academic writing book review

Writing Center

Academic book reviews, preparing to write a review, tips for reading and taking notes.

• Make sure you start by pinpointing the major takeaway or thesis of the book.
• Think critically about how well the book accomplishes its task. If there are any issues you notice, such as gaps in logic or inadequate explanation or evidence, note them.
• As you read, think about whether the argument makes sense, flows well, and is convincing. If you find some part of the argument unconvincing, note it, as well as why you think it’s lacking.
• Be specific in your notetaking. Include quotes and page numbers you can reference later.

Writing a Review

• A general summary of the content –  describe the topic, argument, and perspective of the work you’re reviewing.
• A critical assessment of the content –  the most important aspect of the review, this section should include the work’s strengths, weaknesses, noteworthy and new points, and your assessment of its overall effectiveness or persuasiveness. How does it contribute to the conversation, or ongoing inquiry, in the area it addresses?

Sample Structure

• Introduction—Possibly explain what attracted you to read the book, or discuss the problems or issues the book addresses and why it is a timely topic.
• Summary of the book’s argument and main point­—Be brief. The summary should be no more than a paragraph for most books.
• Information about the author—Include specifics about the author’s professional position, as well as other notable work.
• Summary of the book’s content—Include research methods and the range of material used in the work.
• Critical analysis of the content—Assess the book’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as its contribution to the area it addresses.
• Conclusion—Summarize your view of the book and provide a final assessment. Mention who you think might be a target audience for the book, such as researchers interested in a particular aspect of the study.

Tips for Writing the Review

• Keep in mind that the central purpose of academic writing is to advance knowledge or move an academic conversation forward. Evaluate the book on those grounds.
• Be honest and fair. Don’t feel that you have to be critical but also don’t be afraid to point out the book’s shortcomings. A book can have weaknesses but still make a valuable contribution to its field.  
• Include strong evidence or examples to back up your claims.  

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Write an Academic Book Review

4-minute read

• 13th September 2019

For researchers and postgraduates , writing a book review is a relatively easy way to get published. It’s also a good way to refine your academic writing skills and learn the publishing process. But how do you write a good academic book review? We have a few tips to share.

1. Finding a Book to Review

Before you can write a book review, you need a suitable book to review. Typically, there are two main ways to find one:

• Look to see which books journal publishers are seeking reviews for.
• Find a book that interests you and pitch it to publishers.

The first approach works by finding a journal in your field that is soliciting reviews. This information may be available on the journal’s website (e.g., on a page titled “Books for Review”). However, you can also email the editor to ask if there are book review opportunities available.

Alternatively, you can find a book you want to review and pitch it to journal editors. If you want to take this approach, pick a book that:

• Is about a topic or subject area that you know well.
• Has been published recently, or at least in the last 2–3 years.
• Was published by a reputable publisher (e.g., a university printing press).

You can then pitch the review to a journal that covers your chosen subject.

Some publishers will even give reviewers access to new books. Springer, for example, has a scheme where reviewers can access books online and receive a print copy once a review is published. So this is always worth checking.

2. Follow the Style Guide

Once you know the journal you want to write for, look for the publisher’s style guide. This might be called the “Author Instructions” or “Review Guidelines,” but it should be available somewhere on the publisher’s website. If it is not obviously available, consider checking with the editor.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

When you have found the style guide, follow its instructions carefully. It should provide information on everything from writing style and the word count to submitting your review, making the process much simpler.

3. Don’t Make It About You!

You’d be surprised how often people begin by summarizing the book they’re reviewing, but then abandon it in favor of explaining their own ideas about the subject matter. As such, one important tip when reviewing an academic book is to actually review the book , not just the subject matter.

This isn’t to say that you can’t offer your own thoughts on the issues discussed, especially if they’re relevant to what the author has argued. But remember that people read reviews to find out about the book being reviewed, so this should always be your focus.

4. Questions to Answer in a Book Review

Finally, while the content of a review will depend on the book, there are a few questions every good book review should answer. These include:

• What is the book about? Does it cover the topic adequately? What does the author argue? Ideally, you will summarize the argument early on.
• Who is the author/editor? What is their field of expertise? How does this book relate to their past work? You might also want to mention relevant biographical details about the author, if there are any.
• How does the author support their argument? Do they provide convincing evidence? Do they engage with counterarguments? Try to find at least one strength (i.e., something the book does well) and one weakness (i.e., something that could be stronger) to write about.
• As a whole, has the book helped you understand the subject? Who would you recommend it to? This will be the concluding section of your review.

If you can cover all these points, you should end up with a strong book review. All you need then is to have it proofread by the professionals .

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

3-minute read

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

2-minute read

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

What Is Market Research?

No matter your industry, conducting market research helps you keep up to date with shifting...

8 Press Release Distribution Services for Your Business

In a world where you need to stand out, press releases are key to being...

How to Get a Patent

In the United States, the US Patent and Trademarks Office issues patents. In the United...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

A book review is a thorough description, critical analysis, and/or evaluation of the quality, meaning, and significance of a book, often written in relation to prior research on the topic. Reviews generally range from 500-2000 words, but may be longer or shorter depends on several factors: the length and complexity of the book being reviewed, the overall purpose of the review, and whether the review examines two or more books that focus on the same topic. Professors assign book reviews as practice in carefully analyzing complex scholarly texts and to assess your ability to effectively synthesize research so that you reach an informed perspective about the topic being covered.

There are two general approaches to reviewing a book:

• Descriptive review: Presents the content and structure of a book as objectively as possible, describing essential information about a book's purpose and authority. This is done by stating the perceived aims and purposes of the study, often incorporating passages quoted from the text that highlight key elements of the work. Additionally, there may be some indication of the reading level and anticipated audience.
• Critical review: Describes and evaluates the book in relation to accepted literary and historical standards and supports this evaluation with evidence from the text and, in most cases, in contrast to and in comparison with the research of others. It should include a statement about what the author has tried to do, evaluates how well you believe the author has succeeded in meeting the objectives of the study, and presents evidence to support this assessment. For most course assignments, your professor will want you to write this type of review.

Book Reviews. Writing Center. University of New Hampshire; Book Reviews: How to Write a Book Review. Writing and Style Guides. Libraries. Dalhousie University; Kindle, Peter A. "Teaching Students to Write Book Reviews." Contemporary Rural Social Work 7 (2015): 135-141; Erwin, R. W. “Reviewing Books for Scholarly Journals.” In Writing and Publishing for Academic Authors . Joseph M. Moxley and Todd Taylor. 2 nd edition. (Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield, 1997), pp. 83-90.

How to Approach Writing Your Review

NOTE:   Since most course assignments require that you write a critical rather than descriptive book review, the following information about preparing to write and developing the structure and style of reviews focuses on this approach.

I.  Common Features

While book reviews vary in tone, subject, and style, they share some common features. These include:

• A review gives the reader a concise summary of the content . This includes a description of the research topic and scope of analysis as well as an overview of the book's overall perspective, argument, and purpose.
• A review offers a critical assessment of the content in relation to other studies on the same topic . This involves documenting your reactions to the work under review--what strikes you as noteworthy or important, whether or not the arguments made by the author(s) were effective or persuasive, and how the work enhanced your understanding of the research problem under investigation.
• In addition to analyzing a book's strengths and weaknesses, a scholarly review often recommends whether or not readers would value the work for its authenticity and overall quality . This measure of quality includes both the author's ideas and arguments and covers practical issues, such as, readability and language, organization and layout, indexing, and, if needed, the use of non-textual elements .

To maintain your focus, always keep in mind that most assignments ask you to discuss a book's treatment of its topic, not the topic itself . Your key sentences should say, "This book shows...,” "The study demonstrates...," or “The author argues...," rather than "This happened...” or “This is the case....”

II.  Developing a Critical Assessment Strategy

There is no definitive methodological approach to writing a book review in the social sciences, although it is necessary that you think critically about the research problem under investigation before you begin to write. Therefore, writing a book review is a three-step process: 1) carefully taking notes as you read the text; 2) developing an argument about the value of the work under consideration; and, 3) clearly articulating that argument as you write an organized and well-supported assessment of the work.

A useful strategy in preparing to write a review is to list a set of questions that should be answered as you read the book [remember to note the page numbers so you can refer back to the text!]. The specific questions to ask yourself will depend upon the type of book you are reviewing. For example, a book that is presenting original research about a topic may require a different set of questions to ask yourself than a work where the author is offering a personal critique of an existing policy or issue.

Here are some sample questions that can help you think critically about the book:

• Thesis or Argument . What is the central thesis—or main argument—of the book? If the author wanted you to get one main idea from the book, what would it be? How does it compare or contrast to the world that you know or have experienced? What has the book accomplished? Is the argument clearly stated and does the research support this?
• Topic . What exactly is the subject or topic of the book? Is it clearly articulated? Does the author cover the subject adequately? Does the author cover all aspects of the subject in a balanced fashion? Can you detect any biases? What type of approach has the author adopted to explore the research problem [e.g., topical, analytical, chronological, descriptive]?
• Evidence . How does the author support their argument? What evidence does the author use to prove their point? Is the evidence based on an appropriate application of the method chosen to gather information? Do you find that evidence convincing? Why or why not? Does any of the author's information [or conclusions] conflict with other books you've read, courses you've taken, or just previous assumptions you had about the research problem?
• Structure . How does the author structure their argument? Does it follow a logical order of analysis? What are the parts that make up the whole? Does the argument make sense to you? Does it persuade you? Why or why not?
• Take-aways . How has this book helped you understand the research problem? Would you recommend the book to others? Why or why not?

Beyond the content of the book, you may also consider some information about the author and the general presentation of information. Question to ask may include:

• The Author: Who is the author? The nationality, political persuasion, education, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details about how a work takes shape. Does it matter, for example, that the author is affiliated with a particular organization? What difference would it make if the author participated in the events they wrote about? What other topics has the author written about? Does this work build on prior research or does it represent a new or unique area of research?
• The Presentation: What is the book's genre? Out of what discipline does it emerge? Does it conform to or depart from the conventions of its genre? These questions can provide a historical or other contextual standard upon which to base your evaluations. If you are reviewing the first book ever written on the subject, it will be important for your readers to know this. Keep in mind, though, that declarative statements about being the “first,” the "best," or the "only" book of its kind can be a risky unless you're absolutely certain because your professor [presumably] has a much better understanding of the overall research literature.

NOTE: Most critical book reviews examine a topic in relation to prior research. A good strategy for identifying this prior research is to examine sources the author(s) cited in the chapters introducing the research problem and, of course, any review of the literature. However, you should not assume that the author's references to prior research is authoritative or complete. If any works related to the topic have been excluded, your assessment of the book should note this . Be sure to consult with a librarian to ensure that any additional studies are located beyond what has been cited by the author(s).

Book Reviews. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Book Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Hartley, James. "Reading and Writing Book Reviews Across the Disciplines." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (July 2006): 1194–1207;   Motta-Roth, D. “Discourse Analysis and Academic Book Reviews: A Study of Text and Disciplinary Cultures.”  In Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes . Fortanet Gómez, Inmaculada  et  al., editors. (Castellò de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, 1998), pp. 29-45. Writing a Book Review. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing Book Reviews. Writing Tutorial Services, Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. Indiana University; Suárez, Lorena and Ana I. Moreno. “The Rhetorical Structure of Academic Journal Book Reviews: A Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Approach .” In Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, María del Carmen Pérez Llantada Auría, Ramón Plo Alastrué, and Claus Peter Neumann. Actas del V Congreso Internacional AELFE/Proceedings of the 5th International AELFE Conference . Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza, 2006.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Bibliographic Information

Bibliographic information refers to the essential elements of a work if you were to cite it in a paper [i.e., author, title, date of publication, etc.]. Provide the essential information about the book using the writing style [e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago] preferred by your professor or used by the discipline of your major . Depending on how your professor wants you to organize your review, the bibliographic information represents the heading of your review. In general, it would look like this:

[Complete title of book. Author or authors. Place of publication. Publisher. Date of publication. Number of pages before first chapter, often in Roman numerals. Total number of pages]. The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle over American History . By Jill Lepore. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010. xii, 207 pp.)

Reviewed by [your full name].

II.  Scope/Purpose/Content

Begin your review by telling the reader not only the overarching concern of the book in its entirety [the subject area] but also what the author's particular point of view is on that subject [the thesis statement]. If you cannot find an adequate statement in the author's own words or if you find that the thesis statement is not well-developed, then you will have to compose your own introductory thesis statement that does cover all the material. This statement should be no more than one paragraph and must be succinctly stated, accurate, and unbiased.

If you find it difficult to discern the overall aims and objectives of the book [and, be sure to point this out in your review if you determine that this is a deficiency], you may arrive at an understanding of the book's overall purpose by assessing the following:

• Scan the table of contents because it can help you understand how the book was organized and will aid in determining the author's main ideas and how they were developed [e.g., chronologically, topically, historically, etc.].
• Why did the author write on this subject rather than on some other subject?
• From what point of view is the work written?
• Was the author trying to give information, to explain something technical, or to convince the reader of a belief’s validity by dramatizing it in action?
• What is the general field or genre, and how does the book fit into it? If necessary, review related literature from other books and journal articles to familiarize yourself with the field.
• Who is the intended audience?
• What is the author's style? Is it formal or informal? You can evaluate the quality of the writing style by noting some of the following standards: coherence, clarity, originality, forcefulness, accurate use of technical words, conciseness, fullness of development, and fluidity [i.e., quality of the narrative flow].
• How did the book affect you? Were there any prior assumptions you had about the subject that were changed, abandoned, or reinforced after reading the book? How is the book related to your own personal beliefs or assumptions? What personal experiences have you had related to the subject that affirm or challenge underlying assumptions?
• How well has the book achieved the goal(s) set forth in the preface, introduction, and/or foreword?
• Would you recommend this book to others? Why or why not?

