Reviewing a Book Prior to Publication Examples Explanation

J Chiropr Educ. 2010 Spring; 24(1): 57–69.

How to Write a Scholarly Book Review for Publication in a Peer-Reviewed Journal

A Review of the Literature

Alexander D. Lee

Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College

Bart Due north. Green

Naval Medical Center, San Diego, National Academy of Wellness Sciences

Claire D. Johnson

National Academy of Health Sciences

Julie Nyquist

University of Southern California

Received 2009 November 27; Revised 2010 Jan one; Accustomed 2010 January 4.

Abstract

Purpose:

To describe and discuss the processes used to write scholarly book reviews for publication in peer-reviewed journals and to provide a recommended strategy and book appraisement worksheet to utilize when conducting book reviews.

Methods:

A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature was conducted in June 2009 using a combination of controlled vocabulary and truncated text words to capture articles relevant to writing scholarly book reviews for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Results:

The initial search identified 839 citations. Post-obit the removal of duplicates and the application of selection criteria, a total of 78 manufactures were included in this review including narrative commentaries (n = 26), editorials or journal announcements (n = 25), original enquiry (n = eighteen), and journal correspondence pieces (north = ix).

Give-and-take:

Recommendations for planning and writing an objective and quality book review are presented based on the evidence gleaned from the manufactures reviewed and from the authors' experiences. A worksheet for conducting a book review is provided.

Conclusions:

The scholarly book review serves many purposes and has the potential to exist an influential literary class. The process of publishing a successful scholarly volume review requires the reviewer to appreciate the volume review publication procedure and to be enlightened of the skills and strategies involved in writing a successful review.

Key Indexing Terms: Authorship, Book Reviews, Book Reviews every bit Topic, Manuscripts every bit Topic, Publishing, Writing

Introduction

In the current publishing market, in that location is no shortage of books written for the busy wellness care practitioner or academic professional.¹ The scholarly volume reviewer plays an important function in informing readers about new books and guiding their reading preferences equally they explore the Internet and big catalogues provided by publishers. With the expectations of the many stakeholders in the book review process (readers, authors, journal editors, and publishers) mounted on the reviewer'southward shoulders, the production of a well balanced, engaging, and informative critique, within the confines of a predetermined word limit, is no uncomplicated task. Some book review editors describe book reviewing as a fine art.ⁱⁱ

The scholarly book review is considered by some to be a form of academic writing that serves to depict and critically evaluate the content, quality, significant, and significance of a book.^3–6 A well synthetic book review tin provide a thoughtful perspective and will exist appreciated by all; still, "…a bad review blows up in your face, not just in the author's."⁷ Many problems identified in poorly conducted volume reviews tin exist 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 writer with a wider perspective to apply when crafting a volume review.

In the biomedical literature, there are a number of expert opinion pieces that describe strategies for evaluating books and writing volume reviews.² ^, ⁵ ^, ^half-dozen ^, ^9–14 Yet, we were unable to find an evidence-based source to assist authors when writing a volume review. Thus, nosotros conducted a structured literature search and narrative review of the literature to equip the book reviewer with an evidence-based understanding of all aspects pertaining to the book review process. This article provides an amalgamation of recommendations and a helpful worksheet to apply when conducting volume reviews.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in June 2009 using the following databases: MEDLINE (1950– 2009) and EMBASE (1980–2009) through OVID Publishing, CINAHL Plus with Total Text (1937– 2009) through EBSCO Publishing, and the Alphabetize to Chiropractic Literature (2000–2009). The search strategy used a combination of controlled vocabulary from the respective databases and truncated text words. All terms from the controlled vocabularies were exploded and searched every bit major concepts when available. Reference lists of the retrieved studies were scanned to identify any manufactures that may have been missed from the literature search. A full search strategy is provided in Effigy 1.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is JCE-24-1-57-g001.jpg

The search strategies used to obtain manufactures for this report.

Articles retrieved from the search were screened using abstracts and citations. In instances in which the article topic was unclear, the total text was retrieved. Article screening and selection was conducted by the primary author (ADL). Selection criteria for articles to be included in the review were that they must have been published in a peer-reviewed periodical and reported on one or more of the following criteria: strategies for conducting scholarly book reviews, thematic issues related to the publication of scholarly book reviews, or recommendations on academic writing of which a section pertained to writing scholarly book reviews.

Manufactures that met the inclusion criteria were descriptively analyzed by the chief author (ADL) and the data extracted included: writer(s), publication blazon, and narrative information concerning scholarly book reviews and their publication. To generate recommendations for conducting book reviews, the authors' personal experiences writing book reviews and acting as periodical editors were used to supplement the evidence gleaned from the articles included in this review.

