The Ethical Importance of Extensive Quotation of Reviewed and Cited Authors

Abstract

Reviews. There are two genera of unfair reviews: those that critique a book or article for not having the aims the reviewer might wish it had and argue against the work under review for its other and different aims, and those that represent the author of the book or article under review as holding views or making arguments (or citing evidence in favor of either) that are neither in nor genuinely supported by the text. (Notice that the latter genus of unfair review can certainly redound to the reviewed author's considerable advantage, but to the ultimate detriment of the review's readers who must rely on the reviewer because they have not [yet] read the work under review. [See Fulda, 2006.])Extensive quotation-providing the reader with both text and substantial context-very nearly precludes both genera of unfair review. All that is necessary is disclosure of the aims and scope of the work under review by extensive quotation from the preface and for each substantial criticism - whether favorable or unfavorable-of a view or argument (or evidence cited for either), once again, extensive quotation of that view or argument with enough text so as to preserve context. Following that, the reader has what he really needs to judge for himself whether the reviewer is or is not on the mark as the reader sees it. The same is true of criticism, again whether favorable or unfavorable, of the writing: Show the reader; do not merely tell him. Of course, the reviewer is adjured not to give away the store, either! And the reviewer who does otherwise in this last regard is violating the author's moral rights and potentially his legal rights, by exceeding use and potentially fair use.Yes, this method can and often will weigh down reviews-especially if the work under review is not well-written-not to mention that it will almost always make the reviews significantly longer. But it does provide a check on reviewers' tendencies to substitute their own aims for the reviewed author's and their own view of what the author says and means for what he actually says and means.1Citations. The situation with cited authors is quite different and much more complicated. Authors can fairly be quoted-and I have often done just that in selecting an epigraph-out of context, provided either the quoted author's aims are not represented-explicitly or implicitly, and that last is crucial-as being in accord with the quoting author, or the quoting author disclaims the same or similar aims, or both. But, then, quotation is the simplest and least ethically complicated type of citation, and not the usual type.Much more often, a cited author is not quoted, but is simply cited in support of or as contrary to a particular view or argument. In my experience, this is where the ethical problems usually lie. For oftentimes, a check indicates that the cited author does not actually hold the view as claimed or cannot easily be used to support or controvert the argument at issue. This has happened to the present author numerous times (although not as numerous as merely frivolous citations which appear to serve no purpose at all-at least none for the reader, although their presence indicates that they must have satisfied some purpose for the author, editor, or reviewers). What to do about this is perhaps less obvious.If the citing author is self-aware, he can and should limit his claims and hedge his arguments, and adjust his authorial voice to reflect his degree of (un)certainty about both, although this last is certainly not so easy a task. But that is simply not enough. When the arguments of the cited author are subtle and complex and the claims of the cited author are themselves hedged and nuanced, almost any paraphrasing of them amounts to a heavily interpreted rendition which unethically saddles the cited author with views he may not endorse (and more importantly has not actually claimed) or arguments he might disavow (and more importantly has not actually made). …