III.  Note the Method

Support your remarks with specific references to text and quotations that help to illustrate the literary method used to state the research problem, describe the research design, and analyze the findings. In general, authors tend to use the following literary methods, exclusively or in combination.

• Description : The author depicts scenes and events by giving specific details that appeal to the five senses, or to the reader’s imagination. The description presents background and setting. Its primary purpose is to help the reader realize, through as many details as possible, the way persons, places, and things are situated within the phenomenon being described.
• Narration : The author tells the story of a series of events, usually thematically or in chronological order. In general, the emphasis in scholarly books is on narration of the events. Narration tells what has happened and, in some cases, using this method to forecast what could happen in the future. Its primary purpose is to draw the reader into a story and create a contextual framework for understanding the research problem.
• Exposition : The author uses explanation and analysis to present a subject or to clarify an idea. Exposition presents the facts about a subject or an issue clearly and as impartially as possible. Its primary purpose is to describe and explain, to document for the historical record an event or phenomenon.
• Argument : The author uses techniques of persuasion to establish understanding of a particular truth, often in the form of addressing a research question, or to convince the reader of its falsity. The overall aim is to persuade the reader to believe something and perhaps to act on that belief. Argument takes sides on an issue and aims to convince the reader that the author's position is valid, logical, and/or reasonable.

IV.  Critically Evaluate the Contents

Critical comments should form the bulk of your book review . State whether or not you feel the author's treatment of the subject matter is appropriate for the intended audience. Ask yourself:

• Has the purpose of the book been achieved?
• What contributions does the book make to the field?
• Is the treatment of the subject matter objective or at least balanced in describing all sides of a debate?
• Are there facts and evidence that have been omitted?
• What kinds of data, if any, are used to support the author's thesis statement?
• Can the same data be interpreted to explain alternate outcomes?
• Is the writing style clear and effective?
• Does the book raise important or provocative issues or topics for discussion?
• Does the book bring attention to the need for further research?
• What has been left out?

Support your evaluation with evidence from the text and, when possible, state the book's quality in relation to other scholarly sources. If relevant, note of the book's format, such as, layout, binding, typography, etc. Are there tables, charts, maps, illustrations, text boxes, photographs, or other non-textual elements? Do they aid in understanding the text? Describing this is particularly important in books that contain a lot of non-textual elements.

NOTE:   It is important to carefully distinguish your views from those of the author so as not to confuse your reader. Be clear when you are describing an author's point of view versus expressing your own.

V.  Examine the Front Matter and Back Matter

Front matter refers to any content before the first chapter of the book. Back matter refers to any information included after the final chapter of the book . Front matter is most often numbered separately from the rest of the text in lower case Roman numerals [i.e. i - xi ]. Critical commentary about front or back matter is generally only necessary if you believe there is something that diminishes the overall quality of the work [e.g., the indexing is poor] or there is something that is particularly helpful in understanding the book's contents [e.g., foreword places the book in an important context].

Front matter that may be considered for evaluation when reviewing its overall quality:

• Table of contents -- is it clear? Is it detailed or general? Does it reflect the true contents of the book? Does it help in understanding a logical sequence of content?
• Author biography -- also found as back matter, the biography of author(s) can be useful in determining the authority of the writer and whether the book builds on prior research or represents new research. In scholarly reviews, noting the author's affiliation and prior publications can be a factor in helping the reader determine the overall validity of the work [i.e., are they associated with a research center devoted to studying the problem under investigation].
• Foreword -- the purpose of a foreword is to introduce the reader to the author and the content of the book, and to help establish credibility for both. A foreword may not contribute any additional information about the book's subject matter, but rather, serves as a means of validating the book's existence. In these cases, the foreword is often written by a leading scholar or expert who endorses the book's contributions to advancing research about the topic. Later editions of a book sometimes have a new foreword prepended [appearing before an older foreword, if there was one], which may be included to explain how the latest edition differs from previous editions. These are most often written by the author.
• Acknowledgements -- scholarly studies in the social sciences often take many years to write, so authors frequently acknowledge the help and support of others in getting their research published. This can be as innocuous as acknowledging the author's family or the publisher. However, an author may acknowledge prominent scholars or subject experts, staff at key research centers, people who curate important archival collections, or organizations that funded the research. In these particular cases, it may be worth noting these sources of support in your review, particularly if the funding organization is biased or its mission is to promote a particular agenda.
• Preface -- generally describes the genesis, purpose, limitations, and scope of the book and may include acknowledgments of indebtedness to people who have helped the author complete the study. Is the preface helpful in understanding the study? Does it provide an effective framework for understanding what's to follow?
• Chronology -- also may be found as back matter, a chronology is generally included to highlight key events related to the subject of the book. Do the entries contribute to the overall work? Is it detailed or very general?
• List of non-textual elements -- a book that contains numerous charts, photographs, maps, tables, etc. will often list these items after the table of contents in the order that they appear in the text. Is this useful?

Back matter that may be considered for evaluation when reviewing its overall quality:

• Afterword -- this is a short, reflective piece written by the author that takes the form of a concluding section, final commentary, or closing statement. It is worth mentioning in a review if it contributes information about the purpose of the book, gives a call to action, summarizes key recommendations or next steps, or asks the reader to consider key points made in the book.
• Appendix -- is the supplementary material in the appendix or appendices well organized? Do they relate to the contents or appear superfluous? Does it contain any essential information that would have been more appropriately integrated into the text?
• Index -- are there separate indexes for names and subjects or one integrated index. Is the indexing thorough and accurate? Are elements used, such as, bold or italic fonts to help identify specific places in the book? Does the index include "see also" references to direct you to related topics?
• Glossary of Terms -- are the definitions clearly written? Is the glossary comprehensive or are there key terms missing? Are any terms or concepts mentioned in the text not included that should have been?
• Endnotes -- examine any endnotes as you read from chapter to chapter. Do they provide important additional information? Do they clarify or extend points made in the body of the text? Should any notes have been better integrated into the text rather than separated? Do the same if the author uses footnotes.
• Bibliography/References/Further Readings -- review any bibliography, list of references to sources, and/or further readings the author may have included. What kinds of sources appear [e.g., primary or secondary, recent or old, scholarly or popular, etc.]? How does the author make use of them? Be sure to note important omissions of sources that you believe should have been utilized, including important digital resources or archival collections.

VI.  Summarize and Comment

State your general conclusions briefly and succinctly. Pay particular attention to the author's concluding chapter and/or afterword. Is the summary convincing? List the principal topics, and briefly summarize the author’s ideas about these topics, main points, and conclusions. If appropriate and to help clarify your overall evaluation, use specific references to text and quotations to support your statements. If your thesis has been well argued, the conclusion should follow naturally. It can include a final assessment or simply restate your thesis. Do not introduce new information in the conclusion. If you've compared the book to any other works or used other sources in writing the review, be sure to cite them at the end of your book review in the same writing style as your bibliographic heading of the book.

Book Reviews. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Book Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Gastel, Barbara. "Special Books Section: A Strategy for Reviewing Books for Journals." BioScience 41 (October 1991): 635-637; Hartley, James. "Reading and Writing Book Reviews Across the Disciplines." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (July 2006): 1194–1207; Lee, Alexander D., Bart N. Green, Claire D. Johnson, and Julie Nyquist. "How to Write a Scholarly Book Review for Publication in a Peer-reviewed Journal: A Review of the Literature." Journal of Chiropractic Education 24 (2010): 57-69; Nicolaisen, Jeppe. "The Scholarliness of Published Peer Reviews: A Bibliometric Study of Book Reviews in Selected Social Science Fields." Research Evaluation 11 (2002): 129-140;.Procter, Margaret. The Book Review or Article Critique. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Reading a Book to Review It. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Scarnecchia, David L. "Writing Book Reviews for the Journal Of Range Management and Rangelands." Rangeland Ecology and Management 57 (2004): 418-421; Simon, Linda. "The Pleasures of Book Reviewing." Journal of Scholarly Publishing 27 (1996): 240-241; Writing a Book Review. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing Book Reviews. Writing Tutorial Services, Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. Indiana University.

Writing Tip

Always Read the Foreword and/or the Preface

If they are included in the front matter, a good place for understanding a book's overall purpose, organization, contributions to further understanding of the research problem, and relationship to other studies is to read the preface and the foreword. The foreword may be written by someone other than the author or editor and can be a person who is famous or who has name recognition within the discipline. A foreword is often included to add credibility to the work.

The preface is usually an introductory essay written by the author or editor. It is intended to describe the book's overall purpose, arrangement, scope, and overall contributions to the literature. When reviewing the book, it can be useful to critically evaluate whether the goals set forth in the foreword and/or preface were actually achieved. At the very least, they can establish a foundation for understanding a study's scope and purpose as well as its significance in contributing new knowledge.

Distinguishing between a Foreword, a Preface, and an Introduction . Book Creation Learning Center. Greenleaf Book Group, 2019.

Locating Book Reviews

There are several databases the USC Libraries subscribes to that include the full-text or citations to book reviews. Short, descriptive reviews can also be found at book-related online sites such as Amazon , although it's not always obvious who has written them and may actually be created by the publisher. The following databases provide comprehensive access to scholarly, full-text book reviews:

• ProQuest [1983-present]
• Book Review Digest Retrospective [1905-1982]

Some Language for Evaluating Texts

It can be challenging to find the proper vocabulary from which to discuss and evaluate a book. Here is a list of some active verbs for referring to texts and ideas that you might find useful:

• account for
• demonstrate
• distinguish
• investigate

Examples of usage

• "The evidence indicates that..."
• "This work assesses the effect of..."
• "The author identifies three key reasons for..."
• "This book questions the view that..."
• "This work challenges assumptions about...."

Paquot, Magali. Academic Keyword List. Centre for English Corpus Linguistics. Université Catholique de Louvain.

• << Previous: Leading a Class Discussion
• Next: Multiple Book Review Essay >>
• Last Updated: Mar 6, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

How to Write Academic Book Review – a Complete Guide

Introduction

Welcome to The Knowledge Nest, your go-to resource for comprehensive guides on various academic subjects. In this guide, we will provide you with all the necessary information and steps to write an outstanding academic book review.

Why Write an Academic Book Review?

Before diving into the details, let's first understand why writing an academic book review is important. A book review allows you to critically analyze and assess the merit of a particular book. It not only helps you sharpen your analytical skills but also provides an opportunity to contribute to the academic community by sharing your insights and recommendations.

Step 1: Choose the Right Book

The first step in writing a high-quality academic book review is to select the right book. Identify a book that aligns with your area of interest or the subject you are studying. Ensure that the book is relevant, reputable, and has a substantial impact on the field you wish to explore.

Step 2: Read the Book Thoroughly

Once you have chosen the book, it's time to engage in a comprehensive reading. Read the book attentively, making notes of key arguments, main themes, and any significant evidence presented by the author. Pay close attention to the author's writing style, methodology, and the overall structure of the book.

Step 3: Analyze and Evaluate

After reading the book, critically analyze and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. Consider the author's arguments, their supporting evidence, and how effectively they present their ideas. Assess the book's contribution to the field, its relevance, and its potential impact on future scholarship.

Step 4: Organize Your Thoughts

Before starting to write the actual review, it's essential to organize your thoughts and create an outline. Identify the main points and arguments you wish to address in your review. This will help you maintain a logical flow and structure in your writing.

Step 5: Start Writing

Now that you have a clear outline, it's time to put pen to paper and start writing your academic book review. Begin with a concise introduction that provides an overview of the book and its context. Clearly state your thesis or main argument regarding the book's strengths and weaknesses.

Step 6: Support Your Claims

As you progress with your review, make sure to back up your claims and arguments with supporting evidence from the book. Quote relevant passages, cite significant examples, and provide specific details to substantiate your viewpoints. Remember to analyze and critique the book's content objectively and fairly.

Step 7: Summarize and Conclude

In the final section of your review, summarize your main points and offer a concise conclusion. Highlight the book's significance and evaluate its contribution to the field. You can also provide recommendations for further research or suggest potential audiences who would benefit from reading the book.

Step 8: Revise and Refine

After completing your initial draft, take the time to revise and refine your review. Check for grammatical errors, ensure clarity in your arguments, and strengthen the overall structure of your writing. Edit ruthlessly to make your review concise, coherent, and compelling.

Step 9: Finalize and Submit

Once you are satisfied with the quality of your review, make any final adjustments and proofread carefully. Ensure that your content adheres to any specific submission guidelines provided by your academic institution or the platform where you plan to publish your review. Submit your review with confidence!

Writing an academic book review is a challenging task that requires careful analysis, critical thinking, and effective communication skills. By following the steps outlined in this guide, you will be well-equipped to craft a comprehensive and insightful book review that contributes to the scholarly discourse in your field.