Results

The initial search yielded 839 citations. After indistinguishable citations were removed and option criteria were applied, a total of 76 articles were identified as being relevant for this report. Scanning of reference lists within each article yielded an additional 10 articles. Despite efforts fabricated to contact the sources of eight publications, these articles were irretrievable due to lost holdings from accessed libraries and abeyance of journal publication. Therefore, a total of 78 manufactures^1–78 were included in this review. The articles included were classified into four groups according to their publication formats: 1) narrative commentaries (northward = 26),² ^, ^4–7 ^, ^9–14 ^, ^47–61 2) editorials or journal announcements (due north = 25),¹ ^, ⁱⁱⁱ ^, ^xv–37 3) original enquiry (n = 18),⁸ ^, ^62–78 and iv) journal correspondence (n = ix).^38–46

Word

Stakeholders and Purpose of the Book Review

The scholarly volume review serves many purposes and is all-time appreciated by understanding the perspectives of the stakeholders involved. The primary audience for a book review is the journal'due south readership. Book reviews are an excellent vehicle to inform readers about new books in the marketplace.²⁷ ^, ⁵² Books are relatively expensive and scholars take limited fourth dimension to commit to reading. Thus, journal patrons may rely upon the book review's evaluative purpose to guide their reading preferences.¹¹ ^, ¹⁴ Readers need to be informed of new, innovative, and basis-breaking books while being warned of books of poor quality and those that may not relate to their area of interest.² The book review can likewise increment a reader's telescopic past introducing books that a reader may non otherwise consider reading.² ^, ^fourteen

Interestingly, the authors of the books under review may be the almost avid readers of book reviews.¹⁰ ^, ¹⁸ Authors have invested much time and try into writing their books, and it is not surprising that an author would exist curious near how other scholars perceive their books. The reviewer has the opportunity to provide the author with the recognition or appreciation they deserve or to provide suggestions for any faults identified in the terminal product.²³ ^, ⁴³ Therefore, the book review can play a large role in influencing the development of time to come editions.¹⁸

Publishers have a vested interest in book reviews considering they are an indirect form of advertising and accept the potential to influence book sales.²³ While this review did not identify a study that has evaluated the result of book reviews on book sales, publishers continue to send review copies of their books to periodical editors with the prospect of obtaining a book review.⁵⁰ In 1983, Morton⁶⁴ obtained survey data from 15 publishers. All publishers surveyed believed book reviews had a positive outcome on sales to physicians, and each of the publishers in this study distributed review copies to medical journals in the hopes of having a review appear in ane or more of the prestigious journals. Publishers may apply volume reviews to determine if a book is worthy of a future edition, whether changes need to be fabricated for a future edition, and whether the writer is worthy of another book contract.¹⁰ ^, ⁵⁸ The contents of a favorable review may be used in promotional materials and book reviews can be used for market research for the planning of time to come titles.¹⁰ ^, ³²

It has been suggested that librarians utilize book reviews in the selection process for acquiring library holdings.¹⁰ ^, ⁶⁰ ^, ⁶⁴ ^, ⁶⁵ ^, ⁶⁸ ^, ⁷⁷ Chen⁶⁸ cited an average fourth dimension lag of 10.43 months from book release to volume review publication, and Morton⁶⁴ identified publication time lag and inadequate book review indexing as limiting factors for the use of book reviews as option tools. Volume reviews may have an indirect consequence on library choice by the recommendations of patrons and kinesthesia for book choice. In 1986, Martin⁶⁵ surveyed 136 medical conquering librarians and found that volume reviews ranked seventh on a list of 10 option aids used for book selection by medical librarians and concluded that reviews were oftentimes used in conjunction with other selection tools for book selection. Some experts have suggested that book reviews may serve more than every bit aids against which librarians may check their holdings for titles missed or as a means for identifying very of import or poor titles.⁶⁸ ^, ⁷⁴ Whether book reviews are used to determine library holdings is debatable; notwithstanding, librarians read them and may serve equally volume reviewers themselves.⁷⁷

Lastly, the book review serves several purposes for the reviewers. Publishing a scholarly book review allows the reviewer to contribute to the professional literature by acting as an entrusted critic with the responsibility of informing the readership of seminal works and alarm it of inaccurate scholarship.³² ^, ⁶¹ Publishing book reviews is also an exercise of self-education. Many reviewers welcome the opportunity to stay current by reading a newly released text and enjoy practicing their critical faculties.⁵⁰ Academic authorities take proposed that writing a volume review may be an excellent outset publication experience for the novice writer.⁴ ^, ⁵ ^, ¹² ^, ¹⁴ ^, ^nineteen ^, ³⁰ ^, ³¹ ^, ⁵⁹ For experienced volume reviewers, all the same, information technology may be their altruistic delivery to scholarship and the honour of being asked to review a book that may motivate them.⁶¹

Book Review Publication Process

The book review procedure starts and is driven, to a large extent, by the publisher.¹⁰ ^, ³² When review copies of new books are available, publishers send review copies to the staff of relevant journals in hopes that the book volition be reviewed. Due to the overwhelming number of books sent to journals, non all books received are reviewed. Oftentimes the option of books reviewed is made in accordance to a periodical's aim, telescopic, and readership.⁵⁷ One time a book is selected for review, the book review editor must match the book with a qualified reviewer.^nine ^, ²²

