partners, all share a single project space for the long life of a property, but it starts before the book is sold, with just the agent and the author, so I guess it's not a service any individual publisher would set up. It's bigger than them in scope.
Maybe this is a business opportunity for a third (or rather fourth!) party. A global communication platform for the industry, removing some of the emotional baggage, encouraging timely updates and easing the burden of responses. Other industries have been using tools like this successfully for twenty-five years but I don't think anyone has architected a solution specifically for the needs of publishing. Until someone does, though, there are several tools that might help a lot.
I'm glad you are opening up this topic. Unfortunately, it seems to be very prevalent now and in many areas, from agents not acknowledging or rejecting queries to editors 'ghosting' agents who are nudging for updates. It's really hard for authors to bring the severity of this into the open, because we fear we could be seen as 'difficult' or troublemakers. I've written to The Bookseller to suggest a feature on it, but was... you guessed it, ghosted by the editor. The Society of Authors did reply but are reluctant to feature the subject again until there is some suggestion of practical measures that can be taken. It is truly horrible to feel in limbo and in the dark, an endless waiting game with no closure. Rejections are tough - but infinitely preferable to ghosting. And for the all the reasons why ghosting may happen - and I totally understand overwork, burnout etc - there needs to be some kind of clear industry practice on this issue, because the mental and emotional health of authors is being severely impacted.
Thanks Phoebe - I’ve been shocked by the level of ghosting - it just wasn’t something I had prepared for. Rejections, yes - had plenty in my time as have most people! But not hearing anything at all is soul destroying.
It's great that you are raising this. I've been on both sides (editor/writer) and I think the very strange and difficult thing for authors is that they are often not in the room (literally) when their work is discussed and decisions are taken that materially affect their livelihood. So there can be a deep sense of being on the 'outside' and a power imbalance. A great editor will communicate openly and regularly with their authors – however, it's very time-consuming for them, and relies on other teams in the publishing house communicating well too, so that they actually have the info to share!
When it comes to new authors and querying, the balance of power (and financial incentive) is entirely one way and so it's only inherent professionalism that means the best editors and agents communicate proactively and well (until and unless a submission is so incredible the author rises above the pack). I imagine new agents can find submitting psychologically tough, too. Then once an agent has a great track record that gives them clout and the balance of power tips in their favour.
I have observed ghosting and lack of communication get distinctly worse since the pandemic. People who would once have responded within 24 hours started taking a week to get back. I think remote working must be incredibly hard – publishing thrives on collaboration and quickly resolving issues in corridors. And of course, so many people wrote a novel during Covid! It's great there is so much information available for writers now – I benefit from it myself – but it must also mean agent inboxes are totally swamped.
Thank you for this - I've often wondered about it. My agent has more than a dozen submissions of my novel for which she has been waiting for a response for almost two years, but she feels confident those responses will come and that, as everyone always says, "you just need one yes." It's so hard to stay hopeful, but I'm trying!
I appreciate the honesty! Thank you, Phoebe.
Hmm I think two years is too long!
Eek, really? By "too long," do you mean "too long to imagine these editors are ever going to respond?"
Well, yes to be honest. Two years is a long time. I mean it is not impossible, but if your agent has chased them and it initially went out two years ago, I don't think they are very viable options. What you could do is ask the agent to submit to new editors - different imprints or new editors at existing imprints, and go out fresh. Some agents have a round 1 and a round 2 (sometimes round 2 includes Amazon, digital publishers, etc). I am so sorry to sound brutal but I am being honest in the hope that it is helpful. The next option is to write another novel - so so many authors do not sell their debut, but go on to sell brilliantly after that. Sometimes authors don't sell until book 4 or 5! So definitely don't give up, and keep writing, but I think those editors will be unlikely to respond after two years...
It’s more than editing jobs too unfortunately. I’ve have been looking for any job relating to my skill set, I’ve had interviews, I’ve had second round interviews, and those people have ghosted me. Though some are good about responding that they are moving on, most of the jobs I have applied to, editing or not, has not reached out. At. All. It’s incredibly frustrating.
My thanks to the author for at least putting some focus on the issue, but I don't believe this article goes nearly far enough in acknowledging either the scale of ghosting from editors in publishing or its effects. I also think authors ghosting authors is such a tiny issue by comparison that it's disingenuous to present both alongside each other like this. It's like comparing the critical mass of Mount Everest alongside a garden pea.
I have seen highly skillful, exceptionally talented writers walk away from a future they were born to because publishing is so desperately broken, and the epidemic of ghosting from editors is the clearest evidence of that. There's been no real dissection of the mental health implications of ghosting in this article either. How, for example, are writers expected to experience the reality of their agents subbing to thirty editors, only to have heard back from half a dozen of them in eighteen months time? And YES, the stats really ARE that bad.