About The Knowledge Nest

The Knowledge Nest is a community-driven platform dedicated to providing valuable educational resources and comprehensive guides across various academic disciplines. Our mission is to empower learners by sharing knowledge and enabling them to excel in their educational endeavors.

Tags: Academic Book Review, How to Write Academic Book Review, Writing Book Reviews, Writing Tips, The Knowledge Nest

Ph.D. Dissertation Help on Management

How to Start a Book Report - Studybay

An Overview of the Major Ethical Issues in Information Systems

All About Nike Shoes Manufacturing Process

Architecture Thesis Examples

Tips for Writing a Biography Book Report - Studybay

Economics Research Paper Examples & Study Documents

Dissertation Data Analysis Help - Studybay

Geography Homework Help for Stress-Free Studying - The Knowledge Nest

College Homework Help for Students - Studybay

The Academic Book Review

• First Online: 22 August 2023

Cite this chapter

• Irena Vassileva 2  

52 Accesses

This chapter dwells on the features and functions of the academic book review and uses the methodology of contrastive discourse analysis where the languages envisaged are English and German. The methodological apparatus for the analysis of academic book reviews in the two languages is the classical theory of argumentation. The results of the analysis show that of the three types of argumentation depending on the speaker’s purpose (epistemic, deontic, and ethical), epistemic argumentation dominates the reviews. This is not surprising, since academic discourse generally reflects the natural striving of science for the truth and for explanations of phenomena. Deontic argumentation is observed in recommendations where reviewers usually propose alternative, allegedly better ways and means of solving a particular problem. In contrast to other academic genres, deontic argumentation is relatively more frequent due to the evaluative character of the reviews. The same holds for ethical argumentation that presupposes the categorization of a claim on the scale of ‘good–bad’. Although this kind of personalized evaluation clashes in principle with the universal assumption of the objectivity of science, the wide use of topoi from the person in reviews points once again to their highly subjective character.

Especially prominent in this respect is the relatively frequent use of ‘personal attacks’ in English, realized in “scornful, contemptuous, and sarcastic tones” (Tannen, J Pragmatics, 34:1664, 2002)—a fact that contradicts Galtung’s (Struktur, Kultur und intellektueller Stil. Ein vergleichender Essay über sachsonische, teutonische, gallische und nipponische Wissenschaft. In Wierlacher A (ed) Das Fremde und das EigeneJudicum-Verlag, pp 151–193, 1985) observation that the English-speaking academic discourse community is more tolerant than the German-speaking one. This new development is most probably due to the function of English as the world lingua franca of research, the language which is the medium of the ever-growing global competition in academia.

• The academic book review
• Addressivity
• Theory of argumentation
• Premises in English and German
• Topoi in English and German book reviews

A shorter version of part of this chapter, including all graphs, has been published in: Vassileva, Irena (2010) Critical Book Reviews in German. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 20, N 3 . 354–367.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

The peculiar reluctance when it comes to criticism can also be explained by the fear that criticized colleagues could “take revenge” as reviewers under the protection of anonymity. Giving well-founded criticism is more time-consuming than handing out compliments, it benefits the competition, and replication studies hardly bring any reputation. In addition, criticism often goes largely unnoticed.

http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/guidelines.cfm

The frequent references to printing mistakes also seem to be a professionally related speciality of linguists.

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.; M. Holquist, Ed.). University of Texas Press.

Google Scholar  

Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speeh genres and other late essays (Ver W. McGee, Trans.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.). University of Texas press.

Bal-Gezegin, B. (2016). A corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse in academic book reviews. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232 , 713–718.

Article   Google Scholar  

Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the cultures of disciplines . SRHE/OUP.

Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse . Continuum.

Candlin, C., & Maley, Y. (1997). Intertextuality and interdiscursivity in the discourse of alternative dispute resolution. In B.-L. Gunnarson, P. Linell, & B. Nordberg (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse (pp. 201–222). Longman.

Clark, K., & Holquist, M. (1984). Michail Bakhtin . Harvard University Press.

Clyne, M. (1991). The sociocultural dimension: The dilemma of the German-speaking scholar. In H. Schröder (Ed.), Subject-oriented texts (pp. 49–67). de Gruyter.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Clyne, M. (1993a). Pragmatik, Textstruktur und kulturelle Werte. Eine interkulturelle Perspektive. In H. Schröder (Ed.), Fachtextpragmatik (pp. 3–18). Gunter Narr Verlag.

Clyne, M. (1993b). Homogene und heterogene Strömungen: Eindrücke aus dem fernen Süden von der deutschen Sprache und dem neuen Europa. In J. Born & G. Stickel (Eds.), Deutsch als Verkehrssprache in Europa (pp. 2–37). Walter de Gruyter.

Diani, G. (2007). The representation of evaluative and argumentative procedures: Examples from the academic book review article. Textus, XX , 37–56.

Eggs, E. (1994). Grammaire du discours argumentatif . Kime.

Eggs, E. (1996). Formen des Argumentierens in Zeitungskommentaren – Manipulation durch mehrsträngig-assoziatives Argumentieren? In E. W. B. Hess-Lüttich, W. Holly, & U. Püschel (Eds.), Textstrukturen im Medienwandel (pp. 179–209). Peter Lang.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power . Longman.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge . Tavistock Publications.

Fröhlich, G. (2003). Kontrolle durch Konkurrenz und Kritik? Das „wissenschaftliche Feld“ bei Pierre Bourdieu. In Boike Rehbein, Gernot Saalmann, Hermann Schwengel (Eds.), Pierre Bourdieus Theorie des Sozialen (117–129). UVK.

Galtung, J. (1985). Struktur, Kultur und intellektueller Stil. Ein vergleichender Essay über sachsonische, teutonische, gallische und nipponische Wissenschaft. In A. Wierlacher (Ed.), Das Fremde und das Eigene (pp. 151–193). Judicum-Verlag.

Giannoni, D. S. (2006). Expressing praise and criticism in economic discourse: A comparative analysis of English and Italian Book Reviews. In G. Del Lungo Camiciotti, M. Dossena, & B. Crawford Camiciottoli (Eds.), Variation in business and economics discourse. Diachronic and genre Prespectives (pp. 126–138). Officina Edizioni.

Giannoni, D. S. (2007). Metatextual evaluation in journal editorial. Textus, XX , 57–82.

Gläser, R. (1990). Fachtextsorten im Englischen . Gunter Narr Verlag.

Halliday, M. (1985). Introduction to functional grammar . Edward Arnold.

Hunston, S. (1993). Professional conflict: Disagreement in academic discourse. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 115–134). John Benjamins.

Hutz, M. (2001). “Insgesamt muss ich leider zu einem ungünstigen Urteil kommen.” Zur Kulturspezifik wissenschaftlicher Rezensionen im Deutschen und Englischen. In Ulla Fix, et al. (Eds.), Zur Kulturspezifik von Textsorten (pp. 109–130). Stauffenburg Verlag.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses, Michigan classics ed.: Social interactions in academic writing . University of Michigan Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (2009). Academic evaluation. Review genres in university settings . Palgrave Macmillan.

Itakura, H., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2011). Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese and English book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 ( 5 ), 1366–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023

Knapp-Potthoff, A. (1992). Secondhand politeness. In R. J. Watts et al. (Eds.), Politeness in language (pp. 203–220). Mouton de Gruyter.

Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader (pp. 34–61). Blackwell.

Lather, P. (1999). To be of use: The work of reviewing. Review of Educational Research, LXIX (1), 15–26.

Maingueneau, D. (1976). Initiation aux Methodes d’Analyse du Discours . Hachette.

Martin, J. R. (1998). Discourses of science. Recontextualisation, genesis, intertextuality and hegemony. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science. Critical and functional perspectives on discourse of science (pp. 3–14). Routledge.

McElholm, D. (2002). Text and argumentation in English for science and technology . Peter Lang.

Moreno, A. I., & Suárez, L. (2008). A study of critical attitude across English and Spanish academic book reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, VII (1), 2–7.

Moreno, A. I., & Suárez, L. (2009). Academic book reviews in English and Spanish: Critical comments and rhetorical structure. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation. Review genres in university settings (pp. 161–178). Palgrave Macmillan.

Motta-Roth, D. (1996). Investigating connections between text and discourse communities: A cross-disciplinary study of evaluative discourse practices in academic book reviews . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Applied linguistics, 23–26 March 1996, http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/eridocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/39/cf/88.pdf . Accessed on 14 Feb 2008.

Obeng-Odoom, F. (2014). Why write book reviews? Australian Universities’ Review, 56 (1), 78–82.

Ong, W. J. (1977). The Writer’s audience is always a fiction. In Interfaces of the word: Studies in the evolution of consciousness and culture (pp. 53–81). Cornell University.

Ottmers, C. (1996). Rhetorik . J. B. Metzler Verlag.

Pagano, A. (1994). Negatives in written texts. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 250–265). Routledge.

Pätzold, J. (1984). Beschreibung und Erwerb von Handlungsmustern . Beispiel: Rezensionen wissenschaftlicher Publikationen . Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Reihe A. Arbeitsberichte 138.

Phelps, L. (1990). Audience and authorship: The disappearing boundary. In G. Kirsch & D. Roen (Eds.), A sense of audience in written communication (pp. 153–174). Sage Publications.

Purves, A. C. (1984). The teacher as reader: An anatomy. College English, 46 , 259–265.

Römer, U. (2008). Identification impossible? A corpus approach to Realisations of evaluative meaning in academic writing. Functions of Language, XV (1), 115–130.

Salager-Meyer, F. (2001). The bittersweet rhetoric of controversiality in 19th- and 20th-century French and English medical literature. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2 , 141–173.

Sanz, R. L. (2009). (Non-) critical voices in the reviewing of history discourse: A cross-cultural study of evaluation. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation. Review genres in university settings (pp. 143–160). Palgrave Macmillan.

Shaw, P. (2004). How do we recognise implicit evaluation in academic book reviews? In G. Del Lungo Camiciotti & E. Tognini Bonelli (Eds.), Academic discourse – New insights into evaluation (pp. 121–140). Peter Lang.

Shaw, P. (2009). The lexis and grammar of explicit evaluation in academic book reviews, 1913 and 1993. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation. Review genres in university settings (pp. 217–235). Palgrave Macmillan.

Simon, L. (1996). The pleasures of book reviewing: Suggestions for how to get started as a book reviewer, when one should not review a particular book and how the review publication process works. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. North York: Jul 1996, 27 ( 4 ), 237–241.

Spink, A., Robins, D., & Schamber, L. (1998). Use of scholarly book reviews: Implications for electronic publishing and scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49 (4), 364–374.

Swales, J. (2004). Research genres. Exploration and applications . Cambridge University Press.

Tannen, D. (2002). Agonism in academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 34 , 1651–1669.

Tomlinson, B. (1990). Ong may be wrong: Negotiating with nonfictional readers. In G. Kirsch & D. Roen (Eds.), A sense of audience in written communication (pp. 85–98). Sage Publications.

Van Eemeren, F. H. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory . Erlbaum.

Vassileva, I. (2006). Author-audience interaction. A cross-cultural perspective . Asgard Verlag.

Vassileva, I. (2010). Critical book reviews in German. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20 (3), 354–367.

Ventola, E. (1999). Semiotic spanning at conferences: Cohesion and coherence in and across conference papers and their discussions. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, & E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 1–35). John Benjamins.

Volosinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language (L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik, Trans.). Seminar Press. Generally attributed to M. M. Bakhtin.

Wiegand, H. E. (1983). Nachdenken über wissenschaftliche Rezensionen. Deutsche Sprache, 11 , 122–137.

Wiley, M. V. (1993). How to read a book: Reflections on the ethics of book reviewing. The Journal of Advanced Composition, 13 (2), 477–492. Accessed at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20865928

Wills, W. (1997). Hedges in expert-language reviews. In R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 134–147). Walter de Gruyter.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Foreign Languages and Cultures, New Bulgarian University, Sofia, Bulgaria

Irena Vassileva

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Vassileva, I. (2023). The Academic Book Review. In: Confrontation in Academic Communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32736-0_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32736-0_4

Published : 22 August 2023

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-32735-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-32736-0

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Chiropr Educ
• v.24(1); Spring 2010

How to Write a Scholarly Book Review for Publication in a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Alexander d. lee.

Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College

Bart N. Green

Naval Medical Center, San Diego, National University of Health Sciences

Claire D. Johnson

National University of Health Sciences

Julie Nyquist

University of Southern California

Alexander Lee is with the Department of Graduate Education and Research Programs, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College. Bart Green is with the Chiropractic Division, Department of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, the Department of Publications, National University of Health Sciences, and is Editor-in-Chief for The Journal of Chiropractic Education . Claire Johnson is with the Department of Publications, National University of Health Sciences. Julie Nyquist is with the Division of Medical Education, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California.

To describe and discuss the processes used to write scholarly book reviews for publication in peer-reviewed journals and to provide a recommended strategy and book appraisal worksheet to use when conducting book reviews.

A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature was conducted in June 2009 using a combination of controlled vocabulary and truncated text words to capture articles relevant to writing scholarly book reviews for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

The initial search identified 839 citations. Following the removal of duplicates and the application of selection criteria, a total of 78 articles were included in this review including narrative commentaries ( n  = 26), editorials or journal announcements ( n  = 25), original research ( n  = 18), and journal correspondence pieces ( n  = 9).