About book reviews appearing in print are commissioned—meaning that book reviewers are invited past the book review editor to carry the review.^xi ^, ²² ^, ³⁶ Volume reviewers are typically not paid for their piece of work, only ofttimes get to go on the book once they have completed their review.¹⁹ ^, ²⁵ ^, ³⁰ ^, ⁵² ^, ⁵⁹ Therefore, editors tend to rely on a cadre group of volume reviewers with different areas of expertise who have agreed to act in this capacity. Occasionally, the editor volition invite a notable good in the field to review a book. The ideal book reviewer has been described by Johnson¹⁰ as someone who has published himself or herself in the field of concern. It is of import that the author is familiar and well read on the topic. Being a specialist or an authority in i'south field is an asset, but may not be a necessity. A few editorials and narrative commentaries mention that information technology is frequently advantageous to have reviews written past nonexperts who represent the intended audience of the book under review.⁴ ^, ⁶ ^, ¹¹ ^, ²² However, if the book is written for a specialist audience, sufficient noesis is required to properly review the fabric.^ix ^, ¹¹ ^, ¹² ^, ³⁰

Commissioned reviews are preferred past nearly editors considering it is easier to ensure consistency with journal policy and safeguard from conflict of involvement.¹¹ ^, ²² ^, ³⁶ If the majority of reviews are invited, how does i become a reviewer? Occasionally journals will advertise for book reviewers.⁶ ^, ¹⁰ ^, ¹² ^, ²⁶ The bulk of experts on book reviewing recommend that interested potential book reviewers contact the book review editor of a journal to limited their interest. This should exist followed upward by sending a curriculum vitae with a embrace letter of the alphabet outlining one's area(s) of expertise and the surface area(due south) in which one would like to serve equally a reviewer.¹¹ ^, ¹² ^, ^thirty It may be wise to send a portfolio of previously published volume reviews and scholarly articles.⁵⁸ Unsolicited reviews, while non mutual, may be accepted past some journals if they are well written.^x ^, ¹² ^, ³⁶ ^, ⁵⁵ If one is interested in writing an unsolicited review, most authorities advocate contacting the editor(s) of the periodical in question prior to writing a review.^x ^, ¹² ^, ³⁶

Once an invitation has been extended by the journal editor, the reviewer must make up one's mind if he or she is an appropriate match for the book in question.^ten Professional person ethics require that reviewers decline an invitation if their objectivity is compromised or if they are non qualified to conduct the review.⁸ ^, ⁹ Reasons for declining the invitation may include instances when the reviewer has a personal human relationship with the author,² is being published or is seeking to be published by the same publisher, is non representative of the intended audience, or will be unable to encounter the deadline.^nine ^, ⁵⁸ Certain journal editors mention that it is easier to handle an initial refusal than to navigate the ramifications of the aforementioned bug.¹² ^, ³⁶ If the invitation is declined, it is mutual courtesy for the invited to suggest some other potential reviewer and make arrangements to return the book if it is already in possession.ⁱⁱ ^, ¹²

Accompanying the invitation to behave the book review is a submission deadline that normally ranges from 1 to a few months.^iv ^, ^xiv ^, ¹⁹ Research on the time lag from book release to the publication of its review highlights the importance of conducting the review in a timely manner.⁶⁴ ^, ⁶⁵ ^, ⁶⁸ Volume review editors have suggested that if the review cannot be completed by the deadline, the volume should be sent dorsum to the publisher so it can be reviewed promptly by some other qualified individual.⁴ ^, ¹² Conducting a high-quality review within the allotted fourth dimension frame will ensure subsequent invitations to acquit book reviews.¹¹ ^, ^fourteen

When the completed book review has been submitted, the editor reserves the correct to edit or reject the review.²⁴ It should be noted that book reviews are edited but are not customarily peer reviewed.^l ^, ⁶⁰ Since many journals are not published monthly, information technology may take upward to a yr or longer for the review to announced in print.⁵⁸ Once published, the journal will sometimes send a copy of the book review to the volume publisher.

Appraising the Volume

Reading a book for the purposes of generating an informative critique necessitates a planned appraisal strategy. Every bit a first pace, the reviewer should inquiry the author's qualifications and previous contributions to the topic area to determine the author's authority.⁴ ^, ⁵ ^, ^ix ^, ¹³ If information technology is obvious the author is non sufficiently qualified, it may exist advisable to annotate on this in the review. Before reading the book in depth, one should briefly skim the volume to orient oneself to the organization, layout, and visual appeal. Notation the type of volume one is reviewing because different methods may be used to review different works.² ^, ¹² For example, the strategy for reviewing a new edition of a textbook will crave an evaluation of whatsoever changes made from previous editions, whereas the assessment of a compilation of conference proceedings may focus on the organization and ease of locating abstracts.²

The majority of articles included in this study highlight the importance of reading the preface and introduction of the book prior to reading its content.² ^, ⁴⁻⁶ ^, ⁹ ^, ¹² ^, ^xiv ^, ⁵² These sections land the writer'southward intentions, aims, and purpose for writing the volume. Nigh chiefly, these 2 sections will define the intended readership. It is of import to approximate the book by its aims and objectives and evaluate it from the perspective of the intended readership.^v ^, ^vi ^, ¹⁴ ^, ⁵² A central question to enquire is whether the contents are appropriate for the readership level.² ^, ^{half dozen} ^, ^fourteen ^, ⁵⁸ Book reviewers tin fault past judging a book by their own aims and objectives and by criticizing authors for something that was explained in the preface.⁶ ^, ^seven ^, ^eleven

