Dear Sir, Madam,
As a writer, I paid Xlibris $ 1800 for a package that included editing (pid 622992). I did it because English is not my native language. Back in July 2014, I received a clear text from Xlibris that I approved. However, a few months later the book was printed with several grammar mistakes that were not part of the original clear text! It took me a while to realize that because it didn't come to my mind that any reputable editor would be so unprofessional. When I finally addressed the issue, the only response that I got from Xlibris representatives was that my concerns were “author preference” (?!) I took the issue to the DC Court, but the case was dropped because the contract that I signed with Xlibris specified that I had 180 days to take them to Indiana Court. No other jurisdiction nor an extension of time was acceptable. On July 2016, Xlibris finally sent me a revised clear text. My reply on July 24, 2016 was:
Dear Ms. Perkins:
The text that you sent presents the same grammar mistakes that we discussed before. For example:
On page 10: "In sum, usually in the study of prehistoric societies, there is no absolute proof." It should read instead: " In sum, usually in the study of prehistoric societies there is no absolute proof."
On page 15: "Therefore, the available evidence contradicts the claim that plants are the subject of the stone, especially being the Inga Stone, a major work which, without doubt, had a very important role within the ideology of the group that created it, the available evidence contradicts the claim that plants are the subject of the stone." The sentence should be: "Therefore, the available evidence contradicts the claim that plants are the subject of the stone, especially being the Inga Stone a major work which, without any doubt, had a very important role within the ideology of the group that created it."
Ms. Perkins reply on July 25th was:
The list of mistakes that you listed today are not valid, these are what they call “author preference.”
So, according to Xlibris "editors", needlessly repeating words in the same sentence is good grammar (!)
In other words, the revised text that Xlibris sent me in July 2016 had the very SAME grammar mistakes presented in the printed edition! And when I mentioned that to Xlibris representatives, I was told again that it was a matter of “author preference”. I also contacted Better Business Bureau. Xlibris reply was that the court case had been dismissed and that they were willing to print a clear text. Neither the reason why it was “dismissed” nor that their “new“ clear text was filled up with grammar mistakes was mentioned in their reply.
In sum, the only way to solve this issue would be fair editing by Xlibris.
Roberto Salgado de Carvalho