This is the same as an older thread, but I didn't comment in the last one, so I thought I'd comment here.<p>I was a technical reviewer on Node Security from Packt, and it was an interesting experience, so I thought I'd highlight a few things for those who have criticised the quality of Packt books.<p>- Reviewers are unpaid, I'm not sure if this is normal. I was happy to do it unpaid as experience that I could talk about with future employers. The only 'pay' is a copy of the book, and one other from the library.<p>- I was found and asked to be a reviewer, but I was quite surprised given my lack of experience. I was also surprised at the lack of experience of the author. I felt I was able to do my job as a reviewer, and would have declined otherwise, but I perhaps they should be finding some more experienced people.<p>- Node Security is one of their shorter books, most are either several hundred pages and ~$30-40, or about 100 pages and $20. During the review process I highlighted that I felt the book did not contain enough content for a $20 book, lots of it was quite practical stuff that could have been found by reading some READMEs on GitHub repos for the libraries it talked about.<p>- I noticed that much of the advice in the book was around deployment of Node.js applications, and I suggested an extra chapter specifically about configuring secure deployments, perhaps covering nginx reverse proxying, etc, I felt that this would really improve the overall quality of the book, the focus of each chapter, and ultimately I thought it would make the book well worth the $20. Unfortunately they declined to do this. I'm not sure why, and I'm not sure what my role as a technical reviewer was for because of this. I found some minor issues in the security theory descriptions, and a few errors in example code, as well as making a few suggestions for how bits could be worded better, but it seemed they weren't keen on any major suggestions.<p>I'm not sure whether I'd buy books from Packt, I'd probably have to evaluate them on an individual basis, but I felt there could have been better selection of authors and reviewers, and that they should have been more open to changes proposed by the reviewers.