The Ethics of Book Reviewing
I’ve been thinking about ethics for book reviewers because I’m currently working with three new reviewers at The Harrow, and I want my expectations about their behavior with authors and publishers to be clear. In addition, I was recently asked about reviewing a book from an author I’ve reviewed in the past — but his work will be published soon by Juno Books, which is publishing my own novel, Clockwork Heart. Although I’ve reviewed books from Juno before my own was accepted there, I think it would present a conflict of interest for me to review one from Juno now. For similar reasons, I’ve decided not to ask a freelancer who works for The Harrow as well as for other zines to review Midnight Lullabies.
Surprisingly, I haven’t been able to find any code of ethics written specifically for book reviewers. As a result, I’m adapting the wording of several existing journalistic codes, especially those of the Society of Professional Journalists and of the New York Times Company, to book reviewing in particular. Here’s a first draft:
***
CODE OF ETHICS FOR BOOK REVIEWERS
The duty of a book reviewer is to help readers decide whether or not to purchase or read a book by presenting a fair and comprehensive evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the work under review. A conscientious book reviewer presents the facts with thoroughness and honesty and observes professional integrity in all dealings with authors, agents, and publishers. A book reviewer has a special duty to guard against conflicts of interest, real or apparent, and should not enjoy financial gain from a review beyond that salary or fee paid to the reviewer by the publisher of the review.
1. Reviews can often make or break reputations and commercial success. Reviewers have an obligation to exert their influence ethically and prudently. Although reviews present opinions, honest criticisms of a work should be supported by reasoned statements grounded in a thorough knowledge of the literary field, genre conventions, writing style, and/or publishing processes and standards. Reviewing is not a license for arrogance.
2. A reviewer who has a personal or financial stake in an author’s or publisher’s success may arouse questions about impartiality. Reviewers must not review their own books, the books of friends, or books published by publishers for which they work or in which they have any financial interest. Reviewers must not serve on advisory boards, awards juries, or other panels organized by authors or publishers whose works they cover, prepare, or publish. They must decline awards from such panels.
3. Reviewers are often themselves poets or novelists whose works require a publisher. Such relationships, however, can give rise to the fact or perception of favoritism. Staff members who enter into such arrangements must disclose them to the public and should avoid covering the works of publishers with whom they have dealings.
4. Reviewers must refuse fees, gifts, favors, free travel, and special treatment from publishers, authors, or their agents, and must disclose unavoidable conflicts of interest. In particular, reviewers must not charge an author, agent, or publisher to review a book, because such charges give rise to the fact or perception of a lack of objectivity.
5. Reviewers may keep for their own collections — but may not sell or copy — books sent to them for review. Such submissions are considered press releases. A book that is specifically requested by a reviewer must be reviewed; unsolicited books sent to the reviewer may be reviewed, donated, or destroyed at the reviewer’s discretion.No reviewer may request extra copies of review materials for personal use. If not retained by the reviewer, digital books, such as copies in PDF format, must be destroyed; they may not be given away or stored where they could be illicitly copied.
***
I welcome suggestions and comments. I realize that in some cases the ethical guidelines I’ve set out violates existing practices — for example, some publications charge a fee to review a book — but the fact is, I don’t consider that practice ethical. I think my wording allows a reviewer to charge a lecture fee, however, should s/he be so famous as to be invited to speak to a school or organization — that isn’t profiting from a review, but from a career.
drupagliassotti @ November 1, 2007