The Ethics of Book Reviewing

Earlier this year Carlin Romano conducted a follow-up survey to his 1987 study on the ethics of book reviewing, the results of which are now available online.. (The data from the 1987 survey should be available shortly, and since it sounds like certain attitudes have changed over the past twenty years, we’ll definitely link to this as soon as it goes up.)

There’s a lot of interesting data in the survey, and Romano points out some of the highlights:

• 68.5 percent of book reviewers think anyone mentioned in a book’s acknowledgements should be barred from reviewing it.

• 64.9 percent think anyone who has written an unpaid blurb for a book should also be banned from writing a fuller review.

• 76.5 percent think it’s never ethical to review a book without reading the whole thing.

• And 52 percent think it’s not okay for a book-review editor, in assigning books for review, to favor books by writers who also review regularly for that editor’s book section.

As a publisher, here’s my favorite:

• 45.7% responded that it’s not OK for freelancers to request more books than they can possibly review and sell the extras.

Also, 54.6% of those surveyed felt that blogs should adhere to the same rules of ethics as newspaper book review sections. What I really like is the first comment—” I would hope so, but you know they won’t. . . .” I just think that’s perfect.

Overall, there’s a lot to be looked at, discussed, etc. Here’s one of Romano’s conclusions:

Third, I believe a conclusion in my comment on the 1987 survey remains valid — book reviewers are largely divided between those who believe in something you might call the “objective” book review, and those who don’t — attitudes toward specific practices in the field follow almost syllogistically from one premise or the other.