Quote:
Originally Posted by Phogg
Yeah, its true that there are some out there like the group of hacks posting collectively as hariet klausner that have the exact same standards and motive many academic reviewers have exhibited for decades.
The article doesn't deny that.
|
There will always be corruption in any system. The pro reviewers have their version of it.
Then there's the fact that Publisher's Weekly and Kirkus both now charge for some reviews. Kirkus doesn't tell you which ones, although I think PW does. So if I wanted to get what looked like a great impartial pro review, all I'd have to do is pay Kirkus 400 dollars. Then I could quote from that review and post it under editorial on my Amazon and other pages. Kirkus started doing it quite a number of years ago. PW has a section for paid reviews and only started in the last couple of years.
But we all know that paid reviews are more likely to be "friendly." Not saying they all are, but gosh. If you want the author to fork over 400 dollars again, you're probably going to be nicer than not. How's that for corruption? And the end reader? Has no idea that either of these rags take money for reviews, especially if they just see the quote from the review on Amazon.