Another section of a book that warrants a volume reviewer's attending is the table of contents. Information technology provides the reviewer with information about the organization of the book, an overview of its contents, and the development of the topics to be discussed.ⁱⁱ ^, ⁵ ^, ¹² This section tin be used to make up one's mind if all relevant topics were included or if any key topics were overlooked.⁴ ^, ⁵

Once oriented to the preface, introduction, and table of contents, the reviewer at present has a setting and perspective to assess the book. The book should be read advisedly, taking notes while reading, equally whatever praise, arguments, criticisms, or conclusions made in the review should be substantiated.⁵ ^, ⁵² The book should be evaluated on a diverseness of items such every bit accuracy, completeness, readability, and relevance.³ ^, ⁵ ^, ^xi A book appraisement worksheet is provided in the appendix (also online at www.journalchiroed.com) and lists a diverseness of appraisal items to be evaluated when reading a book for review. It also functions as a notation sheet where a reviewer tin make notes on whatever strengths or weaknesses, write comments, provide examples to support these remarks, and make suggestions for improvement. These notes will form the basis of the critique.

While it is important to appraise the book on a multifariousness of features, sure primal questions should be considered. What makes the book unique?^v ^, ^eleven ^, ⁵⁸ ^, ⁶¹ Is the book useful to the intended readership?⁵ ^, ¹⁰ ^, ⁵⁸ Was the book successful in achieving its aims and objectives?⁵ ^, ¹⁰ ^, ¹² How does the book compare to its competitors?^v ^, ^{half dozen} ^, ^ten ^, ¹⁹ What contribution does the volume make to the field?⁷ ^, ⁸ ^, ⁴⁷ ^, ⁵⁸ ^, ⁶¹ The answers to these questions will help the reviewer describe the distinguishing features of the volume and place it within its field. Because that a book review is a personal account of a book, it is important to note one's personal reactions to the book.^six ^, ^eleven

A recurring question in manufactures that discussed volume appraisement strategies was whether the entire book must exist read in order to write the review. All articles that answered this question fabricated reference to the respect that must be given to an author'south hard work. It would exist disrespectful to the author(south) to write a review without advisedly reading the unabridged book.⁶ ^, ¹¹ ^, ¹⁹ ^, ⁴⁸ ^, ⁴⁹ Withal, some manufactures noted exceptions. It may not exist practical to read certain books from encompass to cover, such as medical dictionaries, encyclopedias, and big multivolume texts.⁶ ^, ⁵² In these instances, a method of sampling should be developed and these methods should exist reported in the book review.⁵²

Writing the Book Review

Writing the review can be a claiming because there is a reluctance for journals to provide a prescriptive format for writing book reviews.³ ^, ^five ^, ^eighteen Book review editors often prefer reviews that are informative, engaging, and constructively opinionated.^vi ^, ¹¹ Therefore, any attempt for a book review to be formatted to a strict preconceived style is "…stunting creativity and literary evolution."¹¹ Critics of structured book reviews argue that such reviews are informative but deadening.²³ ^, ²⁸ Since each book is unique, reviews should be tailored to the uniqueness of the book under review and the writing fashion of the reviewer. Diverseness in book reviews helps maintain the reader's interest.

It should be noted that certain journals may have specific format requirements; for instance, the inclusion of the book's specifications (eg, author, publisher, ISBN, number of pages, etc.) and word limit. A reviewer should become familiar with the journal's volume review policy before writing the review. Although most journals do not provide strict book review writing guidelines, most exhibit an underlying "house mode."^half-dozen ^, ²⁹ A perusal of book reviews actualization in the journal will orient the reviewer to the periodical's breezy house fashion. Word limits vary betwixt journals and tin be equally brusque equally 75 words to greater than 2000.⁶ ^, ⁵⁷ Chen's⁶⁷ report of 3347 biomedical book reviews found almost reviews to be over 265 words. Kroenke⁶² identified a hateful limit of 373 words among 480 medical volume reviews and institute that tangential data and reviewer opinions on the field of study of the book increased the length of reviews. The bulk of sources consulted in this review reported word limits ranging from 250 to 500 words with editors' preferences toward shorter reviews.⁵ ^, ⁶ ^, ¹⁰ ^, ²⁰ ^, ²⁴ ^, ⁵⁷ Limited word counts necessitate a concise writing style. Methven⁴ recommended combining several ideas into a single sentence to achieve the goal of being succinct. Many book review editors believe the quality of a book review is rarely associated with its length.⁴ ^, ¹⁰ ^, ²² ^, ²⁴ ^, ⁵⁷

While at that place is no prescriptive way when writing a review, many experts outline a mutual strategy utilized to convey their critique,^three–5 which is summarized in Table 1. These recommendations are in line with Motta-Roth's⁷⁹ findings of 4 chief rhetorical moves identified in scholarly book reviews. These iv moves are: 1) introduce the book, two) outline the book, 3) highlight parts of the volume, and 4) provide a full general evaluation of the book. These four moves were often associated with the starting time of a new paragraph.⁷⁹