Have a think about what that actually DOES to the psyche of a highly creative person; the horrible sensation of sinking, of bleeding out creatively, of just being robbed of every ounce of creative energy, like having the artistic marrow sucked from your bones - and ultimately, as a consequence, of turning your back on your own manuscript and on writing itself, all because a majority of editors couldn't be bothered to click a button and send a one-line form rejection.
Let me be clear that this is not about works being rejected. A rejection is closure and as someone else said, rejections are infinitely preferable to being ignored. The problem isn't work not being accepted; the problem is work not being acknowledged. This is the only industry in my awareness that behaves in such a flagrantly unprofessional manner as a matter of course.
Editors who don't bother responding to agents unless they want to pursue a submission should really go and find something else to do with themselves, because they are causing great harm to this industry in general and to its writers in particular. Perhaps they should spend a year of their lives crafting a manuscript and submit it. A good dose of their own medicine might have an illuminating effect.
And finally, people need to stop pretending that this either isn't happening, or isn't happening much, or isn't happening enough to merit acknowledgment and examination, because it is, and that acceptance and scrutiny are desperately needed as first steps towards rectifying the damage caused by this institutionalised form of laziness.
Thanks for engaging and reading. The part about authors ghosting authors was in response to a direct request from a reader :)
That's fair enough, but those two things are just not comparable. One of the many differences between them is that authors are not professionally obliged to respond to other authors requests for blurbs or endorsements. Editors *are* obliged to respond to agents one way or the other, and a good six times out of ten they don't bother their backsides. It's a disgrace.
Your articles are fab. What about when editors ghost agents on submissions?! It’s so hard because as you know we cannot submit to more than one editor within an imprint so if they just never reply (and ignore follow ups) you have lost the chance to send elsewhere.
Thank you Alice! Yes, I should have added that in. To be honest I guess you could just email another editor in the team, or the head of the team. As a team head, I would be happy to receive an email from an agent saying someone on the team had not responded to a submission, and I could then ask them about it in person.
The author needs to see what their book is going to look like - most want to approve the cover and the blurb.
I've had editors go quiet on me (due to being overwhelmed, I think), so I was pleased when I moved to Bookouture because they have a rule that all emails from their authors have to be replied to within a certain number of days. I think other publishers could do something similar. I found it so reassuring, even though I'm not hovering over my inbox waiting for a reply! "Well, that email got a reply with 10 minutes to spare!" ;)
It's especially important given that many authors don't feel like they can chase - as if it'd make us sound difficult or ungrateful. So we sit there, the weeks going by, wondering if we'll ever get a response. Knowing I'll get a reply, even a holding email like, "don't worry we're looking into it" if it's the rights department for example, is, as I say, reassuring.
I really don’t mind if authors chase!! I was told to reply to authors within 24h when I was junior editor so I guess it mainly stuck for me, and generally it is something we are meant to prioritise but I don’t know the experience everyone has of course. Thank you so much for reading and engaging, Helen.
"Another part of my role is regular contact with my list of authors - updating them on the publishing processes, showing them their covers, copy, early reader reviews, and of course editorial notes." Outside of actual changes in the ms, why is the author informed of any of this stuff?
Because we've a right to be involved in the publication of our own work. That's why.
You may think you have a right. But once your ms is sold your involvement is limited, as per the contract. This is as it should be. A major publisher doesn't want you bothering them, they are the experts on "publishing processes... covers, copy, early reader reviews". Not you. Most writers' two cent's worth on these issues is just about that to a professional publisher.
If I am lucky enough to have a novel accepted, I hope I'm smart enough to keep my mouth closed. I've got more to publish, and I don't want the reputation of being a meddlesome, emailing, irritating amateur. Thanks for your input.
The disconnect between author and reality is famous. This is why the industry generally avoids interactions, and always has. They learned their lesson : )
I’d find it weird if the publishing world doesn’t already use Teams or Slack or GoogleMeet in this fashion, is that really the case? I agree with Julian it would be a good idea but I’m not sure another platform would be worth developing specific to publishing. Since GoogleMeet requires more integration I’d guess Slack or Teams is your best bet; while most people I know use Teams for work and Slack for family/social I couldn’t tell you why one would be better than the other. Agents, Authors, Editors: if you’re not presented with a project platform option you could perhaps suggest using Chanty. I’ve personally not played with it much yet because it doesn’t seem to offer enough 3P apps but maybe that wouldn’t be an issue with an in-house project? I hear that it’s user-friendly, and really focuses on task management, multiple people can be assigned to the same task, you can turn messages into tasks, keep everyone on the same page with @mentions, and it uses a Kanban view, which I think would be more intuitive for authors (kanban is like seeing index cards on your screen that you can move around and customize, so an author could choose to see only the tasks they’re most interested in at the top, e.g. “Sales” or “Cover Design” or Edit Status”, something like that.) I can’t imagine trying to stay on top of all the emails per book project, especially with such varied levels of priority/relevance. Yes, it’s annoying to hear the constant pings from Teams when it’s not stuff you personally are responding to, but you can mute to various degrees.
