A lot of professional reviewers, do not review indie/self published books. They don't just choose to avoid some indie books; they outright refuse to accept any and all review submissions for indie books.
Some of them think they would be inundated with too many submissions.
I don't know about anyone else, but I can figure out if I want to read a book in about 30 seconds to a minute.
And if they don't want the books, they could donate or sell them. Isn't that what they do with the extras anyway?
Some reviewers assume that all self/indie published books are unprofessional garbage.
Last time I checked, indie authors were fully capable of hiring/utilizing editors. Not all of them do, granted. But like I said before, 30 seconds to a minute to choose a book. A reviewer should be able to tell pretty quickly if a book was edited.
These reasons are antiquated and bogus.
What are you afraid of, reviewers? That you might like something out of the ordinary? That your friends and colleagues will scoff at the fact that you read something they didn't? Maybe they won't let you sit at the "cool" table in the cafeteria anymore?
Or are the traditional publishers paying you off? Ah, that is an interesting thought.
Indie novels deserve as much consideration as traditionally published books. I fail to understand how any intelligent person could completely disregard the work of an entire group of creatives based on assumptions.
Other places to find me: