The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA) organisation has attacked Random House's new Hydra imprint calling it "predatory" and "exploitative".

It comes after the association removed the digital-only SF imprint from the list of publishers whose authors qualify for SFWA membership, and the SFWA president John Scalzi called the terms Hydra appeared to be offering authors "horrendously bad", advising writers to "run away as fast as your legs or other conveyances will carry you".

The deal that was seen by Scalzi offered no advance and included costs "for editing, artwork, sale, marketing, publicity – ie all the costs a publisher is … expected to bear". "In short," he concluded, "[authors] can do better than Hydra. So do better."

Random House's digital publishing director Allison Dobson responded on Thursday with an open letter to Scalzi, SFWA members and others rejecting the criticisms, and suggesting that "Hydra offers a different – but potentially lucrative – publishing model for authors: a profit share".

"In the more traditional advance-plus-royalty model," Dobson wrote, "the publisher takes all the financial risk up front, and recoups the advance before the author earns any cash royalties. With a profit-share model, there is no advance. Instead, the author and publisher share equally in the profits from each and every sale. In effect, we partner with the author for each book."

A Hydra title is an "all-encompassing collaboration", she continued, adding that she would welcome the opportunity to meet with the SFWA "to discuss the advantages of the Hydra business model, describe the program overall, and respond to any of your expressed concerns".

But according to the association, there is "very little to discuss". A response posted on the SFWA site explains that the organisation "has determined to its own satisfaction that Hydra does not meet our minimum standards for a qualifying market, as its contract does not offer an advance".

This would be enough for the association to disqualify Hydra authors from SFWA membership, the statement continues, but it is the "outrageous" attempt "to shift to the author costs customarily borne by the publisher" which gives cause to the organisation's concern "that Hydra intends to act in a predatory manner towards authors, and in particular toward newer authors who may not have the experience to recognise the extent to which your contract is beyond the pale of standard publishing practices".

Instead of "different", the statement continues "the more accurate description, we believe, is 'exploitative' … Bluntly put, Random House should know better."