Table ane

A recommended strategy for crafting a book review

Paragraph of the Review	Activeness Stride
Commencement	• Capture the reader'southward attending.
	• Outline the aims and telescopic.^3–v
Master text	• Describe the central ideas of the book.
	• Explore key arguments of the review.
	• Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the book.
	• Highlight the book'southward uniqueness.
	• Note the book's contribution to the field.^three, ^four
Final	• Rest the book's achievements and weaknesses in society to support the last
	assessment.^3–five, ⁸

The reviewer must at present decide which appraisal items to comment on in the review. Kroenke⁶² surveyed 480 book reviews and found that the hateful number of features commented on per review was ix.0 ± 2.7. With most reviews spanning 250 to 500 words, it is not possible to include a critique of all appraisement items evaluated. The reviewer must decide which items are most important to mention to provide a balanced and informative critique. The book appraisal worksheet establish in the appendix is designed to help the reviewer in compiling all appraisal notes into a single, efficient format for ease of identification of items to be included in the review.

Depending on the specific volume under review, certain appraisal items may deserve more mention than others. For instance, a educatee textbook with an index of limited utility is an important finding; nonetheless, 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. It is important to recognize that appraisement particular selection is specific to the book under review. In addition to these book-specific items, many experts suggest that attempts should be made to place a volume in a larger, broader context to permit judgment of the volume confronting its competitors and to allow for the determination of the book's contribution to its field.^3–5 ^, ⁸ ^, ¹⁹ ^, ⁶¹ ^, ⁶²

A final note regarding book review writing is on how to convey criticism. A volume review is an evaluative critique.⁴ Readers are interested in the book reviewer'south opinions and a reviewer should non be agape to state opinions.^four Any factual mistakes, shortcomings, or weaknesses should be made known.^{half dozen} However, reviewers should be respectful to the authors and write in a professional person manner. Book reviewers are not anonymous and the rules of basic courtesy and libel police utilise.²⁵ ^, ³¹ ^, ³² Given that volume authors are oft readers of book reviews, any unwarranted criticism likely will be read by the book writer.^ten ^, ¹⁸ Hill¹⁴ and Boring⁴⁷ recommend using descriptive comments, and not conclusions, to describe problems identified in books to allow readers to make it at their ain conclusions. Any criticism should be substantiated with examples or a relevant explanation of the reasons for the criticism to avert confusion almost a reviewer'south arguments.¹⁴ ^, ³³ Criticism should as well be constructive.^x ^, ^eighteen ^, ³³ The reviewer, where possible, should provide suggestions for improvement, because these suggestions may influence the crafting of a future edition. The volume appraisement worksheet found in the appendix is designed to help the reviewer in developing sound criticism by providing a template to document examples to be used to substantiate criticism and to provide suggestions for improvement to ensure constructive comments. Desirable and undesirable characteristics of book reviews are listed in Figure ii.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is JCE-24-1-57-g002.jpg

Desirable and undesirable characteristics of book reviews.

Issues Relating to Book Reviews

Three issues deserve special attention: conflicts of interest, reviewer bias, and time lag in publication of reviews. One effect that can affect the credibility of a book review is the influence of a disharmonize of involvement, which exists in scholarly publication when an author, reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence his or her actions.⁸⁰ Conflicts of interest can occur when a book under review is published past the same publisher who publishes the periodical that prints the review,⁶³ a volume is reviewed by a journal and one of the writer(due south) or editor(s) of the book is an employee of the journal,⁶³ the reviewer is a personal friend of the author,¹⁷ the reviewer is a competing researcher or author,¹⁷ or at that place is financial proceeds that influences the outcome of the review.¹⁷ Fugitive these conflicts when publishing book reviews can exist difficult, specially in highly specialized fields of study, when the pool of qualified experts who contribute to scholarly activities is small-scale. In these situations, the likelihood of book reviewers, volume authors, publishers, and journal editors having preexisting relationships increases, potentially affecting one's objectivity. When these conflicts of interest exist, transparency and proper disclosure of conflicts of interest are essential.¹⁷ ^, ⁶³

In addition to conflicts of involvement, reviewer bias can influence volume reviews. Fairness, accurateness, and objectivity of a review remain a problematic result in publishing book reviews.¹⁸ ^, ²⁰ For example, volume reviewers known to be overly critical may more likely produce negative reviews, enthusiastic reviewers may not scrutinize a literary work properly, and advocates for one opinion in a polarized subject field may not fairly guess a book about competing viewpoints.¹⁸ Reviewer bias has the potential to provide an inaccurate representation of the book in question and may negatively influence a readership'southward perceived value of the volume review process. To increase the objectivity of book reviewers, some authors propose that journals should encourage printed communication between the reviewer and book author,^eighteen multiple reviews of the same title should be conducted,⁴⁰ and book reviews should be subjected to peer review. While some journals take implemented the former two suggestions, peer review of volume reviews has not been widely accustomed.^twoscore

