novbkrvs 592 College & Research Libraries but also by military historians and Smithsonian administrators. Although he later would ignore the fact and campaign fiercely against the exhibit, Air Force his­ torian Richard Hallion, commenting in a February 1994 memo to Harwit on the first draft of the exhibit script, wrote: “Overall, this is a most impressive piece of work, comprehensive and dramatic, obviously based upon a great deal of sound research, primary and secondary.” Harwit also recounts the manner in which criticism from the academic and peace communities played into the hands of the AFA. Soon after the NASM cura­ tors announced they would be consult­ ing with the American Legion over changes to the exhibit script, several his­ torians voiced opposition to such collabo­ ration. Harwit writes: I felt the historians and pacifists had not been helpful. They criticized us for submitting to pressures from veterans’ groups without knowing what we had done or why. And they failed to make their own countervailing views known through the media or in Congress. That combination of criticism and political inactivity acted to add to the criticism advanced by the Air Force Association and other detrac­ tors, who often claimed that neither they nor the historians were happy with the exhibition. As one of the few people fortunate to have read both the first and final script for the exhibit, this reviewer shares Harwit’s aggravation toward the groups that should have rallied to support the NASM. The input from veterans groups did not pressure curators into betraying historical facts. The exhibit was greatly strengthened by all those who reviewed it, and NASM curators proved valiant in their determination to present the public with a comprehensive and objective ex­ hibit of a turning point in world history. An Exhibit Denied is recommended as a rare and fair eyewitness account of an November 1998 important case of censorship. It will also provide educators with a fascinating glimpse of the battles waged within the contested terrain of public history. Les­ sons learned from the Enola Gay contro­ versy should guide librarians, educators, and all others who oppose censorship to be mindful of the tactics of censors and to be prepared to rapidly organize anti­ censorship forces when the opportunity arises.—Elaine Harger, W. Haywood Burns School, New York City. Research Misconduct: Issues, Implications, and Strategies. Eds. Ellen Altman and Peter Hernon. Greenwich, Conn.: Ablex, 1997. 206p. $73.25, cloth (ISBN 1567503403); $39.50, paper (ISBN 1567503411). LC 97-18061. This collection of eight essays explores the uncomfortable topic of research miscon­ duct from the perspective of its impact on libraries and librarians. Whether it is called research misconduct, academic dis­ honesty, or just plain fraud, the subject goes well beyond simple plagiarism and includes the intentional fabrication and falsification of scientific, medical, or aca­ demic research generally. This disconcert­ ing phenomenon seems to be occurring with increasing frequency among profes­ sionals of the intellect, but it is not a sub­ ject that university administrators or the heads of learned societies relish discuss- Index to advertisers AIAA 499 ACRL 571 Archival Products 522 BIOSIS 495 Blackwell’s Book Srvcs 496 R.R. Bowker cover 2 Columbia University Press 584 Endocrine Society cover 3 Greenwood Publishing 585 Haworth Press 534 Library Technologies 511 Minolta 544-545 OCLC 502 PNAS 523 Primary Source Media cover 4 Book Reviews 593 ing. To admit its existence in their own institutions or professions is to acknowl­ edge a fundamental failure of their mis­ sion. This book shines a useful light on a very shadowy area. The editors of the book, Ellen Altman and Peter Hernon, are its principal con­ tributors, authoring or coauthoring all but one of the essays themselves. Hernon is a professor at Simmons College in Boston, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Academic Librarianship, and author of more than thirty books and dozens of articles. Altman has been a professor and head of the graduate library school at the Univer­ sity of Arizona, features editor of Public Libraries, and a member of Library Quarterly’s editorial board. In their view, although the number of books and articles dealing with the prob­ lem of misconduct in research has grown, few writers on the subject have been con­ cerned with the impact of false research and tainted publications on the scholarly literature; none has addressed the impact on libraries or the bibliographic process; and none has discussed whether librar­ ians have any obligations to notify users about materials found to be bogus. This vol­ ume is intended as an “exploratory” founda­ tion on which others, within and outside li­ brary and information science, might build. Among its virtues, the book collects, reviews, and synopsizes in an appendix more than sixty publicly discussed cases in which scientific misconduct was deter­ mined and which involved research lit­ erature that was fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized. (Excluded are cases involv­ ing plagiarism in grant applications to the federal government, of which, according to the editor-authors, there are many.) Reports of the federal government’s Of­ fice of Research Integrity are the primary source for these data, but the government did not begin releasing the names of in­ dividuals found guilty of scientific mis­ conduct involving federally funded grants until 1993. Part of the research for the book was done while the editor-authors were visit­ ing professors at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand. The research included a clever (if a bit unsettling) clini­ cal experiment in which the author-edi­ tors wrote a deliberately falsified study, containing a number of mistakes, and tested it among library school students, librarians, university deans and profes­ sors, and journal editors. The faked study, purportedly written by a new faculty member named Maxwell A. Mega, easily took in its readers, even prompting the journal editors to provide helpful sugges­ tions for subsequent revisions. In follow- up interviews, the academics were quite consistent in one respect: if Max Mega carefully targeted fringe and less presti­ gious journals, it is likely that he would get published. If caught and if he does not admit guilt, it is less likely that the university would take action against him. Moreover, those interviewed questioned whether it is even the role of journal re­ viewers to detect fraud. After all, some would say, the whole academic system is based on trust. One chapter is devoted to the implica­ tions of research misconduct for libraries and librarians. In the view of the author- editors, many authors take no responsi­ bility for the accuracy or correctness of any of the information in their collections. Because, since 1967, the ALA’s “Library Bill of Rights” has omitted any reference to the factual correctness of library mate­ rials, library users are responsible by de­ fault for judging both the accuracy and the relevance of any and all information obtained from a library. As awareness of the problem of academic dishonesty grows in library circles, however, librar­ ians are beginning to assume greater re­ sponsibility for the accuracy of their col­ lections. In particular, greater attention is being—and, in the author-editors’ opinion, must be—paid to systemati­ cally recording or cataloguing errata a n d r e t r a c t i o n s , b o t h w i t h i n t h e library’s own collection and through elec­ tronic databases. The book persuasively argues that re­ search misconduct is a serious problem. But how much of a problem, and how to 594 College & Research Libraries deal with it, remains a challenge. If trust is indeed the basis of academic life, rou­ tine mistrust of researchers and their writ­ ten findings would cast a pall over that life. Nevertheless, some skepticism is healthy. After all, how do you know the book I just reviewed even exists?—William M. Hannay, Schiff Hardin & Waite, Chicago. Sableman, Mark. More Speech, Not Less: Communications Law in the Information Age. Foreword by Paul Simon. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Pr., 1997. 277p. $49.95, cloth, alk. pa­ per (ISBN 0809320711); $19.95, paper (ISBN 0809321351). LC 96-53449. Mark Sableman is an attorney who prac­ tices communications law and comments regularly on the field in the St. Louis Jour­ nalism Review and in legal professional publications. In More Speech, Not Less, his great knowledge of and concern for First Amendment issues affecting the media are apparent. As the title implies, in the ongoing debate over limiting speech with harmful results, Sableman is a strong pro­ ponent of speech and press that is as free as possible. He believes that we, the American public, should take greater re­ sponsibility for our role in our democracy’s legal process. Sableman en­ courages us to learn about the issues, to think critically about them, and to use our understanding to influence the direction of the law. Unfortunately—and to a fussy reference librarian, annoyingly—the au­ thor has not made it easy for a reader to use his work to that end. Reference librarians like books to be useful. This book lacks standard tools a book needs to be useful to a reader. First, there is no index. This noted, the table of contents does list the broad subheadings in each chapter and would serve to direct a reader to the general area where a topic is discussed. Next, unlike most law books, November 1998 it has no table of cases to help a reader find each mention of a particular court decision. Finally, the notes are difficult to use. They are printed at the end of the book, grouped by chapter and then by topi­ cal headings within a range of pages. There are no footnote numbers in the text identi­ fying where a reader might find a case ci­ tation or other supporting sources. These flaws would be more forgivable if the book read well as a piece. In More Speech, Sableman has revised and orga­ nized many articles he originally wrote for media and legal professionals. Now intended to be a guide for interested citi­ zens, the book suffers from insufficient editing, for both style and content. At times the language is ponderously legal and at other times overly simplistic. The writing is often murky, in places almost a stream of ruminations. For emphasis, Sableman relies too often on italics rather than clear prose. More disciplined edit­ ing would have prevented the disjoint­ edness and repetition caused by merging various pieces on similar topics. The media bring the law into our lives in a way previously unimaginable. More and more frequently, the law we learn via the media in fact involves the media. Sableman is a keen observer of the scene and provides legal principles and analy­ sis on topics such as censorship and prior restraint; news gathering; confidentiality and sources; libel; privacy; copyright and protection of ideas; advertising; broad­ casting; fair trial and free press; the busi­ ness and education of the press; and the Internet and electronic information. His mission of alerting Americans to the threats to our freedoms and involving us in the law-making process is laudable and worthwhile. It is too bad that a book sub­ titled Communications in the Information Age does not communicate better.—Janet C. Katz, Harvard Law School.