Discussion:

Recommendations for planning and writing an objective and quality book review are presented based on the evidence gleaned from the articles reviewed and from the authors' experiences. A worksheet for conducting a book review is provided.

Conclusions:

The scholarly book review serves many purposes and has the potential to be an influential literary form. The process of publishing a successful scholarly book review requires the reviewer to appreciate the book review publication process and to be aware of the skills and strategies involved in writing a successful review.

Introduction

In the current publishing market, there is no shortage of books written for the busy health care practitioner or academic professional. 1 The scholarly book reviewer plays an important role in informing readers about new books and guiding their reading preferences as they explore the Internet and large catalogues provided by publishers. With the expectations of the many stakeholders in the book review process (readers, authors, journal editors, and publishers) mounted on the reviewer's shoulders, the production of a well balanced, engaging, and informative critique, within the confines of a predetermined word limit, is no simple task. Some book review editors describe book reviewing as a fine art. 2

The scholarly book review is considered by some to be a form of academic writing that serves to describe and critically evaluate the content, quality, meaning, and significance of a book. 3–6 A well constructed book review can provide a thoughtful perspective and will be appreciated by all; however, “…a bad review blows up in your face, not just in the author's.” 7 Many problems identified in poorly conducted book reviews can be attributed to the poor evaluative and writing skills of the reviewer. 8 However, sometimes these problems are rooted in the book reviewer's lack of understanding of portions of the book review process. 7 An appreciation of the purpose and significance of all aspects of the book review process can provide the book review author with a wider perspective to employ when crafting a book review.

In the biomedical literature, there are a number of expert opinion pieces that describe strategies for evaluating books and writing book reviews. 2 , 5 , 6 , 9–14 However, we were unable to find an evidence-based source to assist authors when writing a book review. Thus, we conducted a structured literature search and narrative review of the literature to equip the book reviewer with an evidence-based understanding of all aspects pertaining to the book review process. This article provides an amalgamation of recommendations and a helpful worksheet to use when conducting book reviews.

A literature search was conducted in June 2009 using the following databases: MEDLINE (1950– 2009) and EMBASE (1980–2009) through OVID Publishing, CINAHL Plus with Full Text (1937– 2009) through EBSCO Publishing, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature (2000–2009). The search strategy used a combination of controlled vocabulary from the respective databases and truncated text words. All terms from the controlled vocabularies were exploded and searched as major concepts when available. Reference lists of the retrieved studies were scanned to identify any articles that may have been missed from the literature search. A full search strategy is provided in Figure ​ Figure1 1 .

The search strategies used to obtain articles for this report.

Articles retrieved from the search were screened using abstracts and citations. In instances in which the article topic was unclear, the full text was retrieved. Article screening and selection was conducted by the primary author (ADL). Selection criteria for articles to be included in the review were that they must have been published in a peer-reviewed journal and reported on one or more of the following criteria: strategies for conducting scholarly book reviews, thematic issues related to the publication of scholarly book reviews, or recommendations on academic writing of which a section pertained to writing scholarly book reviews.

Articles that met the inclusion criteria were descriptively analyzed by the primary author (ADL) and the data extracted included: author(s), publication type, and narrative information concerning scholarly book reviews and their publication. To generate recommendations for conducting book reviews, the authors' personal experiences writing book reviews and acting as journal editors were used to supplement the evidence gleaned from the articles included in this review.

The initial search yielded 839 citations. After duplicate citations were removed and selection criteria were applied, a total of 76 articles were identified as being relevant for this report. Scanning of reference lists within each article yielded an additional 10 articles. Despite efforts made to contact the sources of eight publications, these articles were irretrievable due to lost holdings from accessed libraries and cessation of journal publication. Therefore, a total of 78 articles 1–78 were included in this review. The articles included were classified into four groups according to their publication formats: 1) narrative commentaries ( n  = 26), 2 , 4–7 , 9–14 , 47–61 2) editorials or journal announcements ( n  = 25), 1 , 3 , 15–37 3) original research ( n  = 18), 8 , 62–78 and 4) journal correspondence ( n  = 9). 38–46

Stakeholders and Purpose of the Book Review

The scholarly book review serves many purposes and is best appreciated by understanding the perspectives of the stakeholders involved. The primary audience for a book review is the journal's readership. Book reviews are an excellent vehicle to inform readers about new books in the marketplace. 27 , 52 Books are relatively expensive and scholars have limited time to commit to reading. Thus, journal patrons may rely upon the book review's evaluative purpose to guide their reading preferences. 11 , 14 Readers need to be informed of new, innovative, and ground-breaking books while being warned of books of poor quality and those that may not relate to their area of interest. 2 The book review can also increase a reader's scope by introducing books that a reader may not otherwise consider reading. 2 , 14

Interestingly, the authors of the books under review may be the most avid readers of book reviews. 10 , 18 Authors have invested much time and effort into writing their books, and it is not surprising that an author would be curious about how other scholars perceive their books. The reviewer has the opportunity to provide the author with the recognition or appreciation they deserve or to provide suggestions for any faults identified in the final product. 23 , 43 Therefore, the book review can play a large role in influencing the development of future editions. 18

Publishers have a vested interest in book reviews because they are an indirect form of advertising and have the potential to influence book sales. 23 While this review did not identify a study that has evaluated the effect of book reviews on book sales, publishers continue to send review copies of their books to journal editors with the prospect of obtaining a book review. 50 In 1983, Morton 64 obtained survey data from 15 publishers. All publishers surveyed believed book reviews had a positive effect on sales to physicians, and each of the publishers in this study distributed review copies to medical journals in the hopes of having a review appear in one or more of the prestigious journals. Publishers may use book reviews to determine if a book is worthy of a future edition, whether changes need to be made for a future edition, and whether the author is worthy of another book contract. 10 , 58 The contents of a favorable review may be used in promotional materials and book reviews can be used for market research for the planning of future titles. 10 , 32

It has been suggested that librarians use book reviews in the selection process for acquiring library holdings. 10 , 60 , 64 , 65 , 68 , 77 Chen 68 cited an average time lag of 10.43 months from book release to book review publication, and Morton 64 identified publication time lag and inadequate book review indexing as limiting factors for the use of book reviews as selection tools. Book reviews may have an indirect effect on library selection by the recommendations of patrons and faculty for book selection. In 1986, Martin 65 surveyed 136 medical acquisition librarians and found that book reviews ranked seventh on a list of 10 selection aids used for book selection by medical librarians and concluded that reviews were often used in conjunction with other selection tools for book selection. Some experts have suggested that book reviews may serve more as aids against which librarians may check their holdings for titles missed or as a means for identifying very important or poor titles. 68 , 74 Whether book reviews are used to determine library holdings is debatable; however, librarians read them and may serve as book reviewers themselves. 77

Lastly, the book review serves several purposes for the reviewers. Publishing a scholarly book review allows the reviewer to contribute to the professional literature by acting as an entrusted critic with the responsibility of informing the readership of seminal works and warning it of inaccurate scholarship. 32 , 61 Publishing book reviews is also an exercise of self-education. Many reviewers welcome the opportunity to stay current by reading a newly released text and enjoy practicing their critical faculties. 50 Academic authorities have proposed that writing a book review may be an excellent first publication experience for the novice writer. 4 , 5 , 12 , 14 , 19 , 30 , 31 , 59 For experienced book reviewers, however, it may be their altruistic commitment to scholarship and the honor of being asked to review a book that may motivate them. 61

Book Review Publication Process

The book review process starts and is driven, to a large extent, by the publisher. 10 , 32 When review copies of new books are available, publishers send review copies to the staff of relevant journals in hopes that the book will be reviewed. Due to the overwhelming number of books sent to journals, not all books received are reviewed. Often the selection of books reviewed is made in accordance to a journal's aim, scope, and readership. 57 Once a book is selected for review, the book review editor must match the book with a qualified reviewer. 9 , 22

Most book reviews appearing in print are commissioned—meaning that book reviewers are invited by the book review editor to conduct the review. 11 , 22 , 36 Book reviewers are typically not paid for their work, but often get to keep the book once they have completed their review. 19 , 25 , 30 , 52 , 59 Therefore, editors tend to rely on a core group of book reviewers with different areas of expertise who have agreed to act in this capacity. Occasionally, the editor will invite a notable expert in the field to review a book. The ideal book reviewer has been described by Johnson 10 as someone who has published himself or herself in the field of concern. It is important that the author is familiar and well read on the topic. Being a specialist or an authority in one's field is an asset, but may not be a necessity. A few editorials and narrative commentaries mention that it is often advantageous to have reviews written by nonexperts who represent the intended audience of the book under review. 4 , 6 , 11 , 22 However, if the book is written for a specialist audience, sufficient knowledge is required to properly review the material. 9 , 11 , 12 , 30

Commissioned reviews are preferred by most editors because it is easier to ensure consistency with journal policy and safeguard from conflict of interest. 11 , 22 , 36 If the majority of reviews are invited, how does one become a reviewer? Occasionally journals will advertise for book reviewers. 6 , 10 , 12 , 26 The majority of experts on book reviewing recommend that interested potential book reviewers contact the book review editor of a journal to express their interest. This should be followed up by sending a curriculum vitae with a cover letter outlining one's area(s) of expertise and the area(s) in which one would like to serve as a reviewer. 11 , 12 , 30 It may be wise to send a portfolio of previously published book reviews and scholarly articles. 58 Unsolicited reviews, while not common, may be accepted by some journals if they are well written. 10 , 12 , 36 , 55 If one is interested in writing an unsolicited review, most authorities advocate contacting the editor(s) of the journal in question prior to writing a review. 10 , 12 , 36

Once an invitation has been extended by the journal editor, the reviewer must decide if he or she is an appropriate match for the book in question. 10 Professional ethics require that reviewers decline an invitation if their objectivity is compromised or if they are not qualified to conduct the review. 8 , 9 Reasons for declining the invitation may include instances when the reviewer has a personal relationship with the author, 2 is being published or is seeking to be published by the same publisher, is not representative of the intended audience, or will be unable to meet the deadline. 9 , 58 Certain journal editors mention that it is easier to handle an initial refusal than to navigate the ramifications of the aforementioned issues. 12 , 36 If the invitation is declined, it is common courtesy for the invited to suggest another potential reviewer and make arrangements to return the book if it is already in possession. 2 , 12

Accompanying the invitation to conduct the book review is a submission deadline that usually ranges from 1 to a few months. 4 , 14 , 19 Research on the time lag from book release to the publication of its review highlights the importance of conducting the review in a timely manner. 64 , 65 , 68 Book review editors have suggested that if the review cannot be completed by the deadline, the book should be sent back to the publisher so it can be reviewed promptly by another qualified individual. 4 , 12 Conducting a high-quality review within the allotted time frame will ensure subsequent invitations to conduct book reviews. 11 , 14

When the completed book review has been submitted, the editor reserves the right to edit or reject the review. 24 It should be noted that book reviews are edited but are not customarily peer reviewed. 50 , 60 Since many journals are not published monthly, it may take up to a year or longer for the review to appear in print. 58 Once published, the journal will sometimes send a copy of the book review to the book publisher.

Appraising the Book

Reading a book for the purposes of generating an informative critique necessitates a planned appraisal strategy. As a first step, the reviewer should research the author's qualifications and previous contributions to the topic area to determine the author's authority. 4 , 5 , 9 , 13 If it is obvious the author is not sufficiently qualified, it may be appropriate to comment on this in the review. Before reading the book in depth, one should briefly skim the book to orient oneself to the organization, layout, and visual appeal. Note the type of book one is reviewing because different methods may be used to review different works. 2 , 12 For example, the strategy for reviewing a new edition of a textbook will require an evaluation of any changes made from previous editions, whereas the assessment of a compilation of conference proceedings may focus on the organization and ease of locating abstracts. 2

The majority of articles included in this report highlight the importance of reading the preface and introduction of the book prior to reading its content. 2 , 4−6 , 9 , 12 , 14 , 52 These sections state the author's intentions, aims, and purpose for writing the book. Most importantly, these two sections will define the intended readership. It is important to judge the book by its aims and objectives and evaluate it from the perspective of the intended readership. 5 , 6 , 14 , 52 A key question to ask is whether the contents are appropriate for the readership level. 2 , 6 , 14 , 58 Book reviewers can error by judging a book by their own aims and objectives and by criticizing authors for something that was explained in the preface. 6 , 7 , 11

Another section of a book that warrants a book reviewer's attention is the table of contents. It provides the reviewer with information about the organization of the book, an overview of its contents, and the development of the topics to be discussed. 2 , 5 , 12 This section can be used to determine if all relevant topics were included or if any key topics were overlooked. 4 , 5

Once oriented to the preface, introduction, and table of contents, the reviewer now has a setting and perspective to appraise the book. The book should be read carefully, taking notes while reading, as any praise, arguments, criticisms, or conclusions made in the review should be substantiated. 5 , 52 The book should be evaluated on a variety of items such as accuracy, completeness, readability, and relevance. 3 , 5 , 11 A book appraisal worksheet is provided in the appendix (also online at www.journalchiroed.com ) and lists a variety of appraisal items to be evaluated when reading a book for review. It also functions as a notation sheet where a reviewer can make notes on any strengths or weaknesses, write comments, provide examples to support these remarks, and make suggestions for improvement. These notes will form the basis of the critique.

