FROM THE EDITORS OF "URBAN SOCIAL GEOGRAPHY" Dear Reviewer: Thank you for offering us your time and expertise in agreeing to review the enclosed publication. Please be sure to submit your review to the book review editor by [insert date] so that we can place it in the next issue of the journal. Please also take the time to read the guidelines below to ensure that your submission conforms with our format and that we avoid unnecessary delays in editing. In addition we recommend all our reviewers read the enclosed paper entitled "Principles of Book Reviewing." We have recently had to reject several submissions because we adjudged that they had contravened reviewing canons: they had been used merely as vehicles for expression of personal opinions and ideas, or had shown evidence of unjustified condemnation or praise, suggesting personal or political motives in their writing. We wish our reviews to critically inform our readership of the contents of the book and to do justice to the author, so we hope that you will follow the suggestions in the paper and provide our readers with a brief introduction, an accurate description, an insightful critique and a fair evaluation. REVIEW FORMAT Not to exceed 3 pages in length, the manuscript should be double-spaced with the exception of initial bibliographic information and direct quotations taken from the text. Margins should be one inch on both sides of the paper. No abbreviations should be used excepting any that may be included in the bibliographic information, or, if you refer to the book's title more than once, an appropriate abbreviation based on a key word or initials of the title (e.g., "The Limits to Capital" may be abbreviated as "Limits" or "LTC"). Bibliographic information should be placed at the top of the first page in the following form (please note the appropriate punctuation): David Harvey, The Limits to Capital, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983. Pp. xi + 478. Direct quotes of more than a single sentence should be representative and should be used only sparingly. They should be single-spaced and indented from the left and right margins by an addition one-quarter inch. References and notes should be placed at the end of the text. You should place your name and institutional affiliation at the foot of the last paragraph of text, to the left and to the right of the page respectively. For example: John S. Smith Department of Geography University of Washington We look forward to receiving your review. Return to Jon Goss's Urban Geography WI class. PRINCIPLES OF BOOK REVIEWING Book reviews are written for a number of purposes and vary in form according, to author, audience, the nature of the subject, and the character of the text. Such variation is to be expected and is desirable, but the kind of variation that allows the same book to be roundly condemned by one reviewer, and to be extolled by another, or uncritically described chapter-by-chapter by yet another, is probably not -- at least not if the purpose of the review is to provide a balanced assessment of a publication in service to a journal's readership. To read such contradictory reviews (albeit in different journals) is merely confusing, and perhaps reveals as much about the nature of the reviewers, and the journal, as about the book in question. A book review should not be used as a vehicle for its author's own opinions and ideas, nor for the scoring of personal and political points. Its purpose is to draw attention to a recent publication, to accurately describe its contents, to point out both its strengths and weaknesses upon a number of criteria, and to assess its contribution to knowledge and practice in an academic field. For this it is necessary to establish guidelines beyond the format sheets that are usually provided by book review editors of soliciting journals. The following are some such brief guidelines. First of all, in accepting the responsibility to review a publication, the reviewer claims competency within the field and agrees to take the time to apply her/his expertise for the benefit of the journal's readership, and not merely to notch another credit on a C.V. If you are not familiar with the field, even though you may have so been identified by the editor, and if you do not have the time to do justice to the work, decline the review. Too many reviews are written by those who are not the best persons to judge or who clearly have not even fully read the text under review. Second, make an attempt to include four dimensions, namely, introduction, description, critique and evaluation. These need not, (and perhaps should not) be applied in that order, nor even mechanically as sections of the review, but aspects of all four should be present in a good review. The text should be introduced by the reviewer in a pleasing and informative manner, and this might often be done by placing the work and/or its author in their sociological and intellectual contexts. Is this a first work or the continuation/culmination of a series of publications? Why has it (and its ideas/theories) appeared now? Is the timing appropriate? What is the author's stature and what might we reasonably expect from her? (which leads to a later evaluation of whether the work might be a disappointment or live up to expectation). The reader desires an accurate description of the contents of the text so that he knows exactly where it fits within the literature and what he might be reading if he were to obtain a copy. The reviewer should identify the subject matter (the text's substantive concern, its thesis, its geographical/historical purview, etc.); the potential audience (whether "experts" only, the general public, Xth-year students, etc.); the purpose (as an introductory text, a coffee-table book, an analytical treatise, a polemic, etc.); and its form (an edited collection of separately-authored papers, a collection of previously published works, a single or multiple theme work etc.). It is, of course, appropriate to provide evaluative comment on the text as a whole (on its coherence, length etc.) and upon other particular features not directly related to textual argumentation, such as quality and appropriateness of illustrations, the utility of the index and bibliography, and the quality of the editing (do not be too picky!). The critique is the hardest part of the review. First, to be fair to the author you need to define her stated or implied purpose and judge whether she has achieved her own goals. It may be disappointing that she has not pursued particular paths, and the disappointment is fair to express, but she cannot be criticized too harshly if those paths were not within her rubric, assuming this is not essential to her point. Judge the work on the author's grounds before establishing your own criteria. The reader should be informed of the utility of the text whatever its shortcomings and however harsh the criticisms you unleash. One assumes that few books are devoid of any merit or any benefit to some readers, particularly given the cost of production and the increasing competition in the search for a publisher of academic manuscripts. Try to be scrupulously fair in your criticisms. It is too easy to pick on a few inadequacies, select ambiguous phrases and highlight minor errors, and to ignore the redeeming characteristics and qualifying statements. It is important to be explicit in criticism and to avoid vague generalizations that betray prejudice or sloppy reading of the text -- provide representative examples and quotes with page references. The review is not the place to pursue your own argument on this subject, but to address critically that of the author. If you disagree with the theoretical and ideological position of the author make this clear, but do not launch into a substantial theoretical treatise -- book review pages are not for epistemological debate. On the other hand do not be satisfied with a mere restatement of the author's point, but critically evaluate it within the context of extant theory and knowledge. Some questions to consider in a critique include: Is the argument logical and coherent? Do the secondary and primary data cited support the argument adequately? Is it consistent with other published accounts and is there contradictory evidence? Are the theoretical implications fully articulated and developed? Are analytical techniques used correctly and are they appropriate? Are conclusions the author draws convincingly justified? Finally, the reviewer should provide an evaluation of the work upon a number of criteria, including its usefulness, its contribution to the literature and its originality. How does the book compare with other similar works within the same field? How could it have been improved and what were its major omissions? Does it raise any new questions and, if so, what might be the author's (or someone else's) extension of this work? In conclusion it is useful to provide a relatively simple assessment that can be interpreted as either a recommendation (even with reservations) to the reader to read the book for himself, or as advice not to go to the trouble. A successful review through the introduction, description, critique and evaluation, provides the readership with information about a book so that they can determine its potential usefulness to themselves. It also provides a guide to its reading for those who are not as familiar with its context, background, and substantive content, as the reviewer herself. Anything much less is a disservice to the academic community. Jon Goss Department of Geography University of Hawai‘i Return to Jon Goss's Urban Geography WI class.
Mānoa Writing Program · 2545 McCarthy Mall, Bilger Hall 104 · Honolulu, HI 96822 · (808) 956-6660 · mwp@hawaii.edu
© 1997-2009 Mānoa Writing Program, University of Hawai'i