Authors sometimes assume that once a book is out, the window for advance reviews has simply closed, and that reviews from here on must come unprompted or not at all. That is not quite right. The label changes, and a few of the mechanics change, but organised, ethical outreach to readers willing to receive a copy and consider an honest review remains available after publication, not only before it.
This guide sets out the more accurate terminology, the practical difference between the pre- and post-publication situation, and how to put together a review copy plan without drifting into anything that looks like buying or manufacturing reviews.
What ARC technically means
Advance Reader Copy describes, literally, a copy provided to readers, reviewers or trade contacts before a book is publicly available, usually to generate reviews and interest ahead of, or around, launch. Once a book has already been published, providing a copy after the fact is not "advance" of anything, which is why the term starts to feel like a slight misfit for what is actually happening.
Before publication vs after publication
| Before publication | After publication |
|---|---|
| Term: Advance Reader Copy (ARC) | Term: review copy, reader copy, or review team |
| Purpose: generate reviews around launch | Purpose: build ongoing, honest reader feedback and visibility |
| Often coordinated with a launch date | Can run continuously, or in occasional rounds |
| Reviews may be embargoed until publication | Reviews can usually be posted as soon as the reader finishes |
Nothing here means a post-publication review copy programme is inferior or a fallback; for many self-published authors, most review-copy activity naturally happens after publication rather than before it, simply because there was no pre-launch reviewer network in place yet.
Terminology in practice
Using "review copy" or "reader copy" rather than "ARC" once a book is out is more accurate, and worth adopting in an author’s own materials. That said, readers and online book communities frequently keep calling any free review copy an "ARC" regardless of timing; this is common informal usage, and correcting readers on the terminology is not a useful use of anyone’s time.
Setting up a post-publication review team
A review team, in this context, is simply a group of interested readers who have agreed to receive a copy of the book, at no cost or at a reduced cost, in exchange for nothing except the option to leave an honest review if they choose to. Recruiting for it can draw on the same sources covered in our guide on finding people to review a book: existing readers, a mailing list, and relevant reading communities.
- 1
Choose the format
Decide the format (digital file, print copy, or platform-specific review copy) and how many copies are realistically affordable to give away.
- 2
Recruit from existing readers
Recruit readers through existing channels rather than broad public callouts with no interest filter.
- 3
Explain the terms in writing
Explain clearly, in writing, that the copy is free, no review is required, and any review should be honest.
- 4
Give a relaxed timeframe
Give a reasonable, non-pressuring timeframe rather than a strict deadline that feels like an obligation.
- 5
Thank everyone
Thank participants regardless of whether they review, and regardless of what any review says.
Free copies must not be conditioned on a positive review
In practice, this means the language used when offering a copy matters: "in exchange for your honest thoughts" is appropriate; anything implying a five-star review, or a review at all, is expected in return, is not.
Checking current retailer rules
Rules about disclosing that a review is based on a free copy, and about which reviewers are eligible to leave a review at all, are set by each retailer and can change. At the time of writing, Amazon publishes its own customer review guidelines, and it is worth checking these directly, and any equivalent policy for other platforms a book sells on, before starting an outreach round rather than relying on secondhand summaries.
What not to do
Do
- Offer free copies genuinely in exchange for consideration of an honest review.
- Keep review-team communication simple, honest and low-pressure.
- Check current platform disclosure rules before running an outreach round.
Avoid
- Imply, even subtly, that a positive review is expected in return for a free copy.
- Offer additional gifts, entries into prize draws, or other incentives tied to leaving a review.
- Pressure participants who do not review, or chase them repeatedly.
An illustrative example
Example
Imagine a self-published historical fiction author, six months after launch, decides to run a small review copy round. They invite forty newsletter subscribers who have previously mentioned enjoying historical fiction, offer a free digital copy with no obligation, and receive honest reviews from around a third of participants over the following two months, including one mixed review about pacing. That is a realistic, ethical outcome: modest, genuine, and useful as feedback as well as social proof.
Post-publication review team plan
Private worksheet
Post-publication review team plan
Use this to plan a review copy round after publication. It is for private planning only; nothing here is scored or submitted anywhere.
Your answers stay in this browser tab only. Nothing is scored, sent or saved to an account.
Common mistakes
- Calling it an ARC and treating it as pre-launch marketing. After publication, "review copy" is more accurate, and the purpose shifts from launch buzz to ongoing honest feedback.
- Wording that implies a positive review is expected. This breaches most platforms’ review policies and undermines the honesty a review is supposed to represent.
- Recruiting too broadly. A public callout with no genre filter tends to produce low completion rates and reviews from readers who were never the right audience.
- Assuming old policy knowledge still applies. Platform disclosure and eligibility rules can change; check the current version rather than relying on what was true previously.
- Chasing non-responders. Following up repeatedly turns a generous offer into pressure, which is neither ethical nor effective.
Frequently asked questions
Is it still called an ARC if the book is already published?
Not strictly. "Review copy" or "reader copy" is more accurate once a book is out, though many readers still use "ARC" informally regardless of timing.
Can I give away free copies in exchange for reviews at any time?
Yes, provided the copy is offered in exchange for consideration of an honest review, not a positive one, and current platform rules on disclosure and eligibility are followed.
Do I need to disclose that a review copy was free?
Some platforms require or encourage disclosure. Check the current policy for each platform the book is sold on rather than assuming one rule applies everywhere.
How many review copies should I give away?
There is no set number. A smaller, well-matched group of genuinely interested readers tends to produce a better proportion of honest reviews than a very large, loosely targeted group.
What if reviewers do not review after receiving a free copy?
This is normal and should not be chased. Reviewers are under no obligation, and pressuring them undermines the honesty the process depends on.