While it is important to assess the book on a variety of features, certain key questions should be considered. What makes the book unique? 5 , 11 , 58 , 61 Is the book useful to the intended readership? 5 , 10 , 58 Was the book successful in achieving its aims and objectives? 5 , 10 , 12 How does the book compare to its competitors? 5 , 6 , 10 , 19 What contribution does the book make to the field? 7 , 8 , 47 , 58 , 61 The answers to these questions will help the reviewer describe the distinguishing features of the book and place it within its field. Considering that a book review is a personal account of a book, it is important to note one's personal reactions to the book. 6 , 11

A recurring question in articles that discussed book appraisal strategies was whether the entire book must be read in order to write the review. All articles that answered this question made reference to the respect that must be given to an author's hard work. It would be disrespectful to the author(s) to write a review without carefully reading the entire book. 6 , 11 , 19 , 48 , 49 However, some articles noted exceptions. It may not be practical to read certain books from cover to cover, such as medical dictionaries, encyclopedias, and large multivolume texts. 6 , 52 In these instances, a method of sampling should be developed and these methods should be reported in the book review. 52

Writing the Book Review

Writing the review can be a challenge because there is a reluctance for journals to provide a prescriptive format for writing book reviews. 3 , 5 , 18 Book review editors often prefer reviews that are informative, engaging, and constructively opinionated. 6 , 11 Therefore, any attempt for a book review to be formatted to a strict preconceived style is “…stunting creativity and literary development.” 11 Critics of structured book reviews argue that such reviews are informative but dull. 23 , 28 Since each book is unique, reviews should be tailored to the uniqueness of the book under review and the writing style of the reviewer. Variety in book reviews helps maintain the reader's interest.

It should be noted that certain journals may have specific format requirements; for instance, the inclusion of the book's specifications (eg, author, publisher, ISBN, number of pages, etc.) and word limit. A reviewer should become familiar with the journal's book review policy before writing the review. Although most journals do not provide strict book review writing guidelines, most exhibit an underlying “house style.” 6 , 29 A perusal of book reviews appearing in the journal will orient the reviewer to the journal's informal house style. Word limits vary between journals and can be as short as 75 words to greater than 2000. 6 , 57 Chen's 67 study of 3347 biomedical book reviews found most reviews to be over 265 words. Kroenke 62 identified a mean limit of 373 words among 480 medical book reviews and found that tangential information and reviewer opinions on the subject of the book increased the length of reviews. The majority of sources consulted in this review reported word limits ranging from 250 to 500 words with editors' preferences toward shorter reviews. 5 , 6 , 10 , 20 , 24 , 57 Limited word counts necessitate a concise writing style. Methven 4 recommended combining several ideas into a single sentence to achieve the goal of being succinct. Many book review editors believe the quality of a book review is rarely associated with its length. 4 , 10 , 22 , 24 , 57

While there is no prescriptive style when writing a review, many experts outline a common strategy utilized to convey their critique, 3–5 which is summarized in Table ​ Table1. 1 . These recommendations are in line with Motta-Roth's 79 findings of four main rhetorical moves identified in scholarly book reviews. These four moves are: 1) introduce the book, 2) outline the book, 3) highlight parts of the book, and 4) provide a general evaluation of the book. These four moves were often associated with the start of a new paragraph. 79

A recommended strategy for crafting a book review

The reviewer must now decide which appraisal items to comment on in the review. Kroenke 62 surveyed 480 book reviews and found that the mean number of features commented on per review was 9.0 ± 2.7. With most reviews spanning 250 to 500 words, it is not possible to include a critique of all appraisal items evaluated. The reviewer must decide which items are most important to mention to provide a balanced and informative critique. The book appraisal worksheet found in the appendix is designed to assist the reviewer in compiling all appraisal notes into a single, efficient format for ease of identification of items to be included in the review.

Depending on the specific book under review, certain appraisal items may deserve more mention than others. For instance, a student textbook with an index of limited utility is an important finding; however, the same finding in a patient handbook may not deserve mention. Similarly, the importance of image quality differs for a radiology text compared to a medical dictionary. It is important to recognize that appraisal item selection is specific to the book under review. In addition to these book-specific items, many experts suggest that attempts should be made to place a book in a larger, broader context to allow judgment of the book against its competitors and to allow for the determination of the book's contribution to its field. 3–5 , 8 , 19 , 61 , 62

A final note regarding book review writing is on how to convey criticism. A book review is an evaluative critique. 4 Readers are interested in the book reviewer's opinions and a reviewer should not be afraid to state opinions. 4 Any factual mistakes, shortcomings, or weaknesses should be made known. 6 However, reviewers should be respectful to the authors and write in a professional manner. Book reviewers are not anonymous and the rules of basic courtesy and libel law apply. 25 , 31 , 32 Given that book authors are often readers of book reviews, any unwarranted criticism likely will be read by the book author. 10 , 18 Hill 14 and Boring 47 recommend using descriptive comments, and not conclusions, to describe problems identified in books to allow readers to arrive at their own conclusions. Any criticism should be substantiated with examples or a relevant explanation of the reasons for the criticism to avoid confusion about a reviewer's arguments. 14 , 33 Criticism should also be constructive. 10 , 18 , 33 The reviewer, where possible, should provide suggestions for improvement, because these suggestions may influence the crafting of a future edition. The book appraisal worksheet found in the appendix is designed to aid the reviewer in developing sound criticism by providing a template to document examples to be used to substantiate criticism and to provide suggestions for improvement to ensure constructive comments. Desirable and undesirable characteristics of book reviews are listed in Figure ​ Figure2 2 .

Desirable and undesirable characteristics of book reviews.

Issues Relating to Book Reviews

Three issues deserve special attention: conflicts of interest, reviewer bias, and time lag in publication of reviews. One issue that can affect the credibility of a book review is the influence of a conflict of interest, which exists in scholarly publication when an author, reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence his or her actions. 80 Conflicts of interest can occur when a book under review is published by the same publisher who publishes the journal that prints the review, 63 a book is reviewed by a journal and one of the author(s) or editor(s) of the book is an employee of the journal, 63 the reviewer is a personal friend of the author, 17 the reviewer is a competing researcher or author, 17 or there is financial gain that influences the outcome of the review. 17 Avoiding these conflicts when publishing book reviews can be difficult, especially in highly specialized fields of study, when the pool of qualified experts who contribute to scholarly activities is small. In these situations, the likelihood of book reviewers, book authors, publishers, and journal editors having preexisting relationships increases, potentially affecting one's objectivity. When these conflicts of interest exist, transparency and proper disclosure of conflicts of interest are essential. 17 , 63

In addition to conflicts of interest, reviewer bias can influence book reviews. Fairness, accuracy, and objectivity of a review remain a problematic issue in publishing book reviews. 18 , 20 For instance, book reviewers known to be overly critical may more likely produce negative reviews, enthusiastic reviewers may not scrutinize a literary work properly, and advocates for one opinion in a polarized field of study may not fairly judge a book about competing viewpoints. 18 Reviewer bias has the potential to provide an inaccurate representation of the book in question and may negatively influence a readership's perceived value of the book review process. To increase the objectivity of book reviewers, some authors suggest that journals should encourage printed communication between the reviewer and book author, 18 multiple reviews of the same title should be conducted, 40 and book reviews should be subjected to peer review. While some journals have implemented the former two suggestions, peer review of book reviews has not been widely accepted. 40

As mentioned earlier, the time lag of book review publication is an important issue affecting book reviews. For most academic works, the first year after publication is the period of greatest sales. On average, a book's use declines most rapidly in the early years following publication. 57 , 66 Part of the problem relating to the time lag of book review publication can be attributed to the publishers. Review copies of books are often not available early enough for people to review them in time to coincide with a book's release date. Even if review copies were available, by the time the review is completed, has passed the editing process, and has sat in line for publication, most experts and publishers believe the review would appear in print after the book publication anyway. 64

Future of Book Reviews

The future of the book review is uncertain. Recently, a perceived lack of utility of the book review has contributed to a fall in popularity of the literary form. In the past, the book review may have served more purpose in informing librarians and readers of new books. Currently, in the age of the Internet, librarians and readers are targeted more readily by publishers directly. 32 Also, book reviews do not rank high in the hierarchical scale of professional scholarship. Academic institutions often do not give their scholars credit for publishing book reviews. 23 From a journal's perspective, the book review makes no contribution to the journal's impact factor. 32 , 72 There is also an issue of journal space and limited page count. The publication of a few pages of book reviews implies the rejection or delay in publication of an original research paper, which negatively impacts journal content and timeliness to publication. 32 Currently, there is no evidence to suggest that the publication of book reviews helps sell books, increase readership of journal contents, or generate subscriptions to journals. 32

While some authors highlight issues detracting from the popularity of the scholarly book review, reforms have been proposed to contribute to the evolution of this literary form. Book review editors have proposed the exploration of different book review formats: specifically, the rejoinder, multidisciplinary, special issue, and integrated formats. 8 , 16 , 34 , 61

Rejoinders are reviews where the reviewer and author are given the opportunity to discuss the book and its review in the same journal issue, increasing the objectivity of the reviewer and providing the reader with a more balanced perspective of the book being evaluated. 16 , 52 The multidisciplinary format requires a book be reviewed by multiple reviewers, each coming from a different discipline, allowing a book to be reviewed in a broader disciplinary context. 16 While appearing periodically, the special issue format is used to review books that supplement the central theme of papers in a special journal issue and may allow for better evaluation of a book's contribution to its topic area. 16 The integrated review is a format conducted as an essay commissioned on a specific theme, and imbedded within the essay are reviews of books related to the paper's thesis. By merging book reviews within a treatise of a select topic, reviewers have the opportunity to utilize comparative analysis to extend reader understanding of writings on a topic, while publishing a substantial scholarly paper. 16 , 31 Readers of this format have the opportunity to be enlightened by the essay and will appreciate more the book's significance and contribution of each book to the specific theme under discussion. 16 , 31 , 34 , 35 While these alternative formats may seem appealing, they must demonstrate their usefulness in the framework of the dilemmas that journal editors face, including limited page space, impact factor, reader interest, and a priority to referee peer review of original manuscripts.

Another influential factor affecting the future of book reviews is information technology, which will influence how book reviews will be published as well as what is reviewed. There have been calls for book reviews to be published on the Internet to allow for immediacy and ease of discussion. 22 , 77 With online publication, competition for print space will lessen and reviews may be able to extend to larger word limits as well as expand to use “new” formats. 57 Also, journal editors are increasingly receiving various information technology media for review. 3 , 31 , 44 Book review sections of journals are slowly expanding their sections to include reviews of information technology media such as DVD, video, and websites. 3 , 22 , 31 , 44

Limitations and Research Directives

A limitation of this review is that the majority of literature used to formulate this report was based largely on expert opinion found in narrative commentaries, editorials, and journal correspondence. Original research constituted 23% of the articles included in this review; however, only three of the studies 8 , 72 , 77 were published within the past 5 years.

To improve the scholarly rigor in the book review literature, future efforts could investigate the validity of using expert opinion as a means for conducting book reviews, and formal studies could assess the impact of book reviews on book sales and journal subscriptions. Readership surveys could be conducted to assess reader interest in new book review formats and publishing venues, and more importantly, examine the impact of review formats on reader usage of information in their professional work. An exploration of these issues will contribute to the development of our understanding of writing and publishing scholarly book reviews.

The scholarly book review serves many purposes and has the potential to be an influential literary form. It can help guide a readership's reading practices, provide authors with constructive feedback, and help publishers plan and develop future books. However, due to the expectations of these same stakeholders, it is a challenging literary form to master. A reviewer must be aware of not just the strategies employed to conduct a review, but should be knowledgeable of the many issues affecting the entire book review process. An appreciation of this literary form in a broader context will allow the altruistic reviewer to publish a review more likely to be perceived as a valuable contribution to the literature.

Conflict of Interest

The second author of this article is also the Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Chiropractic Education . To mitigate conflicts of interest, this paper was refereed by a guest editor, Dr. Robert Ward. The paper was reviewed by blinded peer reviewers and Dr. Robert Ward is the sole person responsible for decisions regarding the disposition of this manuscript and the only person who knows the identities of the reviewers.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the assistance of Anne Taylor-Vaisey, MLS, with the literature searches.

Appendix: Book Appraisal Worksheet (Available as a free download in Microsoft Word from www.journalchiroed.com )

Contributor Information

Alexander D. Lee, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College.

Bart N. Green, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, National University of Health Sciences.

Claire D. Johnson, National University of Health Sciences.

Julie Nyquist, University of Southern California.

CPS Online Library Research Guide (UNH Manchester Library): How to Write a Book Review

• Home & Table of Contents
• Different Types of Information
• The Savvy Information Consumer
• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Periodical Literature
• Peer Review
• Research Glossary
• Business Research Databases
• Understanding the Assignment
• Preliminary Considerations
• 7 Steps to Completing a Research Assignment
• Define the Topic
• Find & Evaluate Your Sources
• Research Integrity & Citing Your Sources
• Searching for Information
• Evaluating Information
• How to Read an Academic Journal Article This link opens in a new window
• Evaluating Social Media Sources
• Writing Your Research Paper
• Create a Literature Review
• Summarize an Article
• How to Write an Abstract

How to Write a Book Review

• How to Do an Annotated Bibliography
• Finding Professional Organizations
• Find Key Journals in Your Field of Study
• Find Peer-Reviewed Articles
• Write a Research Paper Proposal
• Research a Company This link opens in a new window
• Citing Your Sources
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• NHCUC Libraries
• Other Types of Research
• Academic Libraries in NH
• Government Documents
• Using Google for Academic Research
• Information Literacy
• Developing Effective Library Research Assignments
• Using Permalinks
• Primary Source Websites

Write a Book Review

From the university of north carolina writing lab.

