Some general comments about reviews.

[Guest guest]

All,

 

I think that whether or not it is appropriate to publish a review depends upon

the editorial context. When I look, for example, at established peer journals

like the Journal of Asian Studies I see an effort to achieve balance. For

example, reviews of one author's book are often assigned to another scholar who

disagrees in some substantial way with the approach or `school of thought'

implicit in the text reviewed. Since these journals help set the consensus for

a

field, and that consensus is significant in determining who will get grants,

editorships and other powerful positions, it would be hard to say that anyone

wasn't financially or personally interested. What keeps the peer system fair

despite these many different and conflicting interests -- fair within human

limits

that is -- is the editorial policy, editorial review, and the fact that the

readers of

these journals can access the information needed to make judgments for

themselves. Further, although the so-called ``Fire Wall'' between the

editorial

and commercial functions within these journals may not be perfect, at least it

is

there and scrutiny is possible.

 

I would be interested in an article about a book by its editor or author

provided

it was properly labelled and contextualzied. For example, asking Jeff to write

a

piece about the Wen Bing he has spent a year upon would be useful to me if the

assignment were to discuss what editorial issues he recognized and how he

solved them. Someone with either clinical or editorial experience could learn

something from such an article and the biases would be clearly understood. I do

not think such an article should take the place of a professional review and

certainly it would be more valuable if it were not the only comment on the text

in a particular publication. A good example of these types of article can be

found in Paul Unschuld's `Readings in Classical ,' where the

people who had published their ideas about translational methodologies by the

late 80's reviewed their own work.

 

I think the question about any review is `Is there something hidden from or

misrepresented to the reader.' And, I think this applies to catalog reviews as

well, (although catalog reviews tend to be self-correcting because they are a

waste of expensive space if they don't connect with the right buyers). If you

look

at: http://www.redwingbooks.com/profRev/index.htm you can see an assignment

sheet for a professional review where, I believe, there is room for opinion but

opinion contextualized by germane facts about what the authors did and had to

say. Indeed, as a publisher what irks me about many reviews is that they never

get around to saying anything about the book itself, or even what the author(s)

had to say -- all you get is someone's buy/don't buy opinion.

 

I think what most damages the field are those practices that silence new ideas

and unpopular opinions. An author who confirms broadly held opinions will be

more popular, will sell more books, and will have a greater chance to lead field

opinion through the lecture tour and the greater remuneration it affords. A

large publisher pursuing a large market will have more money to work with than

a small publisher pursuing a specialized market. So, the market place is biased

by nature. A negative review of a popular writer is sure to be balanced by a

positive review targeted to the same central market. New ideas and writers, on

the other hand, have no such economic shield. Thus, in my opinion, editors have

a particularly strong duty to make sure that new ideas, and particularly ideas

that challenge the status quo, get a fair description.

 

In that regard, I'll just throw my two cents in as a hurrah for Bob Flaw's

comments. However, I would also add that these are not the only way that ideas

get suppressed. For example, over the last few years I have known of more

incidences of SLAPP suits against the writers of negative book reviews than I

even heard of in the preceding couple of decades. Reviews are given a huge

leeway in American courts and the chance of these threats prevailing in a court

of law is not very high. These suits are called ``Strategic Lawsuits Against

Private Parties'' because they have the potential to let a richer party prevail

simply because they can make the cost of the defense damagingly high. The

SLAPPer doesn't need to win, just to scare away dissent. These are poison to

the freedom of expression because it further encumbers dissidence. As Bob

Flaws correctly notes, it is negative reviews that have the most measurable

effects. Add to the economic restraint of these legal maneurvers editorial

practices like unbalanced presentations where the favored author gets ``the last

word'' and its implication of correctness, and I think that the field risks

stagnation through the suppression of dissonance and debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bob Paradigm Publications

www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street

Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445

617-738-4664