By: Todd Long
Submitted: 2010-10-20 10:03:14 | Word Count: 576
University lecturers engage with knowledge and test the knowledge produced and developed by each other through a variety of forms of critique and peer review. The book review published in an academic journal, a newspaper or a specialist magazine is one such old-established form.
Publishers want to publicise their books and one of the best ways of getting that publicity is through the recommendation of someone in the same part of the academic profession whose view will be respected.
Why Review Books?
All sides get something out of the process of book reviewing. The reviewer gets to keep the book; the writer gets what should be an honest evaluation of the strengths and weakness of his or her writing; the publisher (if they have done their job properly though the book commissioning phase) gets publicity for the book and increased sales; and, the academic field or discipline gets reassurance that the book is a valuable contribution to knowledge or, if it is a bad review a warning that the book is not to be relied upon.
[ advertisement ]
How to Review an Academic Book
What should go into a book review? There are a number of definite no-no’s in academic book reviewing. The reviewer should not:
Simply use the publishers blurb and pretend to give an opinion on the basis simply of that. The publisher’s blurb may well have been written by the author and that is hardly constitutes and independent opinion!
Simply describe the book’s contents. A review is supposed to be analytical and relate a book’s themes and to the broader disciplinary context within which it falls.
Try to write about every error or inadequacy in a book. All books will have some failings and it is the major ones that should be focussed upon. If there are a lot of minor faults, they should be grouped in categories and on example of each type presented to the reader as illustration.
A book reviewer should try to:
Be constructively critical. There can sometimes be a tendency for a reviewer to regard a review as the opportunity to do a ‘hatchet-job’. That tendency should be avoided and the better parts of a book identified with suggestions to the author about how they might be able to improve the ‘next edition’ of the volume.
Be fair to the author. It is not the reviewer’s role to be critical in a negative sense. It is to give the reader a balanced view of the book, its arguments, its strengths and weaknesses.
To identify the extent to which the book is suitable for its intended audience, whether that be undergraduate, postgraduate or specialist academic, and to identify the type of reader who would benefit from reading it.
To comment whether it is a book to be bought by individual scholars or borrowed, or added to an institution’s library
To pass judgement on the standard of presentation and style of writing. It is legitimate to say if there are many typesetting errors or if the author has written in an over-complex way. Conversely, it is within the remit of the reviewer to congratulate publisher and author on presentation and style.
The Art of Book Reviewing
Reviewing is an art and is something university staff are expected to do. It is something that can be learnt and with practice goes improvement. If in doubt, it is best to ask a more experienced colleague to review your review for you before you send it off to your publisher.