As mentioned earlier, the time lag of book review publication is an important effect affecting book reviews. For most bookish works, the commencement year after publication is the menstruum of greatest sales. On average, a volume's use declines virtually speedily in the early years post-obit publication.⁵⁷ ^, ⁶⁶ Part of the problem relating to the time lag of book review publication can be attributed to the publishers. Review copies of books are oftentimes non available early enough for people to review them in time to coincide with a book's release date. Fifty-fifty if review copies were bachelor, by the time the review is completed, has passed the editing process, and has saturday in line for publication, nigh experts and publishers believe the review would appear in impress later on the book publication anyway.⁶⁴

Future of Volume Reviews

The hereafter of the book review is uncertain. Recently, a perceived lack of utility of the book review has contributed to a autumn in popularity of the literary grade. In the past, the volume review may have served more purpose in informing librarians and readers of new books. Currently, in the age of the Internet, librarians and readers are targeted more readily by publishers directly.³² Likewise, volume reviews exercise non rank loftier in the hierarchical calibration of professional scholarship. Academic institutions often do not give their scholars credit for publishing book reviews.²³ From a journal's perspective, the volume review makes no contribution to the periodical's touch on factor.³² ^, ⁷² There is also an issue of journal space and limited page count. The publication of a few pages of book reviews implies the rejection or delay in publication of an original research paper, which negatively impacts journal content and timeliness to publication.³² Currently, at that place is no show to suggest that the publication of book reviews helps sell books, increment readership of journal contents, or generate subscriptions to journals.³²

While some authors highlight issues detracting from the popularity of the scholarly book review, reforms take been proposed to contribute to the evolution of this literary class. Book review editors take proposed the exploration of different volume review formats: specifically, the rejoinder, multidisciplinary, special outcome, and integrated formats.⁸ ^, ¹⁶ ^, ³⁴ ^, ⁶¹

Rejoinders are reviews where the reviewer and author are given the opportunity to talk over the book and its review in the same periodical result, increasing the objectivity of the reviewer and providing the reader with a more balanced perspective of the book beingness evaluated.¹⁶ ^, ⁵² The multidisciplinary format requires a book exist reviewed by multiple reviewers, each coming from a different subject area, allowing a book to be reviewed in a broader disciplinary context.¹⁶ While actualization periodically, the special effect format is used to review books that supplement the central theme of papers in a special journal result and may allow for amend evaluation of a book's contribution to its topic surface area.¹⁶ The integrated review is a format conducted as an essay commissioned on a specific theme, and imbedded within the essay are reviews of books related to the newspaper's thesis. By merging volume reviews within a treatise of a select topic, reviewers take the opportunity to utilize comparative assay to extend reader understanding of writings on a topic, while publishing a substantial scholarly paper.^xvi ^, ³¹ Readers of this format have the opportunity to exist enlightened by the essay and volition appreciate more than the book's significance and contribution of each book to the specific theme nether discussion.^sixteen ^, ³¹ ^, ³⁴ ^, ³⁵ While these alternative formats may seem highly-seasoned, they must demonstrate their usefulness in the framework of the dilemmas that periodical editors confront, including limited page space, touch on cistron, reader interest, and a priority to referee peer review of original manuscripts.

Another influential factor affecting the future of volume reviews is information technology, which volition influence how book reviews will exist published every bit well every bit what is reviewed. There have been calls for book reviews to be published on the Internet to allow for immediacy and ease of word.²² ^, ⁷⁷ With online publication, competition for print space will lessen and reviews may be able to extend to larger give-and-take limits as well equally expand to use "new" formats.⁵⁷ Also, journal editors are increasingly receiving various data technology media for review.^three ^, ³¹ ^, ⁴⁴ Book review sections of journals are slowly expanding their sections to include reviews of information engineering science media such as DVD, video, and websites.^three ^, ²² ^, ³¹ ^, ⁴⁴

Limitations and Research Directives

A limitation of this review is that the majority of literature used to formulate this report was based largely on good opinion institute in narrative commentaries, editorials, and journal correspondence. Original research constituted 23% of the articles included in this review; still, just three of the studies⁸ ^, ⁷² ^, ⁷⁷ were published within the past 5 years.

To improve the scholarly rigor in the book review literature, future efforts could investigate the validity of using expert opinion as a means for conducting volume reviews, and formal studies could assess the touch of volume reviews on book sales and journal subscriptions. Readership surveys could be conducted to assess reader interest in new volume review formats and publishing venues, and more importantly, examine the touch of review formats on reader usage of information in their professional work. An exploration of these issues volition contribute to the development of our agreement of writing and publishing scholarly book reviews.

Conclusion

The scholarly book review serves many purposes and has the potential to exist an influential literary form. Information technology can help guide a readership'south reading practices, provide authors with constructive feedback, and aid publishers plan and develop futurity books. However, due to the expectations of these aforementioned stakeholders, it is a challenging literary class to master. A reviewer must be aware of not just the strategies employed to conduct a review, but should exist knowledgeable of the many issues affecting the entire book review procedure. An appreciation of this literary form in a broader context volition allow the altruistic reviewer to publish a review more likely to be perceived every bit a valuable contribution to the literature.

