The Place of Book Reviews in the Professional Literature
Curtis Runnels
Journal of Field Archaeology 21 (1994) 357--360
No Abstract
Introduction
Five years ago the first section of book reviews was included in the
Journal of Field Archaeology, and this essay offers some
reflections on the significance and usefulness of book reviews in the
professional literature. I am prompted to write this essay because
there have been very few explicit discussions of book reviewing, and
my experiences as the editor for book reviews suggest that a
discussion of the purpose of book reviews may be helpful. My view is
that many archaeologists do not consider the writing of book reviews
to be a serious task. In my experience the readers of reviews are more
likely to consider reviews as a valuable professional tool, a way of
keeping up with the literature and trends of thought in the field, and
of comparing their own critical views and opinions with those of
colleagues. Some professionals, however, after they agree to review
new books in the field, have little, if any, regard for the importance
and responsibility of writing book reviews.
To understand professional attitudes to book reviews it is useful to
recall that they are usually classified as ``service to the profession''
rather than as a form of ``real'' publication. It is a widely held view
that book reviews are not professional publications, if we mean by
that term contributions to general knowledge through original research
that are published as papers in peer-reviewed journals. Those who
evaluate the records of professional archaeologists in academic
settings for the purpose of hiring, promotion, tenure, or salary
increases only rarely consider book reviews as anything other than a
service, a volunteer activity of the same kind as service on
university and departmental committees. Consequently, most academic
professionals do not place book reviews high on their list of
priorities. After teaching, writing grant applications, conducting
fieldwork, and writing up original research for publication, there is
scant time in most professional schedules for book reviews, and it is
my impression that non-academic members of the profession see even
fewer advantages to doing book reviews. It may be worth adding that
there is no remuneration for doing book reviews, apart from the
complimentary copy of the book or books to be reviewed, which the
reviewer is free to keep or to donate to a library. No great prestige
is attached to the effort, and readers will rarely comment on your
efforts. There is no flurry of autographed offprints handed around at
conventions, no correspondence with colleagues offering new data or
sharing views, no citations in the literature, and only rarely a
``thank you'' from authors, publishers, or the editors of the journals
where the reviews are published.
If we consider the low regard for the place of book reviewing in the
profession, we may well wonder what incentive can exist for busy,
hard-pressed professionals to accept the responsibility of doing book
reviews. My response is to consider the obligation that we have to our
colleagues, who as readers take book reviews seriously. My evidence
for saying that readers view book reviews seriously is partly based on
personal experience, and partly on other evidence. Some established
and some new journals have added book reviews to their pages in the
last five years, and journals with established book review sections
have expanded these in recent years, adding shorter book notes and
longer review articles to the existing reviews. I can think of no
reason for the continuing commitment of the principal journals to
review books except a perception on the part of the editors and
members of advisory boards that reviews are an essential feature for
their readers and for every journal that aspires to comprehensive
coverage of the discipline. In a field where thousands of titles each
year jostle for the reader's attention, there can be no question of
reading everything that is published, even in one's own special field
or subdiscipline. This shocking reality should be considered
carefully. It has been reported that there are up to 3000 books
published each year in English alone and it is simply
impossible for any person to keep up with this amount of
literature. It is for this reason, I think, that book reviews have
grown in importance for the field, even if the lack of professional
recognition of the importance of book reviews, as measured in terms of
significance for hiring, promotion, etc., goes against this trend. How
many of us have found ourselves scanning an ever greater number of
book reviews in order to form an idea of which books we should read,
which ones we might at least skim, and which ones we can neglect
entirely?
If my evaluation is so far correct, it follows that book reviewing
must be considered in the same light as the peer reviews of grant
applications and of manuscripts submitted for publication. It is a
professional service, but one of the most important ones that we
perform. Book reviewers do more than tell us simply what books are
about or summarize their contents. They consist of critical peer
evaluations that profoundly affect the way in which our colleagues
regard the book, and often influence widely the decisions made by many
archaeologists to read the book, and ultimately determine its
contribution to the field.