A review is a critical evaluation of a text, event, object, or phenomenon. Reviews can consider books, articles, entire genres or fields of literature, architecture, art, fashion, restaurants, policies, exhibitions, performances, and many other forms. This handout will focus on book reviews.

Above all, a review makes an argument. The most important element of a review is that it is a commentary, not merely a summary. It allows you to enter into a discussion with the work’s creator and with other audiences. You can offer agreement or disagreement and identify where you find the work exemplary or deficient in its knowledge, judgments, or organization. You should clearly state your opinion of the work in question, and that statement will probably resemble other types of academic writing, with a thesis statement, supporting body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

Typically, reviews are brief. In newspapers and academic journals, they rarely exceed 1000 words, although you may encounter lengthier assignments and extended commentaries. In either case, reviews need to be succinct. While they vary in tone, subject, and style, they share some common features:

• First, a review gives the reader a concise summary of the content. This includes a relevant description of the topic as well as its overall perspective, argument, or purpose.
• Second, and more importantly, a review offers a critical assessment of the content. This involves your reactions to the work under review: what strikes you as noteworthy, whether or not it was effective or persuasive, and how it enhanced your understanding of the issues at hand.
• Finally, in addition to analyzing the work, a review often suggests whether or not the audience would appreciate it.

Becoming an Expert Reviewer

Reviewing can be a daunting task. Someone has asked for your opinion about something that you may feel unqualified to evaluate. Who are you to criticize Toni Morrison’s new book if you’ve never written a novel yourself, much less won a Nobel Prize? The point is that someone—a professor, a journal editor, peers in a study group—wants to know what you think about a particular work. You may not be (or feel like) an expert, but you need to pretend to be one for your particular audience. Nobody expects you to be the intellectual equal of the work’s creator, but your careful observations can provide you with the raw material to make reasoned judgments. Tactfully voicing agreement and disagreement, praise and criticism, is a valuable, challenging skill, and like many forms of writing, reviews require you to provide concrete evidence for your assertions.

Developing an assessment: before you write

There is no definitive method to writing a review, although some critical thinking about the work at hand is necessary before you actually begin writing. Thus, writing a review is a two-step process: developing an argument about the work under consideration, and making that argument as you write an organized and well-supported draft.

What follows is a series of questions to focus your thinking as you dig into the work at hand. While the questions specifically consider book reviews, you can easily transpose them to an analysis of performances, exhibitions, and other review subjects. Don’t feel obligated to address each of the questions; some will be more relevant than others to the book in question.

• What is the thesis—or main argument—of the book? If the author wanted you to get one idea from the book, what would it be? How does it compare or contrast to the world you know? What has the book accomplished?
• What exactly is the subject or topic of the book? Does the author cover the subject adequately? Does the author cover all aspects of the subject in a balanced fashion? What is the approach to the subject (topical, analytical, chronological, descriptive)?
• How does the author support her argument? What evidence does she use to prove her point? Do you find that evidence convincing? Why or why not? Does any of the author’s information (or conclusions) conflict with other books you’ve read, courses you’ve taken or just previous assumptions you had of the subject?
• How does the author structure her argument? What are the parts that make up the whole? Does the argument make sense? Does it persuade you? Why or why not?
• How has this book helped you understand the subject? Would you recommend the book to your reader?

Beyond the internal workings of the book, you may also consider some information about the author and the circumstances of the text’s production:

• Who is the author? Nationality, political persuasion, training, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details about how a work takes shape. Does it matter, for example, that the biographer was the subject’s best friend? What difference would it make if the author participated in the events she writes about?
• What is the book’s genre? Out of what field does it emerge? Does it conform to or depart from the conventions of its genre? These questions can provide a historical or literary standard on which to base your evaluations. If you are reviewing the first book ever written on the subject, it will be important for your readers to know. Keep in mind, though, that naming “firsts”—alongside naming “bests” and “onlys”—can be a risky business unless you’re absolutely certain.

Writing the Review

Once you have made your observations and assessments of the work under review, carefully survey your notes and attempt to unify your impressions into a statement that will describe the purpose or thesis of your review. Then, outline the arguments that support your thesis.

Your arguments should develop the thesis in a logical manner. That logic, unlike more standard academic writing, may initially emphasize the author’s argument while you develop your own in the course of the review. The relative emphasis depends on the nature of the review: if readers may be more interested in the work itself, you may want to make the work and the author more prominent; if you want the review to be about your perspective and opinions, then you may structure the review to privilege your observations over (but never separate from) those of the work under review. What follows is just one of many ways to organize a review.

Introduction

Since most reviews are brief, many writers begin with a catchy quip or anecdote that succinctly delivers their argument. But you can introduce your review differently depending on the argument and audience.  In general, you should include:

• The name of the author and the book title and the main theme.
• Relevant details about who the author is and where he/she stands in the genre or field of inquiry. You could also link the title to the subject to show how the title explains the subject matter.
• The context of the book and/or your review. Placing your review in a framework that makes sense to your audience alerts readers to your “take” on the book. Perhaps you want to situate a book about the Cuban revolution in the context of Cold War rivalries between the United States and the Soviet Union. Another reviewer might want to consider the book in the framework of Latin American social movements. Your choice of context informs your argument.
• The thesis of the book. If you are reviewing fiction, this may be difficult since novels, plays, and short stories rarely have explicit arguments. But identifying the book’s particular novelty, angle, or originality allows you to show what specific contribution the piece is trying to make.
• Your thesis about the book.

Summary of content

• This should be brief, as analysis takes priority. In the course of making your assessment, you’ll hopefully be backing up your assertions with concrete evidence from the book, so some summary will be dispersed throughout other parts of the review.
• The necessary amount of summary also depends on your audience. Graduate students, beware! If you are writing book reviews for colleagues—to prepare for comprehensive exams, for example—you may want to devote more attention to summarizing the book’s contents. If, on the other hand, your audience has already read the book—such as an class assignment on the same work—you may have more liberty to explore more subtle points and to emphasize your own argument.

Analysis and evaluation of the book

• Your analysis and evaluation should be organized into paragraphs that deal with single aspects of your argument. This arrangement can be challenging when your purpose is to consider the book as a whole, but it can help you differentiate elements of your criticism and pair assertions with evidence more clearly.
• You do not necessarily need to work chronologically through the book as you discuss it. Given the argument you want to make, you can organize your paragraphs more usefully by themes, methods, or other elements of the book.
• If you find it useful to include comparisons to other books, keep them brief so that the book under review remains in the spotlight.
• Avoid excessive quotation and give a specific page reference in parentheses when you do quote. Remember that you can state many of the author’s points in your own words.
• Sum up or restate your thesis or make the final judgment regarding the book. You should not introduce new evidence for your argument in the conclusion. You can, however, introduce new ideas that go beyond the book if they extend the logic of your own thesis.
• This paragraph needs to balance the book’s strengths and weaknesses in order to unify your evaluation. Did the body of your review have three negative paragraphs and one favorable one? What do they all add up to?

Finally, a few general considerations:

• Review the book in front of you, not the book you wish the author had written. You can and should point out shortcomings or failures, but don’t criticize the book for not being something it was never intended to be.
• With any luck, the author of the book worked hard to find the right words to express her ideas. You should attempt to do the same. Precise language allows you to control the tone of your review.
• Never hesitate to challenge an assumption, approach, or argument. Be sure, however, to cite specific examples to back up your assertions carefully.
• Try to present a balanced argument about the value of the book for its audience. You’re entitled—and sometimes obligated—to voice strong agreement or disagreement. But keep in mind that a bad book takes as long to write as a good one, and every author deserves fair treatment. Harsh judgments are difficult to prove and can give readers the sense that you were unfair in your assessment.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License . You may reproduce it for non-commercial use and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Contact the Library

Library Login Information ​Email: [email protected]

Phone: (603)822-LIBR (5427)

Chat:  get assistance after-hours.

Library Chat Hours: Monday-Friday from midnight-9am & 5pm-midnight. All day Saturdays and Sundays.

• << Previous: How to Write an Abstract
• Next: How to Do an Annotated Bibliography >>
• Last Updated: Apr 9, 2024 2:30 PM
• URL: https://libraryguides.unh.edu/CPSonlineLibraryResearch

Organizing Academic Research Papers: Writing a Book Review

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• How to Manage Group Projects
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Acknowledgements

A book review is a decription, critical analysis, and/or evaluation of the quality, meaning, and significance of a book. Reviews generally range between 500-1000 words, but may be longer or shorter depending on the length and complexity of the book being reviewed, the overall purpose of the review, and whether the review is a comparative analysis examining two or more books that focus on the same topic. Professors assign book reviews as practice in carefully analyzing complex scholarly texts and to assess your ability in effectively synthesizing research to reach an informed perspective on an issue.

There are two general approaches to reviewing a book:

• D escriptive review: presents the content and structure of a book as objectively as possible, giving essential information about a book's purpose and authority. This is done with description and exposition by stating the perceived aims and purposes of the author, often incorporating passages quoted from the text that highlight key elements of the work. Additionally, there may be some indication of the reading level and anticipated audience.
• C ritical review: describes and evaluates the book in relation to accepted literary and historical standards and supports this evaluation with evidence from the text and, in most cases, in comparison to the research of others. It should include a statement about what the author has tried to do, evaluates how well [in the opinion of the reviewer] the author has succeeded, and presents evidence to support this evaluation. For course assignments, most professors want you to write a critical review.

Book Reviews. Writing Center. University of New Hampshire; Book Reviews: How to Write a Book Review. Writing and Style Guides. Libraries. Dalhousie University.

How to Approach Writing Your Review

I.  Common Features

While book reviews vary in tone, subject, and style, they share some common features. These include:

• A review gives the reader a concise summary of the content . This includes a relevant description of the research topic as well as an overview of its overall perspective, argument, or purpose.
• A review offers a critical assessment of the content , often in relation to related studies on the same topic. This involves your reactions to the work under review: what strikes you as noteworthy, whether or not the arguments made by the author(s) were effective or persuasive, and how the work enhanced your understanding of the research problem under investigation.
• In addition to analyzing a book's strengths and weaknesses, a scholarly review often suggests whether or not the reader would appreciate it for its authenticity and overall quality.

To maintain your focus, always keep in mind that most assignments ask you to discuss a book's treatment of its topic, not the topic itself . Your key sentences should, therefore, say "This book shows...,” "The study demonstrates...," or “The author argues..." rather than "This happened...” or “This is the case....”

II. Developing an Assessment Strategy

There is no definitive method to writing a book review in the social sciences, although it is necessary that you think critically about the research problem under study before you begin writing. Thus, writing a book review is a two-step process: 1) developing an argument about the work under consideration, and, 2) clearly articulating that argument as you write an organized and well-supported draft.

A useful strategy is to write the questions down and answer them as you read [remember to note the page numbers so you can refer back to the text!]. Which questions are most useful while evaluating what you read will depend upon the type of book are reading. Here are a series of questions to focus your thinking as you read a book.

• What is the thesis—or main argument—of the book? If the author wanted you to get one idea from the book, what would it be? How does it compare or contrast to the world you know? What has the book accomplished?
• What exactly is the subject or topic of the book? Does the author cover the subject adequately? Does the author cover all aspects of the subject in a balanced fashion? Can you detect any biases? What is the approach to the subject [e.g., topical, analytical, chronological, descriptive]?
• How does the author support his or her argument? What evidence does the author use to prove his or her point? Do you find that evidence convincing? Why or why not? Does any of the author's information [or conclusions] conflict with other books you've read, courses you've taken, or just previous assumptions you had about the research problem under study?
• How does the author structure his or her argument? What are the parts that make up the whole? Does the argument make sense to you? Does it persuade you? Why or why not?
• How has this book helped you understand the subject? Would you recommend the book to others? Why or why not?

Beyond the content of the book, you may also consider some information about the author and the circumstances of the text's production. Question to ask may include:

• Who is the author? The nationality, political persuasion, training, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details about how a work takes shape. Does it matter, for example, that the author is affiliated with a particular organization? What difference would it make if the author participated in the events he or she writes about? What other topics has the author written about? Does this work build on prior research or does it seem to represent a new area of research?
• What is the book's genre? Out of what discipline does it emerge? Does it conform to or depart from the conventions of its genre? These questions can provide a historical or other contextual standard upon which to base your evaluations. If you are reviewing the first book ever written on the subject, it will be important for your readers to know this. Keep in mind, though, that declarative statements about being the “first,” the "best," or the "only" book of its kind can be a risky unless you're absolutely certain because your professor [presumably] has a much better understanding of the overall research literature.

Book Reviews . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Book Reviews . The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Hartley, James. Reading and Writing Book Reviews Across the Disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (July 2006): 1194–1207; Writing a Book Review . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing Book Reviews . Writing Tutorial Services, Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. Indiana University.