Disharmonize of Interest

The second author of this article is as well the Editor-in-Main of The Journal of Chiropractic Didactics. To mitigate conflicts of interest, this paper was refereed past a invitee editor, Dr. Robert Ward. The paper was reviewed past blinded peer reviewers and Dr. Robert Ward is the sole person responsible for decisions regarding the disposition of this manuscript and the just person who knows the identities of the reviewers.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the help of Anne Taylor-Vaisey, MLS, with the literature searches.

Appendix: Volume Appraisal Worksheet (Bachelor as a free download in Microsoft Word from world wide web.journalchiroed.com)

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is JCE-24-1-57-g003.jpg

Contributor Data

Alexander D. Lee, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic Higher.

Bart N. Dark-green, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, National University of Health Sciences.

Claire D. Johnson, National University of Wellness Sciences.

Julie Nyquist, Academy of Southern California.

References

i. Shenai JP. The fine art of the book review: exploration of health scientific discipline. J Perinatol. 2000;20:211–two. [Google Scholar]

2. Cooper SS. The book review: a significant educational resources. J Nurs Educ. 1974;xiii:41–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

three. Millar B. Book reviews—keeping upward to date in the era of the information super highway. J Clin Nurs. 1999;8:485–half dozen. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Methven RC. The volume review: an educational tool. Midwifery. 1988;iv:133–seven. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Rassool GH. Moving in the right direction: first step in writing for publication in nursing. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2005;13:1035–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

six. Peate I. The anatomy of a volume review. Br J Healthcare Assist. 2008;two:249–50. [Google Scholar]

vii. Cortada JW. Five ways to exist a terrible book reviewer. J Scholarly Publishing. 1998;xxx:34. [Google Scholar]

8. Hartley J. Reading and writing book reviews beyond the disciplines. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2006;57:1194–207. [Google Scholar]

nine. Dreher MC. What is a volume review? Nurs Outlook. 1983;31:64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

x. Johnson Yard. Writing a volume review: towards a more than critical approach. Nurse Educ Today. 1995;15:228–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. George South, Dharmadhikari A. Writing a volume review: ofttimes asked questions answered. [Review] [3 refs] Br J Hosp Med. 2008;69:M30–M31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Shaban R. A guide to writing volume reviews. J Emerg Primary Wellness Care. 2006:4. [Google Scholar]

13. Aiken D. Writing book reviews. Phys Ther. 1978;58:1361–ii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Colina Thou. Volume reviewing: keeping the audience in mind. Nurse Author Editor. 1997;vii:4–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Ackerman AB. Are book reviews in medical journals worthy? Am J Dermatopathol. 1986;8:461. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

sixteen. Biley FC. Reviewing books: expanding the boundaries of rigour, inventiveness and imagination. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2005;12:511–2. [Google Scholar]

17. Burd A. Book reviewers and book reviews: potential conflict of interest. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62:446. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

xviii. Burd A. Book reviews, review of books, reviews and reviewers. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2008;61:479–80. [Google Scholar]

19. Puetz BE. To start writing, try a book review. J Nurs Staff Dev. 1993;9:7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Burnard P. Books, books reviews and writing. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2005;12:257–viii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Conway P. Writing a book review for JFSW. J Fam Soc Work. 2008;11:91–92. [Google Scholar]

22. Crown S, Lee A, Ramsay R. And now the volume reviews. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;177:388–ix. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Wessely Due south. A review of reviewing. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;177:388–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Johnson EW. The book review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;74:89. [Google Scholar]

25. Johnson EW. Your basic volume review or, how to lose friends (authors' mothers) and maltreat people (authors) by trying hard. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;67:135–6. [Google Scholar]

26. Moore FD. What's in a review. N Engl J Med. 1981;304:840–ane. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Hendee WR. Writing book reviews. Wellness Phys. 1987;53:565–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Weisse AB. A loss of literacy? A century of changing substance and style in medical book reviewing. Hosp Pract (Minneap) 2001;36:9–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Watson R. Some other message from the book reviews editor. J Adv Nurs. 1999;29:1283–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Williamson GR. What makes a skillful book review? J Adv Nurs. 2005;fifty:119. [Google Scholar]

31. Watson R. A bulletin from the volume reviews editor. J Adv Nurs. 1998;27:1103. [Google Scholar]

32. Toner PG. Who wants book reviews? J Pathol. 1997;183:127–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Squires BP. Book reviews: what editors expect from reviewers. Tin Med Assoc J. 1990;142:935. [Google Scholar]

34. Goldmann DR. Medical writings: a new department for annals. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:83. [Google Scholar]

35. Goldmann DR. Medical writings revisited. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:389–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Pyle GF. Volume reviews: expectations and parameters. Soc Sci Med. 2000;l:603–iv. [Google Scholar]

37. Vickers FN. Pleasures and tribulations of a book reviewer. J Fla Med Assoc. 1989;76:301–2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Anderson A annotation on book reviews. Histopathology. 1989;14:227–viii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Bass A. Disclosing bias in book review. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27:1748–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. Hopper KD. Is reform needed in the book review procedure? Radiology. 1989;171:878. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

