Purpose: To develop your ability to evaluate critically book reviews in the reference field and to enhance your book reviewing skills.

Background: First, reading reviews is the primary basis for selecting new reference books for a library or information center. Second, it is likely that you will be asked to review books for the local newspaper if you work in a public library. You may be invited to review for Library Journal, College and Research Libraries, or RUSQ, if you work in an academic library setting. When you are asked, the book review editor will expect you to be familiar with the book reviewing process. My class lecture will provide information about the process. Usually you will be given a recommended length for your review. The actual length depends on the book and to some extent, the journal space; however, 500 words should be enough to cover all the criteria. See checklist at the end of this document for guidance before handing in the assignment.

Method: "Reviewing is an art which encourages creativity, and there is no set format for all reviews to follow." However, you can:

1. Examine a focal reference source according to the principles articulated by the ALA Booklist committee. A focal reference source is one of the ten essential reference titles (see the list at the end of our class page).

2. After taking extensive notes, you will have plenty to say about the work in hand. Now you must select what is important. Often what you do not say is more important.

3. Procedurally, the review can be divided into three parts:

A. Establishing The Bibliographic Citation

Notice that every journal has its own "house style." In what order do they present the bibliographical information? How complete is it? Observe typographic conventions; for example, italic is represented by underlining in typescript; it is the signal to the printer to set the type in italic.

B. Identifying The Reviewer

Notice that most reviews are signed. How do they identify the person? By degree? Position or simply institution?

C. Writing The Review Itself

Avoid weak introductions; for example, "This book." Also, repeating the book's title is usually not necessary because the reader just read it in the bibliographic citation. Think of a good "hook" to catch your reader's interest. Be creative.

The following suggestions taken from reviewing instructions of national journals in library and information science will provide additional suggestions on how to review.

"The style of the review should be direct and concise, the tone dignified and judicious, and the point of view broad. The review must be scrupulously fair to both publisher and probable purchaser. It should convey a true impression of the book, free from petty criticisms. Features of special excellence should be noted. Unfavorable criticisms should be concentrated on important defects and backed by concrete citations in the review itself."

"The review is a serious responsibility, but the author has a right to be direct in expression of criticism. Gather all relevant information useful in preparing the review. However, one of the policies of RQ is to be unconcerned about the appearance of reviews of the same books in other reviewing media both within and without the association. This lack of concern is based on the usefulness to the readers of reviews of a number of different reviews of the same work. Thus, your review should be written independently of other reviews. The book review editor retains the right to make alterations in reviews submitted, and to question judgments included.

Although to a certain extent the contents of the work must be described, avoid making the review a list of the contents. Rather emphasize analysis, evaluation, and comparative criticism, with a view always to the ultimate user of the review. It is especially important to state the purpose of the work and whether the purpose is achieved. Questions such as the following might be answered: Why does the work exist? Is there a gap in the existing literature which this fills? How does it compare with related--though not necessarily directly competitive--works?"

"In formulating critical comments, it might be worthwhile to provide a comparative evaluation of a given work in relation to other works of similar nature; we hope, of course, that critical comments will be well documented and will reflect the overall usefulness of a given reference work. Please also note that it is usually not necessary to conclude the review with specific recommendations for purchase, as found in most other library reviewing journals. On the whole, we believe that an adequate description and evaluation of a reference book will speak for itself, enabling ARBA's users to make their own decisions."

"1. The value the collection has for the library and student.

2. Is it easy to read the micropublication? Are the images uniformly clear? Keep in mind the following additional questions as you compose your review:

a. Would you be able to utilize this microform comfortably and consistently for your own research?

b. How does the legibility (image blur, out-of-focus, cut-off pages) of what you see compare with the best microforms with which you are familiar, taking into account the age or condition of the original material?"

When you become genuinely interested in book reviewing, start watching for invitations. From time to time, journals request reviewers. You should cite the areas, which you believe you are competent to review and provide some background information about yourself. You might also include a copy of a review you have written.

"Additional Guidelines for Reviewing Reference Books," In Frances Neel Cheney and Wiley J. Williams, Fundamental Reference Sources, 2nd ed. Chicago: American Library Association, 1980, pp. 315-326.

Ching-Chih Chen and Thomas J. Galvin, "Reviewing the Literature of Librarianship: A State of the Art Report," ARBA 1975, pp. xxxi-xlv.

Arthur B. Connor Jr. "A Selected Review and Comparison of Library and Scholarly Reviewing Sources," MLS Specialization Paper, UCLA, 1982, especially the bibliography on pp. 61-62.

Helen Haines, Living With Books. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940.

CHECKLIST:

1. Is the bibliographic citation present and formatted according to proper house style?

2. Does the review begin with "This book..." or the title or author's name? If so, revise.

3. Is the review double spaced? And, does it avoid the instructor's list of 10 common errors?

4. Does the review cover all the criteria identified as professionally accepted or useful?

5. Is the review signed according to proper house style?

R;tw