Abstract
In a study of book reviews published in four general medical journals over a six-month period, 480 reviews were analyzed. Twenty-five features that reviewers address when evaluating a text were identified, and the frequency of commentary for each feature was determined. The mean number of features addressed per review was 9.0. Reviews averaged 389 words, but review length did not correlate with the length or scope of the book, with the number of features addressed, nor with the reviewer's assessment of the text. Extraneous commentary by the reviewer occurred in 16% of the reviews. This editorializing appeared in lengthier reviews that addressed fewer features. Favorable reviews were far more common than unfavorable ones (88.5% vs. 11.5%). Consequently, for the fifty-five books reviewed in more than one journal, agreement regarding rating of the text was high (86%). Results of this study may provide useful guidelines for reviewers of medical texts.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Aiken D. Writing book reviews. Phys Ther. 1978 Nov;58(11):1361–1362. doi: 10.1093/ptj/58.11.1361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chen C. C. Current status of biomedical book reviewing. II. Time lag in biomedical book reviewing. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1974 Apr;62(2):113–119. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chen C. C. Current status of biomedical book reviewing: Part III. Duplication patterns in biomedical book reviewing. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1974 Jul;62(3):296–301. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chen C. C., Wright A. M. Current status of biomedical book reviewing. I. Key biomedical reviewing journals with quantitative significance. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1974 Apr;62(2):105–112. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cooper S. S. The book review: a significant educational resource. J Nurs Educ. 1974 Aug;13(3):41–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dreher M. C. What is a book review? Nurs Outlook. 1983 Jan-Feb;31(1):64–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- HUGHES H. M. How to review a book. Nurs Outlook. 1957 Feb;5(2):82–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Landauer R. Nonlinearity, multistability, and fluctuations: reviewing the reviewers. Am J Physiol. 1981 Sep;241(3):R107–R113. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.1981.241.3.R107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lion J. R., Bach-y-Rita G., Ervin J. R. The self-referred violent patient. JAMA. 1968 Aug 12;205(7):91–93. doi: 10.1001/jama.205.7.91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Morton P. Y. Medical book reviewing. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1983 Apr;71(2):202–206. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Roland C. G. Thoughts about medical writing. XI. On reviewing bad books. Anesth Analg. 1972 May-Jun;51(3):462–463. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]