The Choice of Books and Reviewers
As this essay is intended partly for those who are beginning in the
field, it is not perhaps amiss to discuss some questions about book
reviewing that rarely appear in print. How are books chosen for
review? Who reviews them? What should or should not be in a book
review? And lastly, what is the protocol for potential and promised
book reviews? How are books chosen for review? This is the occult
aspect of the art of book reviewing. Books are sent gratis to
the publication offices of professional journals by book publishers
with the request that two copies of any published review be forwarded
to the book's publishers. Most journals print a list, sometimes
annotated, of the books received, and after the book has been included
in the list it will be considered for review by the editor responsible
for book reviews, who may consult with the other editors of the
journal and the members of the editorial advisory board when making a
decision about a particular book. The book review editor customarily
takes the task of choosing books for review upon himself or herself,
and the criteria for these decisions are numerous, subjective, and
subject to change. It is safe to say, however, that there is never a
consistent ``doctrine'' as to which authors, publishers, or subjects
will be chosen for review. All editors prefer to think that their
choices rest upon the scholarly merit of the work in question, the
potential significance of the research, and the likely interest of the
book for the journal's readership. In my experience book review
editors prefer books written by one or two authors that present the
results of original research. Revised editions, reissue in paperback,
reprints, popular books, technical manuals, issues of other journals,
and collections of previously published papers are reviewed less
frequently. Editors have their own preferences. The editors of this
journal, for example, rarely ask for reviews for the types of books
just mentioned, and they are also not inclined to review volumes of
conference papers or other invited papers when there is no explicit
evidence that the papers were evaluated by external readers or,
perhaps, even subjected to critical editorial scrutiny by the editors
of the volume. The selection process is, in a word, idiosyncratic. The
editor must also consider the limitations of space, which will allow
only a very few books to be reviewed. This journal currently carries
fewer than 30 book reviews in a typical year, and the titles to be
reviewed are selected from among hundreds of books that are received
each year. Once a book has been selected for review the editor will
write to a potential reviewer asking him or her to review the book. In
this letter the editor identifies the book, perhaps makes one or two
comments about the significance of the book, suggests a possible
length and a deadline for receipt of the review, and asks the person
to respond in writing if he or she is prepared to undertake the
review. The book, along with guidelines for preparing manuscripts, is
sent to the reviewer upon receipt of acceptance of the
responsibility. After the completed review is received in the
journal's editorial offices it is edited in the same way as all other
manuscripts in order to conform to the editorial standards of the
journal.
To get started in the field of book reviewing is easy: volunteer your
services to a book review editor. This should be done by letter in
which you outline your areas of interest, your special qualifications,
and perhaps indicate book titles, by way of example, that you would
like to review. Editors are looking for reviewers, and they are happy
to hear from volunteers. Your name will be added to a database, and in
time you are likely to be called upon to review one or more books. The
number of books that can be reviewed is restricted, and the space for
the reviews is limited, and it is not surprising, therefore, that some
time may elapse between your offer and an invitation to do a
review. Once you have been invited to do a review, however, and the
assignment has been completed in a timely manner and to the mutual
satisfaction of reviewer and editor, you can expect to have more
frequent requests. Book review editors welcome volunteers at all
stages of their careers. Younger colleagues should be encouraged to
volunteer their services because reviewing can be a valuable
experience, sharpening critical faculties and writing skills while
learning about the professional interaction with editors and
publishers that is essential when the time comes to submit research
papers for publication. Although reviewers are sought from all ranks
of the profession, I would like to see more reviews by our retired
colleagues. Wise in experience, and perhaps less encumbered by
teaching duties and other service activities, such elders may be in
the best position to see past the surface of much new literature and
examine the heart of a book. They are most likely, I should think, to
be able to make connections between new works and those that have
appeared before, and to distinguish between truly original concepts
and the cyclical retread.
The Content of Book Reviews
What should be and not be in a book review? A book review ought to
give more than a summary of the contents of a book. Although an
outline of the contents is always helpful, this can be done in a
single paragraph or even a few sentences. The meat of any review must
be the critical and probing consideration of the thesis and goals of
the book, its conclusions, the substantive issues raised by the book,
its methodological, evidential, or theoretical weaknesses and errors,
and finally its significance for the field as a whole. Book reviews
should ignore typographic errors, writing style, and minor errors of
fact unless these have a significant affect upon the substantive
content of the book. The quality of the printing and production of the
book should also be ignored unless these factors are likely to confuse
or mislead the reader, or are particularly bad. Examples of mistakes
that should be mentioned in the review would be transposed figure
captions, erroneous values in tables, misspelled place names, or
incorrect scales in illustrations, especially where the detection of
errors requires prior knowledge of the subject, something that the
reviewer may possess but cannot be assumed of the book's readers. The
reviewer should be concerned chiefly with what the author has to
contribute, and the book's readers can be expected to discover defects
on their own and to reach independent conclusions about the quality of
the work performed by the book's editors and publishers. By the same
token fulminations and preaching about the price of the book should be
eschewed unless the price has some connection with the central purpose
of the book. An example would be a high price for a textbook that was
written and produced for use in large classes. Because the price in
this case would be a factor that determined the use of the book in its
intended market it would be relevant to discuss it. To rail against
the high price of specialized technical publications intended for
small markets serves no one, and often sounds forced coming from a
reviewer who has received the book free of charge.
It is a regrettable fact of life that reviewers must sometimes be
reminded that personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and other
forms of abusive and uncivil behavior are never acceptable in
professional writing. The reviewer should also bear in mind that the
review, once it has been published, may be read by students and
historians many years after those whose passions, hurt feelings, and
petty jealousies are on display in the review have themselves become
part of the archaeological record. Readers who are not closely
connected to the persons or the events in question are unlikely to
have any interest in these matters.
The Protocol of Reviewing Books
There is a protocol for book reviews. Bear in mind that book
reviewing, like any other professional service, is an important
responsibility and should be treated accordingly. An invitation to
review a book should be answered promptly, in writing. If you have no
prior commitment to review the book, have no evident conflict of
interest in reviewing it (e.g., you are a contributing editor or
author), and can do the review within the suggested deadline, you
should seriously consider doing the review. If you cannot do the
review you should let the editor know this immediately, or otherwise a
great deal of time may be lost waiting for your reply, and this is
discourteous to the editor and to the authors of the book under
consideration for review. Bear in mind that journals have publication
schedules, and that the deadlines for the receipt of reviews are not
arbitrary. Every effort should be made to complete the review within
the deadline, and at all events keep the editor informed if any
unforeseen circumstances require you to delay submission of your
review. Correspondence with delinquent reviewers wearies the editor
and costs the publishers time and money, and it is churlish to oblige
your editor to pursue you by telephone or letter.
If you have doubts about doing the review, perhaps because of a
possible or actual conflict of interest, or doubt as to your
qualifications for reviewing a specific book, do not hesitate to
contact the editor to discuss the issue. It is often possible to
modify the request or to make appropriate substitutions. The
responsibility of writing book reviews, however, is always an
important one, and at all all times the agreement to review a book
should be treated as a contract that must be honored in the same
responsible and ethical way as any other professional duty.
Book Reviews and the Intellectual History of the Discipline
In closing it is appropriate to consider other aspects of the
significance of book reviews. I have underscored their usefulness for
members of the profession, but reviews do more than summarize the
contents of a book. Reviewers are not writing primary research, but a
form of ``secondary literature'' about primary research, and the review
format permits some latitude for opinions that do not appear in other
forms of scholarly writing. The opinions expressed in book reviews
constitute a kind of record of how important books were received at
the time of their publication, and it is for this reason that
historians of science have used the contemporary reviews of major
books to better understand the impact of a particular scholar's work
on his or her colleagues. The study of reviews permits us to see first
hand the critical reaction to books that later became classics in the
field, or, conversely, were neglected in their own time.
Return to Book Reviewers' Guidelines
Page
Index of Book Reviews
Index Page for Editorials
JFA Home Page
Maintained by Al B. Wesolowsky
abw@bu.edu
Journal of Field Archaeology at http://jfa-www.bu.edu
Last modified: 09 Feb 2006