Structure and Writing Style

I. Bibliographic Information

Provide the essential information about the book using the writing style asked for by your professor [e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.]. Depending on how your professor wants you to organize your review, the bibliographic information represents the heading of your review. In general, it would look like this: The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle over American History . By Jill Lepore. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010. xii, 207pp.).

Reviewed by [your name].

II. Scope/Purpose/Content

In most scholarly works, the author(s) will state the purpose of their book in the preface or in an introductory chapter. Begin your review by telling the reader not only the overarching concern of the book in its entirety [the subject area] but also what the author's particular point of view is on that subject [the thesis statement]. If you cannot find an adequate statement in the author's own words or if you find that the thesis statement is not well-developed, then you will have to compose your own introductory thesis statement that does cover all the material. This statement should be no more than one paragraph and must be succinct, accurate, unbiased, and clear.

If you find it difficult to discern the overall aims and objectives of the book [and, be sure to point this out in your review if you believe it to be a deficiency], you may arrive at an understanding of the purpose by asking yourself the following questions:

• Scan the Table of Contents because it can help you understand how the book is organized and will aid in determining the author's main ideas and how they are developed [e.g., chronologically, topically, etc.].
• Why did the author write on this subject rather than on some other subject?
• From what point of view is the work written?
• Was the author trying to give information, to explain something technical, or to convince the reader of a belief’s validity by dramatizing it in action?
• What is the general field or genre, and how does the book fit into it? Review related literature from other books and journal articles to familiarize yourself with the field, if necessary.
• Who is the intended audience?
• What is the author's style? Is it formal or informal? You can evaluate the quality of the writing style by noting some of the following standards: coherence, clarity, originality, forcefulness, correct use of technical words, conciseness, fullness of development, and fluidity.
• How did the book affect you? Were any prior assumptions you had on the subject changed, abandoned, or reinforced due to this book? How is the book related to your own course or personal agenda? What personal experiences have you had that relate to the subject?
• How well has the book achieved its goal(s)?
• Would you recommend this book to others? Why or why not?

III.  Note the Method

Illustrate your remarks with specific references and quotations that help to illustrate the literary method used to state the research problem, describe the research design, and analyze the findings. In general, authors tend to use the following methods, exclusively or in combination.

• Description : The author depicts scenes and events by giving specific details that appeal to the five senses, or to the reader’s imagination. Description presents background and setting. Its primary purpose is to help the reader realize, through as many sensuous details as possible, the way persons, places, and things are within the phenomenon being described.
• Narration : The author tells the story of a series of events, usually thematically or in chronological order. In general, the emphasis in non-fiction books is on narration of the events. Narration tells what has happened and, in some cases, using this method to project what will happen. Its primary purpose is to draw the reader into a story and create a contextual framework for understanding the research problem.
• Exposition : The author uses explanation and analysis to present a subject or to clarify an idea. Exposition presents the facts about a subject or an issue clearly and as impartially as possible. Its primary purpose is to describe and explain, to document for the historical record an event or phenomenon.
• Argument : The author uses techniques of persuasion to establish the truth of a statement, often in the form of a research question, or to convince the reader of its falsity. The overall aim is to persuade the reader to believe something and perhaps to act on that belief. Argument takes sides on an issue and aims to convince the reader that the author's position is valid, logical, and/or reasonable.

IV.  Critically Evaluate the Contents

Critical comments should form the bulk of your book review . State whether or not you feel the author's treatment of the subject matter is appropriate for the intended audience. Ask yourself:

• Has the purpose of the book been achieved?
• What contribution does the book make to the field?
• Is the treatment of the subject matter objective?
• Are there facts and evidence that have been omitted?
• What kinds of data, if any, are used to support the author's thesis statement?
• Can the same data be interpreted to alternate ends?
• Is the writing style clear and effective?
• Does the book raise important or provocative issues or topics for discussion and further research?
• What has been left out?

Support your evaluation with evidence from the text and, when possible, state it in relation to other sources. If relevant, note of the book's format, such as, layout, binding, typography, etc. Are there tables, charts, maps, illustrations, text boxes, photographs, or other non-textual elements? Do they aid in understanding the research problem? Describing this is particularly important in books that contain a lot of non-textual elements.

NOTE: It is important to carefully distinguish your views from those of the author to ensure that you do not confuse your reader.

V.  Examine the Front Matter and Back Matter

Back matter refers to any information included after the final chapter of the book. Front matter refers to anything before the first chapter. Front matter is most often numbered separately from the rest of the text in lower case Roman numerals [i.e. i-xi ]. Critical commentary about front or back matter is generally only necessary if you believe there is something that diminishes the overall quality of the work or there is something that is particularly helpful in understanding the book's contents.

The following front matter may be included in a book and should be considered for evaluation when reviewing the overall quality of the book:

• Table of contents --is it clear? Is it detailed or general? Does it reflect the true contents of the book?
• Author biography --also found as back matter, the biography of author(s) can be useful in determining the authority of the writer and whether the book builds on prior research or represents new research. In scholarly reviews, noting the author's affiliation can be a factor in helping the reader determine the overall validity of work [i.e., are they associated with a research center devoted to studying the research problem under investigation].
• Foreword --in scholarly books, a foreword may be written by the author or an expert on the subject of the book. The purpose of a foreword is to introduce the reader to the author as well as the book itself, and to help establish credibility for both. A foreword does not contribute any additional information about the book's subject matter, but it serves as a means of validating the book's existence. Later editions of a book sometimes have a new foreword apended [appearing before an older foreword if there was one], which may be included to explain in what respects that edition differs from previous ones.
• Preface --generally describes the genesis, purpose, limitations, and scope of the book and may include acknowledgments of indebtedness to people who have helped the author complete the study. Is the preface helpful in understanding the study? Does it effectively provide a framework for what's to follow?
• Chronology --also may be found as back matter, a chronology is generally included to highlight key events related to the subject of the book. Does it contribute to the overall work? Is it detailed or very general?
• List of non-textual elements --if a book contains a lot of charts, photographs, maps, etc., they will often be listed in the front after the table of contents.

The following back matter may be included in a book and should be considered for evaluation when reviewing the overall quality of the book:

• Afterword --this is a short, reflective piece written by the author that takes the form of a concluding section, final commentary, or closing statement. It is worth mentioning in a review if it contributes information about the purpose of the book, gives a call to action, or asks the reader to consider key points made in the book.
• Appendix --is the supplementary material in the appendix or appendices well organized? Do they relate to the contents or appear superfluous? Does it contain any essential information that would have been more appropriately integrated into the text?
• Index --is the index thorough and accurate? Are elements used, such as, bold text to help identify specific parts of the book?
• Glossary of Terms --are the definitions clearly written? Is the glossary comprehensive or are key terms missing?
• Endotes/Footnotes --check any end notes or footnotes as you read from chapter to chapter. Do they provide important additional information? Do they clarify or extend points made in the body of the text?
• Bibliography/Further Readings --review any bibliography or further readings the author(s) may have included. What kinds of sources appear [e.g., primary or secondary, recent or old, scholarly or popular, etc.]? How does the author make use of them? Be sure to note important omissions.

VI.  Summarize and Comment

State your general conclusions succinctly. Pay particular attention to the author's concluding chapter. Is the summary convincing? List the principal topics, and briefly summarize the author’s ideas about these topics, main points, and conclusions. If appropriate and to help clarify your overall evaluation, use specific references and quotations to support your statements. If your thesis has been well argued, the conclusion should follow naturally. It can include a final assessment or simply restate your thesis. Do not introduce new information or ideas in the conclusion. If you've compared the book to any other works or used other sources in writing the review, be sure to cite at the end of your book review.

Book Reviews . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Book Reviews . The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Gastel, Barbara. Special Books Section: A Strategy for Reviewing Books for Journals. BioScience 41 (October 1991): 635-637; Hartley, James. Reading and Writing Book Reviews Across the Disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (July 2006): 1194–1207; Procter, Margaret. The Book Review or Article Critique . The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Reading a Book to Review It . The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Scarnecchia, David L. Writing Book Reviews for the Journal Of Range Management and Rangelands. Rangeland Ecology and Management 57 (2004): 418-421; Writing a Book Review . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing Book Reviews. Writing Tutorial Services, Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. Indiana University.  

Some Language for Evaluating Texts

It can be challenging to find the proper vocabulary in which to discuss and evaluate a book. Here is a list of some active verbs for referring to texts and ideas that you might find useful:

• account for
• demonstrate
• distinguish
• investigate

Examples of usage

• "The evidence indicates that..."
• "This work assesses the effect of..."
• "The author identifies three key reasons for..."
• "This book questions the view that..."

Paquot, Magali. Academic Keyword List . Centre for English Corpus Linguistics. Université Catholique de Louvain.  

• << Previous: How to Manage Group Projects
• Next: Multiple Book Review Essay >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
• URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
• QuickSearch
• Library Catalog
• Databases A-Z
• Publication Finder
• Course Reserves
• Citation Linker
• Digital Commons
• Our Website

Research Support

• Ask a Librarian
• Appointments
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Research Guides
• Databases by Subject
• Citation Help

Using the Library

• Reserve a Group Study Room
• Renew Books
• Honors Study Rooms
• Off-Campus Access
• Library Policies
• Library Technology

User Information

• Grad Students
• Online Students
• COVID-19 Updates
• Staff Directory
• News & Announcements
• Library Newsletter

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

$29.99 / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

$199.00 per year

only $3.90 per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

How I harnessed media engagement to supercharge my research career

Career Column 09 APR 24

How we landed job interviews for professorships straight out of our PhD programmes

Career Column 08 APR 24

Three ways ChatGPT helps me in my academic writing

How two PhD students overcame the odds to snag tenure-track jobs

Adopt universal standards for study adaptation to boost health, education and social-science research

Correspondence 02 APR 24

Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use

News 10 APR 24

Rwanda 30 years on: understanding the horror of genocide

Editorial 09 APR 24

Associate or Senior Editor (clinical microbiology and infectious diseases)

Do you love science but feel that a career at the bench isn’t enough to sate your desire to learn more about the natural world?

London, New York, Pune – Hybrid working model.

Springer Nature Ltd

Performance Analyst

Reporting into the Head of Performance, OA agreements, the role will support the business transition to open access.

London – hybrid working model

PhD position (all genders) in AI for biomedical data analysis

PhD position (all genders) in AI for biomedical data analysis Part time  | Temporary | Arbeitsort: Hamburg-Eppendorf UKE_Zentrum für Molekulare Ne...

Hamburg (DE)

Personalwerk GmbH

Postdoctoral fellow in structure determination of membrane proteins using cryo-EM

The Institute of Biomedicine is involved in both research and education. In both of these areas, we focus on fundamental knowledge of the living ce...

Gothenburg (Stad), Västra Götaland (SE)

University of Gothenburg

Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Neuroscience

Postdoc in Neuroscience at McGill University. Explore neocortical circuits & plasticity with electrophysiology & 2-photon optics. Apply by July 31.

Montréal, Quebec (CA)

McGill University

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Write an Academic Book Review

4-minute read

• 22nd January 2019

For researchers and postgraduates , writing a book review is a relatively easy way to get published. It’s also a good way to refine your academic writing skills and learn about the publishing process. But how do you write a good academic book review? We have a few tips to share.

1. Finding a Book to Review

Before you can write an academic book review, you need to find a suitable book . There are two main ways to do this:

• Look to see which books journal publishers are seeking reviews for.
• Find a book that interests you and pitch it to publishers.

The first approach works by finding a journal in your field that is soliciting reviews. This information may be available on their website (e.g. on a page titled ‘Books for Review’). However, you can also email the editor to ask if there are book review opportunities available.

Alternatively, you can find a book you want to review and pitch it to journal editors. If you want to take this approach, pick a book that:

• Is about a topic or subject area that you know well.
• Has been published recently, or at least in the last 2–3 years.
• Was published by a reputable publisher (e.g. a university printing press).

You can then pitch your review to a journal that covers the same subject as the book. Some publishers will even give reviewers access to new books. Springer, for example, has a scheme where reviewers can access books online and receive a print copy once a review is published.

2. Follow the Style Guide

Once you know the journal you’re hoping to write for, look for the publisher’s style guide. This might be called the ‘Author Instructions’ or ‘Review Guidelines’, but it should be available somewhere on the publisher’s website; if it is not obviously available, consider checking with the editor.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

And when you have found the style guide, follow its instructions carefully. It should provide information on everything from writing style and the word count to submitting your review.

3. Don’t Make It About You!

You’d be surprised how often academics begin a review by summarising the book in question, only to then abandon it in favour of explaining their own ideas about the subject matter. As such, one important tip when reviewing an academic book is to actually review the book .

This isn’t to say that you can’t offer your own thoughts on the subject matter, especially if they are relevant to what the author is arguing in the book. But remember that people read reviews to find out about the book being reviewed, so this should always be your focus.

4. Questions for an Academic Book Review

Finally, while the content of a review will depend on the book, there are a few questions every good book review should answer. These include:

• What is the book about? Does it cover the topic adequately? What does the author argue? Ideally, you will summarise the argument early on.
• Who is the author/editor? What is their field of expertise? How does this book relate to their past work? You might also want to mention relevant biographical details, if there are any.
• How does the author support their argument? Do they provide convincing evidence? Do they engage with counterarguments? Try to find at least one strength (i.e. something the book does well) and one weakness (i.e. something that could be stronger) to write about.
• As a whole, has the book helped you understand the subject? Who would you recommend it to? This will be the concluding section.

