Academic Legal Writing - Eugene Volokh [175]
2. If you interview anyone for the article, make sure that you clearly tell them that their words—or the information they reveal—may end up in print.
3. If you want to quote an e-mail, fax, or letter that was sent to you personally, ask the author for permission; such messages are presumptively confidential, both as a matter of copyright law and as a matter of people's expectations.
This is true even if the message contains nothing terribly secret. People are often less careful in what they write in a casual e-mail than they would be if they had known their message would be published. They may speak less clearly, precisely, or temperately than they otherwise might, and then be understandably upset if what they thought was a personal e-mail becomes public knowledge. Give them a chance to rethink and clarify their words.
There are some possible exceptions, especially if there's reason to fault the sender for sending the message that he did: For instance, if someone sends you an e-mail trying to stop you from writing about something by threatening you with a frivolous lawsuit, you may generally legitimately quote the e-mail in the process of explaining why the threat is unsound. (Of course, if you think the threat is serious, quoting the letter may increase the chances of litigation, and might thus be imprudent even if not unethical.) But as a general matter you shouldn't quote personal messages unless you first get the sender's permission.
It's best to also check with the author if you want to quote a message that was e-mailed to an Internet discussion list. There may be a plausible argument that the message was voluntarily made public; but the matter isn't completely clear, so you're better off erring on the side of checking with the author.
F. Treating Sources Fairly
1. Make sure that any sources that you quote agree to be quoted (see above).
2. Check the quotes with the sources to make sure that you're not misquoting them, that you aren't quoting them out of context, and that they didn't inadvertently misspeak.
3. Use of surveys and interviews is often covered by university rules related to protection of human subjects. These rules apply not just to medical experiments, but also—much to the surprise of many law professors—potentially to a much broader range of research that relies even partly on surveys and interviews.
Perhaps the rules shouldn't apply so broadly, and perhaps under a sound interpretation of the rules, they won't be interpreted apply so broadly. But the safe course is to assume that they do apply. Fortunately, the committees tend to be willing to give exemptions for most surveys that gather nonconfidential information; but you do need to ask for the exemption beforehand. If you run into trouble with the committee, ask your faculty advisor to intercede on your behalf.
The rules are quite complex, so you should check with your university's Human Subjects Protection Committee or Institutional Review Board (or a similarly named institution) before starting any research that involves surveys or interviews. Don't just check with your faculty advisor, unless you have reason to think that he's very knowledgeable about such committees. Many law professors know little about this subject, and sometimes innocently violate the rules themselves.
G. Making Data Available
If you rely on unpublished data, especially on data that you gathered yourself, be prepared to make it available to other researchers who are trying to check or repeat your work. This isn't strictly an ethical requirement; but if you don't share your data, many people will assume that you have something to hide. Telling people “you don't need to check my data, just trust me” is a good way to lead them not to trust you.
The best approach is for you or