Should I look for a traditional publisher or self-publish my book?

There are pros and cons to each approach. Publishing a book with a traditional publisher— whether a major house or an independent or university press—continues to give authors a legitimacy they don’t automatically get when self-publishing. This legitimacy does not, however, guarantee successful marketing, publicity, sales, or even future publication.

The main advantage of self-publishing is that no one but the author decides whether the book will be made available to the reading public. Self-publishing also allows a quicker turnaround time between deciding to publish and seeing the finished product.

I think it's important for writers who decide to self-publish to understand the process a manuscript goes through at a traditional publisher:

1) Developmental editing by the acquisitions editor

2) At least one if not two rounds of copyediting

3) At least two rounds of proofreading by two different editors AFTER the manuscript has been set in the format in which it will be distributed to readers

4) Creation of a cover and internals by a professional book designer whose work is approved by sales and marketing professionals

This process exists for a good reason: No single editor (and no writer) is going to catch all the mistakes in a manuscript, whether mistakes of consistency, continuity, grammar, or mechanics. When three or four professional editors read through a manuscript carefully, however, chances are great that there will be no mistakes in the printed or electronic book.

The advantage of publishing with a traditional publisher is that the publisher pays for these services, which cost thousands of dollars. If writers want their self-published books to be of the same quality as those produced by traditional publishers, they have to be willing to invest that kind of money and time in their books.