1 March 2010
As a sometime book reviewer (not just for this site, but for other sites and publications as well), a chill went down my spine when I read this story about a French academic suing a journal for a negative review of her book. Even if the publisher wins the case, this sets an extraordinarily bad precedent not just for publishing, but for the entire academic enterprise. A fundamental tenet of academia is that ideas must be challenged and subject to scrutiny and debate. While the limits of civil discourse should not be breached in the discourse, it is imperative that academics have the freedom to call the work of others into question. This is how better scholarship is promulgated and lesser work is weeded out. A lawsuit over someone critical of one’s work is antithetical to the academic enterprise.
The book in question is The Trial Proceedings of the International Criminal Court, by Karin Colvo-Goller, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006. The offending 2006 review, by Thomas Weigend of the University of Cologne, was in the The European Journal of International Law and can be read here. The EIJL has also published an editorial in response to the lawsuit here.
Now, I’m not competent to judge the academic quality of the book or the accuracy of the review, nor can I judge the case’s legal merits. But here are some thoughts on the implications of the case and why it is a bad precedent.
As reviews go, Weigend’s, while negative, presents a reasonable criticism. It is civil. It does not cast aspersions on Colvo-Goller’s character or competence. It merely criticizes the book for lack of analysis (as opposed to mere presentation of facts) and sloppy editing. I’ve written worse reviews and my own book has received worse. So this one is clearly negative, but far from the worst it can get. It should be mentioned that there are positive reviews of the book in other publications; so what we have is an academic book that has come out to mixed reviews. This happens all the time.
Academic books like this (which retails for $155) are not big money makers. They are often published at a loss, and if they make a profit it is not a large one. (Course textbooks, on the other hand, can be nicely, but still not hugely, profitable if they become the standard in the field, but the target market for this one is probably university and research libraries, a limited universe of potential sales.) So Colvo-Goller probably stands to lose little from lost sales because of this review. Similarly, academic journals like EJIL operate on shoestring budgets (book review editors are often unpaid and reviewers are typically rewarded only with a free copy of the book) and there is probably little money to be recovered by a lawsuit. So the stakes seem to be Colvo-Goller’s academic reputation and the associated money that comes from tenure and academic appointments based on the quality a scholar’s research.
What this suit does is discourage honest reviews and criticism of academic research, and this is a bad precedent. Reviewers and journals, who cannot afford lawsuits even they win them, will be reticent to write and publish negative reviews. And this does not bode well for the integrity of the academic enterprise.
My only consolation in this sorry mess is that it seems likely that Colvo-Goller’s academic reputation will be damaged more by the fact that she brought this lawsuit than any negative review possibly could have.
You can read more about the case at Language Log and at Language on the Move.
