What Is Ethical when Reviewing A Book?

[Mari Sloan]

It has come to my attention lately that many of the magazines, on-line commentaries, etc. charge for reviewing books, either directly or indirectly by linking the review with the purchase of advertising in the publication. In each case, when challenged, each publication insists it has done nothing wrong. Most of them also will take 'free reviews", but these are, understandably, placed at the end of the list and never surface to be reviewed. What are your thoughts on this practice?

Have you ever paid for a review?

If you know a publication charges the author or publisher for writing its reviews, does it change the way you evaluate the review?

What IS ethical?

[Sue Dawson]

I am a reader and a book lover first. The only writing I have done is in answer to writers of articles in my local papers. I write for my own enjoyment, but my real passion is reading novels and nonfiction and then corresponding with the authors who are contemporary. Never has an author failed to write back at least a one-line thank you.

I always recommend books I have enjoyed to BookCrossing.com members, and I put the books into the wild for others to enjoy (not the autographed editions, however). I also discuss the books that I did not finish reading and why I did not continue reading.

I tell my local librarian about the books I liked and request that they be ordered for the collection. Word of mouth, in my estimation, is still the best advertising, and with the Net one can go global in a matter of seconds. Not only good news but also bad news travel fast.

[Eric Stone]

Having edited a number of magazines in my life, having had four books published, having written book reviews and having had my books reviewed, my opinion is that paying for a review in any way - whether directly or by purchasing an ad, subscription or anything else - is a totally sleazy practice on both sides of the transaction - the reviewer and the reviewed. Any review that results from any such deal, is in my mind so suspect as to be useless. As far as I'm concerned, there just isn't a gray area in this matter.

As a matter of fact, it was a policy of several of the publications I have worked for in the past, that we would never review our advertisers in the regular editorial pages of the publication. If an advertiser wished to purchase an ad that quoted reviews they'd received elsewhere, or even a clearly marked advertising supplement that called itself a review (although we would never let one of those use our standard editorial page layouts), they could do that as well. On one publication we turned down an ad from a restaurant because we intended to review that restaurant in the issue that would come out a month after the ad would have run.

[I. J. Parker]

Thanks, Eric. I totally agree. As for amazon reviews: since an author can (and occasionally does) get friends, club buddies, co-workers, family members to post glowing reviews of his/her book, amazon reviews should be taken cautiously.

And writing is certainly not a business for me. If that means, I'm a failure because I don't have huge sales, so be it.

[Kevin Allman]

Sleazy, sleazy, sleazy.

Not that "aboveboard" reviews don't have their problems, too, but the practice you describe is sleaze and nothing but sleaze.

[Beth Groundwater]

No, I would never pay for a review, nor would I put much weight on reviews that appear in publications or on websites where authors are asked to pay for the reviews.

[I. J. Parker]

The problem is, of course, that such reviews are quoted without reference to how they were obtained. I already have problems with famous author blurbs because so many of them are given automatically and, in at least one instance, by asking the writer how the blurb should be phrased, as the famous author did not have time to read the book. Unfortunately such tales affect the legitimate praise which is given to new writers by someone who has already made a name.

[Morgan Mandel]

Romantic Times offers a review to anyone who puts an ad in their magazine, but they do not guaranty a terrific view just because you've paid for an ad. I know that for a fact.

There are other online sites which offer a review if you advertise with them or if you provide content for them in some way. I'd concentrate on what value you're getting for the advertising before I'd bite.

I wouldn't go to a place charging money specifically for doing book reviews. It's obvious what they write holds no value.

Morgan Mandel
www.morganmandel.com
http://sixtyandsavvy.ning.com
http://blogsthatrule.blogspot.com

[Sue Dawson]

As my father always told me, "You get what you pay for."

[Mari Sloan]

For anyone who is interested there has been an in-depth discussion of ethical reviewing with some very detailed points made at Dear Author ...

http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2008/07/28/affaire-de-couers-review...

While it began by examining the publication's ethics named in the blog title, it continues by discussing review ethics in general. It's a thought provoking read.

I found several things in it that I didn't expect. I always thought that a magazine would pay its reviewers, even if the authors should not pay for reviews. I also always thought reviews would be sent out in the person doing the reviews real, or at least professional, name. Turns out that in some publications neither of these are the way things are done. It's very important to check the practices and reputation of the publication when considering buying a book on its recommendation. Unless you're like me. I just buy books that appeal to me.

[I. J. Parker]

I only see two sources discussed, Affaire de Coeur and Kirkus Discoveries.
We've had a thread on Kirkus Discoveries (which is separate from Kirkus). Both undertakings are unethical and widely seen as such. I don't believe that this sort of thing affects at all the legitimate publications of reviews.

[Neil White]

It's a sad statement to make, but you sell your soul the minute you sign the contract.

The other way to look at it is that publishers will not gamble on new writers if they cannot get publicity. If paying for reviews is one of way of getting it, so be it, and if it helps new authors, is it unethical, or just market reality? It is cheating the readers maybe, but that depends whether the taking out of an ad guarantees a good review, or just a review.

[Mari Sloan]

Paying for an ad is an open and above board way of receiving publicity. Reviews are not as easily evaluated. Not much of anyone gambles a lot on new authors, and even the new author him or herself has to have nerves of steel to believe in their book when faced with the immensity of the choice out there for the limited number of readers who still buy books. EVEN if the book IS well written AND original in theme, the cover has to stand out amid the thousands of others in the bookstore, the font has to be just the right size, and SOMEONE has to be recorded as telling the potential purchaser that they made it through the book and thought it was worth paying money for. So who is it to be?

If they're lucky they write horror and hang out with Stephen King, who reads it and applauds it as "something he wishes he had written." Mostly that doesn't happen. Even if it does happen, the new author still needs to take out a big ad in a well known publication and let everyone know he said it.

I don't know what the answer is to the review question. I don't intend to pay a publication or a person for reviewing my book (other than sending the the usual free copy) but I don't look down on anyone who does. I'm glad that I'm getting the opportunity to become aware of the issues involved so that I look for the hidden agendas that come with some reviews. Reviews ARE important, but they aren't the only thing that sells books. I believe that if you keep putting your book out there, if it is meant to make it evenually it will get read by someone who likes it well enough to help get it connected to its particular reading public.

"Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."