Of course, this only helps with ghosting re once an author is already attached to an agent, editor, publisher house; for ghosting re querying we’re back to Phoebe’s insights and, you know, Human Nature. I’ve worked with several people who are personally very nice, professional people but they will never respond to anything that has not been lit on fire in front of them, it’s just how they are — once they first get into crisis mode management they put down roots and deflect hits from there from a bolted-in swivel chair. I suspect this will never change. Phoebe’s advice about communicating at the start about what is expected and/or normal for each side of the venture, with each side trying to accommodate the other, is no doubt the best all around practice.
Yes we do use Teams internally of course, and some companies use Slack. There obviously need to be internal conversations without authors, but then I guess the issue comes when the key parts of those aren’t communicated externally. But I agree a portal or something could work - companies have trialled things like that before - where authors can access own sales figures - but I don’t know the reasons why they didn’t become more mainstream…
It was a really interesting post, thanks Phoebe!
I can only speak for myself, but I'd always rather that editors are honest and deliver bad news rather than say nothing. I run a business – a creative one, sure, but a business nonetheless – and appreciate being treated as such by partners such as publishers, which includes honesty and transparency. Of course bad news is disappointing, but we can't do anything about a problem if we don't know it exists.
Regarding Julian's idea of a comms platform, I've had similar ideas. Imagine having something similar to a Discord for each book project, where you, your agent, your editor, marketers, etc can all post shared information. I've worked for game studios with dozens of staffers who all but ban email, using such platforms instead, and they really can work. I fear publishing as a whole is still too old-fashioned for it, though.
Publishing IS quite old-fashioned, you’re right… Thank you for reading and engaging.
This is a really interesting article and gets to the heart of a lot of author's issues with communication. I feel sometimes editors are so enmeshed in the industry they assume a lot of knowledge for authors, where in reality a lot of us don't know the business side of the industry at all, might not know the lingo, or the significance of, say for example, supermarket deals.
We also don't often have any idea of what publishers consider good sales - and I think we're often too afraid to ask. Like Susie says below, we don't want to come across as a troublemaker, or high maintenance. I know this industry can be tough to predict, but I think if a publisher outlined their hopes, and their realistic goals, a lot of us would feel more comfortable. Boldwood do this to an extent -- in that they set targets for pre-orders and keep authors informed of them. Of course, if things aren't going as hoped it can be a bit of a downer, but I think most of us would rather know the honest picture than exist in a bubble of worry.
Thank you for reading lovely Claire and for your thoughtful engagement xx
Phoebe, what a great article. This wasn't a ramble at all, only a lot of thoughtful reflection. I've heard so many people complain about all-but-spectral colleagues, often not realising that at times they become phantoms themselves. Maybe we can all be unresponsive correspondents if the right buttons are pushed. I think your suggestions here will help a lot of people.
In the 2010s I often met agents, editors and writers who found twitter liberating because it was asynchronous, but it could never be truly private even with direct messaging. The removal of the obligation to reply, or to expect a reply, really did trigger something though. This makes me think thst there might be a useful tool to cater for the varied attitudes of individual professionals you've described here. If we treat each book, series or brand as a separate project and create an online teamspace shared only by those working on the project, each can provide regular timely updates to the portal, and other members can read them, and add to the conversation around them, only when they wish to. Marketeers update with territory stats and feedback from the stores, for example, and the agent and author review accumulated updates when they are ready to. Ideally the whole chain, from author through agent and editors to production design, sales team, rights and partners, all share a single project space for the long life of a property, but it starts before the book is sold, with just the agent and the author, so I guess it's not a service any individual publisher would set up. It's bigger than them in scope.
Maybe this is a business opportunity for a third (or rather fourth!) party. A global communication platform for the industry, removing some of the emotional baggage, encouraging timely updates and easing the burden of responses. Other industries have been using tools like this successfully for twenty-five years but I don't think anyone has architected a solution specifically for the needs of publishing. Until someone does, though, there are several tools that might help a lot.
Thank you Julian for this thoughtful reply. Def a business opportunity for someone!
I'm glad you are opening up this topic. Unfortunately, it seems to be very prevalent now and in many areas, from agents not acknowledging or rejecting queries to editors 'ghosting' agents who are nudging for updates. It's really hard for authors to bring the severity of this into the open, because we fear we could be seen as 'difficult' or troublemakers. I've written to The Bookseller to suggest a feature on it, but was... you guessed it, ghosted by the editor. The Society of Authors did reply but are reluctant to feature the subject again until there is some suggestion of practical measures that can be taken. It is truly horrible to feel in limbo and in the dark, an endless waiting game with no closure. Rejections are tough - but infinitely preferable to ghosting. And for the all the reasons why ghosting may happen - and I totally understand overwork, burnout etc - there needs to be some kind of clear industry practice on this issue, because the mental and emotional health of authors is being severely impacted.
Thanks for engaging, Susie! It's interesting to think about the practical measures such as auto replies, for sure.