GUIDELINES ON HOW TO WRITE A BOOK REVIEW

GUIDELINES ON HOW TO WRITE A BOOK REVIEW Book reviews are usually invited by the journal editor, who restricts invitations to reviewers qualified to render critical judgements. In spite of this practice, anyone who scans the book review sections of clinical journals is likely to be struck by the indifferent quality of most of the reviews. A dismaying fraction of reviews read like extracts from the dust jacket or the table of contents followed by some remarks about paper and price. The reader is often unsure whether the reviewer has read the book. Such reviews assess a book as if it were sitting alone on a table in the middle of the Sahara; we do not learn whether the book is the first of its kind and, if it is, whether it is needed, whether it is better or worse than similar books if they exist, or for whom it may be valuable. These faults arise form the limited input of reviewers. They often briefly summarize the book=s content. Summarizing the book=s content, writing without thinking in advance about why the review is needed and what its structure should be. A well-thought out, thorough, and carefully written book review has no less structure (Table 4) than an editorial. The review opens with a question, usually implied but sometimes stated: it moves to the evidence and counter-evidence; and its closes with the answer. The review must develop each step fully within the length allowed by the editor; even the one-paragraph review should contain these steps. Thus, in preparing to write, the reviewer should start by considering what question is going to be answered: Is this book needed? Is the book better than others of its kind? Why did I enjoy the book? For whom is the book written and is it right for that audience? Development of the evidence and counter-evidence will make up the middle sentences of a one-paragraph review and the middle paragraphs of a longer review. The conclusion, with the answer, may be no longer than a sentence if the reviewer is willing to take a firm stand. Most readers of book reviews expect to find the book assessed. An occasional review presents instead an essay of reflections touched off by the book. Such an essay can bring many readers great pleasure if the author has a rich enough view of life, personal or professional, and the skill to get that view down on paper. The author of the essay is obliged, nevertheless, to make clear to readers early on that the essay is moving from the book to the matters and they should not expect to find an assessment of the book at the end. Table 4 Examples of Points Made Introductory Paragraph Five major textbooks of pathology available. - Is this new one better, were more needed? - What need does this book fit? Body of Review Text has unusual sequence of topics reflecting newer developments. Text is detailed and critical. Text reflects wide experience. Technical Aspects Wide range of illustrations, from electron micrographs to fine colour photographs of gross lesions. Scanty use of references; inadequate text. Concluding Paragraph In the balance, the virtues outweigh the defects. The most up-to-date general textbook of pathology; recommended Elements of Critical Argument Question Evidence Evidence Counter-evidence Assessment of conflicting evidence Answer Reference Huth E J (editor) 1983 How to publish papers in Medical Science. Chapter 9 The Book Review nd and the Letter-to-the-Editor, 2 edition: 72 - 75 Australian Journal of Physiotherapy and Physical Therapy Guidelines Purpose Scope Is the author=s treatment of the subject comprehensive? Superficial? Is the depth of coverage sufficient? What is the book=s major theme or focus? Who are the book=s intended readers and how well does the book address them? How well does the book serve its intended purpose? Content Quality Style Is the book well written? Is it well organised? Do the chapters follow a logical progression? If the book is comprised of the work of numerous contributors, is it written and assembled in a consistent style? Is the information correct? Up-to-date? What does the book offer that is new or different from existing texts? Is the validity and reliability of the information documented whenever appropriate? Are appropriate references provided? Other Features Are figures and/or tables used? Are these effective? Do they enhance the book? Are other features (eg case studies, problem solving exercises, appendices) used? Are the effective? Do they enhance the book? Application What is the particular relevance of this book to physiotherapy practice. Who should use this book: physical therapists? Physical therapist assistants? Others. General Try to avoid starting your review with the words AThis book ....@. Feel free to criticise if you believe it is warranted. Fair comment is all that authors and publishers can ever ask of a book reviewer. Do not feel obliged to summarise the contents of each chapter or section of the book; or to give each part equal emphasis in your review. Try to keep your readers in mind. Although you, as a reviewer with a special area of interest and/or expertise, may take issue with something the author has written, remember that the book may still contain information that is new or valuable to the majority of its potential readers. This is particularly important if you are reviewing a book written for the general public. Write as much or as little as you feel the book merits. However, it is preferable to try to limit your review to a maximum of 300 words, as longer reviews may be edited back. Shorter reviews are always welcome. Feel free to write the review in a creative style if you wish. - - - - Reference Huth E J (editor) 1982 How to Write and Publish Papers in the Medical Sciences. Chapter 9: nd The Book Review and the Letter-to-the-Editor. 2 edition: 72 - 75 The Editor, Abstract and Reviewer Handbook: Guidelines for Book Reviewers. Physical Therapy: 12 The Editor, Policies and Procedures: Section 4 Editorial (General): Guidelines for Book Reviewers. The Australian Journal of Physiotherapy EALES/BOOKREVIEW.2000