41. Isaacson PG. Response to: A note on volume reviews. Histopathology. 1989;14:227–ix. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Gelenberg AJ. Disclosing bias: the author responds. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27:1748–ix. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. Roland CG. Thoughts about medical writing. XI: On reviewing bad books. Anesth Analg. 1972;51:462–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

44. Thompsell A. Book reviews in the electronic historic period. Br J Psychiatry. 2001;178:277. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Weinman D. Responsibility of the editor for the contents of a volume review. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1969;18:640. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. Shelley WB. How not to write a book review. Arch Dermatol. 1989;125:1431. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

47. Slow EG. The book review. Am J Psychol. 1951;64:281–iii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

48. Watkin B. Review with pen in hand. Health Soc Serv J. 1980;90:1505. [Google Scholar]

49. Toase Chiliad. How to read a volume—or, the fine art of reviewing. Midwives Chron. 1983;96:361–ii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

fifty. Lincoln T. The book review business organisation. Nature. 1983;302:757. [Google Scholar]

52. Burgdorf WH. Reviewing medical books: a quarter century of observations. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;59:e1–e3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

53. Poteet GW, Edlund BJ, Hodges LC. Promoting scholarship for graduate pedagogy. Nurse Educ Today. 1987;7:97–102. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

54. Koch SL. Medical book reviewing from the specialist's standpoint. Balderdash Med Libr Assoc. 1953;41:148–fifty. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

55. Farr AD. Volume reviews in scientific journals. Med Lab Sci. 1981;38:75–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

56. Young RC, Jr., Rachal RE, Morgan AL. Maximizing communication skills in graduate and postgraduate wellness-care pedagogy through medical writing. J Natl Med Assoc. 1991;83:691–6. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

57. Henige D. Reviewing reviewing [review process for scholarly publications] J Scholarly Publishing. 2001;33:23. [Google Scholar]

58. Simon 50. The pleasures of book reviewing: suggestions for how to become started as a volume reviewer, when i should not review a particular book and how the review publication process works. J Scholarly Publishing. 1996;27:237. [Google Scholar]

59. Owen S, Maslin-Prothero SE. Developing your research profile. Nurse Educ Pract. 2001;one:v–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

60. Furnham A. Book reviews as a pick tool for librarians. Collect Manage. 1986;8:33–43. [Google Scholar]

61. Miranda EO. On book reviewing. J Educ Thought. 1996;30:191–202. [Google Scholar]

63. Davis RM, Neale AV, Monsur JC. Medical journals' conflicts of interest in the publication of book reviews. Sci Eng Ethics. 2003;9:471–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

65. Martin LM. The evaluation of biomedical volume reviews by academic health sciences librarians. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1986;74:157–60. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

66. Chen CC. Biomedical book reviewing. Nature. 1973;242:577–8. [Google Scholar]

67. Chen CC, Wright AM. Current status of biomedical book reviewing. I. Fundamental biomedical reviewing journals with quantitative significance. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1974;62:105–12. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

68. Chen CC. Current status of biomedical volume reviewing. II. Time lag in biomedical book reviewing. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1974;62:113–ix. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

69. Chen CC. Current status of biomedical book reviewing. Function Iii: Duplication patterns in biomedical book reviewing. Balderdash Med Libr Assoc. 1974;62:296–301. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

70. Chen CC. Current status of biomedical volume reviewing. Function IV: Major American and British biomedical book publishers. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1974;62:302–7. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

71. Chen CC. Electric current status of biomedical book reviewing. Part V: Almost ofttimes reviewed biomedical books in 1970. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1974;62:309–13. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

72. Golubic R, Rudes Grand, Kovacic N, Marusic M, Marusic A. Calculating impact gene: how bibliographical nomenclature of journal items affects the impact cistron of large and small journals. Sci Eng Ideals. 2008;fourteen:41–nine. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

73. Atwood R. An index to medical book reviews: a figurer experiment. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1967;55:66–69. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

74. Truelson SD., Jr. Selecting for wellness sciences library collections when budgets falter. Balderdash Med Libr Assoc. 1976;64:187–95. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

75. Wilkinson MJ, Rapley DM, Gadsby R, Cohen MA. Does the BJGP need more fizz and pop? A Midland faculty readership survey. Br J Gen Pract. 1997;47:145–9. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

77. Berlin E, Fisher A. Two thumbs up: a survey of librarian-book reviewers. Libr Collect Acquis Tech Serv. 2004;28:312–34. [Google Scholar]

78. Furnham A. The positive consequences of being negative: the perception of a critical reviewer. J Soc Behav Pers. 1997;12:585–94. [Google Scholar]

79. Motta-Roth D. Rhetorical features and disciplinary cultures: a genre-based study of academic book reviews in linguistics, chemistry, and economics. [dissertation]. Florianopolis, Brazil: Federal University of Santa Catarina; 1995. In: Hartley J. Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2006;57:1194–207. [Google Scholar]

lxxx. ICMJE.org. [Internet] Philadelphia: International Committee of Medical Periodical Editors; © 2009 [cited 2009 Nov 20]. ICMJE Uniform requirements for manuscripts conflicts of interest. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/ethical_4conflicts.html. [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Chiropractic Education are provided here courtesy of Association of Chiropractic Colleges

huskeyraimmake.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870990/