Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines

Abstract

Reading and writing book reviews for learned journals plays an important part in academic life but little is known about how academics carry out these tasks. The aim of this research was to explore these activities with academics from the arts and humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences. An electronic questionnaire was used to ascertain (a) how often the respondents read and wrote book reviews, (b) how useful they found them, and (c) what features they thought important in book reviews. Fifty-two academics in the arts, 53 in the social sciences, and 51 in the sciences replied. There were few disciplinary differences. Most respondents reported reading between one and five book reviews a month and writing between one and two a year. There was high overall agreement between what the respondents thought were important features of book reviews, but there were also wide individual differences between them. This agreement across the disciplines supports the notion that book reviews can be seen as an academic genre with measurable features. This has implications for how they are written, and how authors might be taught to write them better. A potential checklist for authors is suggested.

How to Write a Scholarly Book Review for Publication in a Peer-Reviewed Journal: A Review of the Literature

“…Therefore, a total of 78 articles were included in this review. The articles included were classified into four groups according to their publication formats: 1) narrative commentaries (n D 26), 2,4-7,9-14,47-61 2) editorials or journal announcements (n D 25), 1,3, 3) original research (n D 18), 8,[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78] and 4) journal correspondence (n D 9).…”

“…10 Professional ethics require that reviewers decline an invitation if their objectivity is compromised or if they are not qualified to conduct the review. 8,9 Reasons for declining the invitation may include instances when the reviewer has a personal relationship with the author, 2 is being published or is seeking to be published by the same publisher, is not representative of the intended audience, or will be unable to meet the deadline. 9,58 Certain journal editors mention that it is easier to handle an initial refusal than to navigate the ramifications of the aforementioned issues.…”

“…5,6,10,19 What contribution does the book make to the field? 7,8,47,58,61 The answers to these questions will help the reviewer describe the distinguishing features of the book and place it within its field. Considering that a book review is a personal account of a book, it is important to note one's personal reactions to the book.…”

“…For instance, a student textbook with Final ž Balance the book's achievements and weaknesses in order to support the final assessment. [3][4][5]8 an index of limited utility is an important finding; however, the same finding in a patient handbook may not deserve mention. Similarly, the importance of image quality differs for a radiology text compared to a medical dictionary.…”

“…7 Many problems identified in poorly conducted book reviews can be attributed to the poor evaluative and writing skills of the reviewer. 8 However, sometimes these problems are rooted in the book reviewer's lack of understanding of portions of the book review process. 7 An appreciation of the purpose and significance of all aspects of the book review process can provide the book review author with a wider perspective to employ when crafting a book review.…”