Scholar defends scathing book review as ‘laser-focused on facts’

A French academic has rejected accusations that his 203-page polemic against an introductory handbook to law went too far in the intensity of its criticism, arguing that scholars have a duty to be robust in their public criticism of peers’ research.

Pierre Legrand’s scathing critique of Comparative Law: A Very Short Introduction, published in the Journal of Comparative Law has variously been described as “fabulously bitchy”, “an over-the-top hit job” and “offensive on so many levels”.

The Sorbonne University scholar describes the 2023 Oxford University Press imprint by Italian legal scholars Sabrina Ragone and Guido Smorto as “hackneyed and attestably devoid of intellectual interest”, “dissemblingly pallid and flaccid” and containing “an impressive range of vacuous enunciations regarding the theory and practice of comparative law”.

At one point Legrand compares the work to a kazoo before apologising to kazooists, urging fellow academics to “actively and earnestly prohibit their students” reading it.

“This monograph warrants sinking without a trace – except as an example of how not to do comparative law,” he states.

Several academics have now written to the journal demanding a retraction of the review with one scholar arguing that the “disturbing 200-page attack against the authors” should result in a “profound apology to the two colleagues targeted”.

Asked if the paper would be retracted, a journal spokesman said the two authors would be given the opportunity to respond to the criticism in the next issue of the biannual publication.

Ragone and Smorto told Times Higher Education that the “decision to publish the present ‘review’ raises serious questions about editorial scrutiny applied in this instance and invites one to wonder whether the journal’s standards of peer review and professional conduct were fully observed, particularly given that the review was authored by a member of the journal’s editorial council”.

They said they “unequivocally support academic freedom and vigorous debates based on pluralism and respect” but the review “does not meet these standards”.

The criticisms were based on “a fundamental mischaracterisation” of the book’s scope as an overview of scholarly work in comparative law for non-expert readers, Ragone and Smorto added.

Legrand has, however, emphatically rejected claims that his impassioned critique was unprofessional. He told Times Higher Education that he “would vehemently dispute any argument that my text is less than thoroughly professional from beginning to end”.

“My paper meets all professional standards in force within the academy. Specifically, I remain consistently evidence-oriented. I substantiate every single one of my claims with extensive references to sources,” he said.

“I would readily accept that I bring ‘intensity’ to my work, that I feel strongly about the issues to which I have been devoting my academic career for the past thirty years or so. Should it be otherwise?,” he continued.

Addressing accusations that his criticism veered into an ad hominem attack on the authors by mentioning their perceived lack of “institutional authority”, Legrand maintained he had been “laser-focused” on their text.

Researchers should be encouraged to put forward their arguments robustly without having to make allowances for the age or seniority of those whose work they criticise, he adds.

“If two academics elect to thrust themselves forward as Oxford University Press authors, they cannot legitimately expect their words and sentences to enjoy immunity from critique on account of their age group. Like other fields, comparative law demands vigorous debate – irrespective of one’s birth certificate,” he said.

However, Smorto and Ragone told THE that “even a cursory reading of the review reveals that it relies on ad hominem attacks, imputing to us psychological traits, hidden agendas, and moral failings”.

“The reviewer presumes to know not only who we are, but also what we think and feel. He attributes our scholarly choices to ‘capricious narcissism driven by a vaulting ego’. He accuses us of ‘cowardice’ and further speculates that the omission of certain scholars’ contributions…involved ‘a degree of calculated suppression and repression’.”

“We firmly object to this psychologising approach, which labels and mischaracterises editorial and pedagogical choices we made to best serve our intended readership,” they said.

Smorto and Ragone added that in Legrand’s review “nationality is treated as intellectual liability”, pointing to comments such as one that said their alleged “ignorance is arguably facilitated by the fact that they hail from Italy”.

“Such statements do not merely target the authors; they pathologise an entire academic community by ascribing intellectual deficiency on the basis of national origin.”

Legrand, however, rejected claims that his repeated references to the authors’ nationality amounted to “racism” as “downright silly”.

“Had the co-authors been Brazilian or Romanian or Canadian, I would have written the identical critique. Comparative law stands inherently against nationalism and for pluralism,” he said.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com