On paper ballots, editors vote from a long list of contenders, looking to offer readers both range and quality in “a broad cross section of everything that’s out there,” Ms. Paul said. And emotions can end up running high.

“Editors here feel passionately about certain books,” Ms. Paul said. For ballot votes, people have a few days to vote in the first round, but follow-up rounds are within 24 hours. By the end of the votes, ideally, every editor leaves the room feeling a mix of happiness and pride that some of their favorites made it — “and then very unhappy and bitter about something that was eliminated in one of the final rounds.”

The three staff critics — Dwight Garner, Parul Sehgal and Jennifer Szalai — on the other hand, get to have a little bit more fun. They, unlike the Book Review, are not trying to represent the entire publishing industry, but rather to offer a glimpse into their tastes, something their readers like to follow and predict.

It’s much more personal than institutional: “They’re not looking to tell you the 10 most necessary books published this year,” Mr. Williams said. “It really is about their favorite books.” The critics have complete autonomy in making their picks (as they do in choosing which books they review in a year), and their 10 best come from the 50 or so books each critic has already reviewed that year.

Ms. Sehgal kept a running list through the year of those books that stuck with her most. The final list gave her a chance to look back at “the life that the book had in the world” since she reviewed it, she said, and to bring it back into the public consciousness.

“It’s been a lot harder for books to break out this year than in other years,” she said. “A lot of attention is being absorbed by news, by other things that are happening.”