If you can cover these points, you should end up with a strong book review. All you need then is to have it proofread by the professionals .

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Get help from a language expert. Try our proofreading services for free.

3-minute read

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

2-minute read

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

What Is Market Research?

No matter your industry, conducting market research helps you keep up to date with shifting...

8 Press Release Distribution Services for Your Business

In a world where you need to stand out, press releases are key to being...

How to Get a Patent

In the United States, the US Patent and Trademarks Office issues patents. In the United...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

• Latest Posts
• LSE Authors
• Choose a Book for Review
• Submit a Book for Review
• Bookshop Guides

Professor Fleur Johns

May 7th, 2021, why, when and how 10 tips for academic book reviewers.

0 comments | 68 shares

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

Professor Fleur Johns offers 10 rules of thumb that have guided her own reviewing efforts and may prove helpful to others working on book reviews, or thinking of doing so, in the course of their academic lives. 

Image Credit: Photo by  Jessica Ruscello  on  Unsplash

A recent experience prompted me to reflect on the role of academic book reviews and about when, why and how to write them. I wrote a review several months ago of a book that has received widespread and overwhelmingly laudatory attention. While acknowledging the importance and value of the book’s contribution, I took issue with it in no uncertain terms and questioned its attainment of one of its major goals. Several respondents on social media reacted with verbal frowns. One wondered if I had contacted the author prior to the review’s publication (I had not). Another bristled at what they interpreted as audacity on my part, remarking that it was ‘easier’ to write a book review than ‘a book of significance’ (it is). I worried a bit too. Had I been disrespectful, ungenerous? Should I have cushioned my remarks in a fuller recitation of the book’s strengths?

Reflection on this experience led me to formulate, more explicitly than I had previously, some rules of thumb for my own reviewing efforts. I reproduce these here in case they might be helpful to others working on book reviews, or thinking of doing so, in the course of their academic lives. It goes without saying – but let me say it anyway – that these are conditioned by my own unduly privileged circumstances and that I still have much to learn, as a reviewer and otherwise. I have thought and written about lists in the past, and have an affection for them, so I present these as 10 suggestions:

1. Reviewing books maintains one’s sense of being part of a larger, longer, scholarly conversation. It should be as much of a regular responsibility of academic life as peer reviewing (relative to opportunity). And like peer reviewing, it needs to be approached with greater care than it is sometimes afforded.

2. Everyone should write book reviews, at all academic career stages. It’s not just a practice recommended for graduate students needing free books. It keeps one in the habit of close, critical, cover-to-cover reading. And what of the probable response: that contemporary academic work is structured in ways that make the continued cultivation of this habit unachievable? That may be so for many of us at many times. If we concede that across the board, however, then we acquiesce to the very transformation of universities that we often lament.

3. Conflicts of interest, actual or perceived, are best avoided. Book reviewers should disclose anything that could be viewed as such. I have reviewed friends’ books before, to try to lend support to and foster engagement with colleagues’ and collaborators’ work. Upon reflection though, I should not have done so because of the possible perception that I might benefit professionally from advances in my co-authors’ and collaborators’ careers, and that my judgment might be coloured accordingly. I might instead have facilitated reviews of these books by someone at a greater distance from their authors. Of particular importance among conflicts is the following: think very carefully before reviewing a book in which your own work features prominently. If there is any reference to your work in the book you’re reviewing, let it pass. Use of the first-person voice can be refreshing, but a book review ought not to revolve predominantly around the reviewer. Professor Leslie Green’s 2020 review of a section of Professor Joanne Conaghan’s 2013 book (to which Conaghan offered a patient response ) is illustrative of the kinds of perils that can be associated with dwelling, as a reviewer, on the treatment of one’s own work in the book under review.

4. Attend to power imbalances. If you are an established academic, don’t review a first book or a book of an early career researcher with which you fervently disagree. Ordinarily, disagreement can make for engaging writing and productive argument (more on this below). However, in the context of a power imbalance favouring the reviewer, discord may be misread and could do unintended damage.

Image Credit: Photo by  Nolan Monaghan  on  Unsplash

5. Foreground the criticism. Keep summary to a minimum. Be sure to make an argument – about the book, but also by reflecting critically on the intervention that it makes in the field, and what it suggests about the state of that field. Be fair, respectful and try to meet the book on its own terms, but don’t shy away from critical engagement. It is a mark of respect for the seriousness of the author’s endeavour.

6. Some say one should only review books that one loves. I disagree. My version would be the following: only review books by which you feel provoked, and that seem significant to you. This position counsels against reading books that hold you in their thrall. If you are utterly in awe of a book or its author, that might be a good reason not to review it (gushy reviews can be a tad nauseating). At the same time, it militates against reviewing books that you think are good, but which don’t really excite you either positively or negatively. Critique can carry a degree of risk (recall the extraordinary tribulations through which journal editor Professor Joseph Weiler was put by one disgruntled author). Nonetheless, a fence-sitting, anodyne review wastes the writer’s, editor’s and reader’s energies and does the author concerned no service at all. Reviewing books that frustrate you, but that you still regard as important and worthy of attention – this can really help move scholarly argument along.

7. Don’t just review ‘up’ or focus on renowned and established authors. Seek out lesser-known works to spotlight. If you are bilingual or multilingual, seek out books in a range of languages to pitch to book review editors to help disturb the dominance of English in scholarly publication.

8. Don’t send the review to the author, at least not prior to publication. Don’t imagine yourself in direct conversation with the author so much as with the book and its other readers. This does not, of course, override the imperative of being fair.

9. Explore the genre, including the (often undervalued) review essay. Read widely in it. Approach the genre on its own terms, inspired by those book reviews that you have found most arresting and illuminating as a reader. The Los Angeles Review of Books , the New York Review of Books , the London Review of Books , Biblio , the Paris Review , the Singapore Review of Books , The New Yorker , The Nation and the Latin American Research Review all publish excellent book reviews, as do many other online and print publications.

10. There are awards for book reviewing: in the US, the Nona Balakian Citation for Excellence in Reviewing , for example. One might learn from taking a look at the work of those lauded for reviewing and trying to unpick what they do well. Accolades for book reviewing are, however, very few. If you are a member of an editorial board or scholarly association, you might consider introducing such an award. Or maybe that suggestion misses part of the point of book reviewing. The poet Philip Larkin’s letters may have presented him as a ‘ habitual racist and full-time misogynist’ . Yet he was on to something, I think, when he ruefully celebrated the unheralded reading and writing of ‘book-drunk freak[s]’ for precisely that – its ingloriousness. Perhaps, when one can, there is some small grace in doing difficult work in honour of reading and readers, with little or no expectation of recognition.

Note: This feature essay gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics. 

About the author

Fleur Johns is a Professor and Australian Research Council Future Fellow in the Faculty of Law and Justice at UNSW Sydney. Her books include Non-Legality in International Law: Unruly Law (Cambridge 2013). Fleur is also an avid reader and a periodic writer of book reviews. Find her on Twitter at @FleurEJ.

Related Posts

How to Write a Book Review: Reviewing an Edited Collection

June 14th, 2019.

Feature: Q&A with Dr Katherine Farrimond, Book Reviews Editor of Feminist Theory journal

May 11th, 2018.

Author Interview: Q and A with Dr Phillipa K. Chong on Inside the Critics’ Circle: Book Reviewing in Uncertain Times

October 30th, 2020.

Editor’s Column: How to write a book review: writing introductions

March 3rd, 2013, subscribe via email.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address

Wendy Laura Belcher

How to write an academic book review.

This article “Writing the Academic Book Review” was originally written by Belcher to aid participants in a workshop sponsored by the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center in February 2003 and to encourage book review submissions to  Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies . Book reviews in the field of Chicano studies can be sent to  the journal; for information, see the  new submissions page. The article was updated in 2015. Cite as Belcher, Wendy Laura. 2003. “Writing the Academic Book Review.” Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center. Last Modified 2015. Retrieved from https://www.wendybelcher.com/writing-advice/how-to-write-book-review/ on [month year]. See also the best-selling book of advice on writing, now in its second edition: Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success.

Why Write a Book Review?

Writing book reviews is not only the easiest and quickest route to publication, it is a good way to improve your writing skills, develop your analytical skills, learn how the journal publishing process works, and get to know editors. Since some libraries can’t buy books unless they have been reviewed and many individuals won’t buy books unless they have read a review, reviewing books can definitely advance your field. Indeed, scholars in smaller fields sometimes get together and assign books for review so that every book published in their field is reviewed somewhere. Just remember that book reviews do not “count” as much on a curriculum vitae as an academic essay. If you are doing more than two book reviews a year, you may be spending too much time on book reviews and not enough on your other writing.

Choosing a Book

Think about what kind of book would be most useful to you in writing your dissertation, finalizing a paper for publication, or passing your exams. Since book reviews do take time, like any writing, it is best to chose a book that will work for you twice, as a publication and as research. Alternatively, some recommend that graduate students focus on reviewing textbooks or anthologies, since such reviews take less background knowledge and editors can find it difficult to find people willing to do such reviews. Although the traditional book review is of one book, editors will often welcome book reviews that address two or more related books–called a review essay.

Choose a book that (1) is in your field, (2) is on a topic for which you have sound background knowledge, (3) has been published in the past two or three years, and (4) has been published by a reputable publisher (i.e., any press affiliated with a university or large commercial presses).

Books on hot topics are often of special interest to editors. It can also be rewarding to pick an obscure but useful book in order to bring attention to it. To avoid complications, it is best not to review books written by your advisor, spouse, or ex!

To identify a suitable book in your field:

• Look up the call number of the favorite book in your field and go to the stacks of your university library. Do a shelf search around the call number to see if anything similar or related has been published in the past couple of years.
• Go to any book database—your university library on-line, Worldcat , Amazon.com , the Library of Congress —and search using two or three keywords related to your field (e.g., Chicano fiction, Chicana politics, Latino demographics, Latina high school education) to find books in your area.
• Read magazines that review books before publication—such as Choice , Library Journal, or Kirkus Reviews —to get a sense for interesting books that will be coming out. You can get copies of books for review before they are published. Editors especially like reviews of just published books.
• Read those academic journals that list books recently received for review or recently published in their area. 
• Ask faculty members in your department for recommendations.

Once you have identified several books, locate copies and skim them. Pick the book that seems the strongest. Do not pick a book that has major problems or with which you disagree violently. As a graduate student, you do not have the protection of tenure and may one day be evaluated by the person whose book you put to the ax. If you really feel strongly that you must write a negative review of a certain book, go ahead and write the review. Academia is, after all, quite oedipal and young scholars do sometimes make their reputations by deflating those who came before them. Just realize that going on record in such a public way may have consequences.

Choosing a Journal

Identify several leading journals in your field that publish book reviews. One way to do this is to search an on-line article database or something like Book Review Digest , if your library has access. Using several key words from your field, limit your search to book reviews and note the journals where the results were published.

Before starting to write your review, contact the book review editor of one of the journals. This is important standard practice; in particular because most journals do not accept unsolicited reviews. You do not want to write an entire review of a book and send it to a journal, only to be told that they don’t accept unsolicited reviews or that a review of that very book is to appear in the next issue.

So, send a short e-mail to book review editors at prospective journals (most journals have websites with such information) identifying the book you would like to review and your qualifications for reviewing it. This e-mail need not be longer than two sentences: “I am writing to find out if you would welcome a review from me of [ Book Title ], edited by [editor] and published in 2012 by [pubisher]. I am currently writing my dissertation at Stanford on the history of the field of [name of a field related to book].”

Another reason why you want to contact the book review editor is that they often can get you the book for free. Publishers frequently send books for review straight to journals or, if the book editor directly contacts them, straight to you. Of course, you don’t need to wait for the book to start your review if you have access to a library copy. If you get a free book, make sure to write the review. A book review editor will never send you another book if you don’t deliver on the first.

If the book review editor says yes, they would like a review of the book from you, make sure to ask if the journal has any book review submission guidelines. In particular, you want to make sure you understand how long their book reviews tend to be.

If the book review editor says the book is already under review, move on to your next journal choice or ask the editor if they have any books on the topic that they would like reviewed. You are under no obligation to review a book they suggest, just make sure to get back to them with a decision. It is perfectly acceptable to say “Thanks for the suggestion, I’ve decided to focus on writing my prospectus/dissertation.”

Reading the Book

It is best, when writing a book review, to be an active reader of the book. Sit at a desk with pen and paper in hand. As you read, stop frequently to summarize the argument, to note particularly clear statements of the book’s argument or purpose, and to describe your own responses. If you have read in this active way, putting together the book review should be quick and straightforward. Some people prefer to read at the computer, but if you’re a good typist, you often start typing up long quotes from the book instead of analyzing it. Paper and pen provides a little friction to prevent such drifting.

Take particular note of the title (does the book deliver what the title suggests it is going to deliver?), the table of contents (does the book cover all the ground it says it will?), the preface (often the richest source of information about the book), and the index (is it accurate, broad, deep?).

Some questions to keep in mind as you are reading:

• What is the book’s argument?
• Does the book do what it says it is going to do?
• Is the book a contribution to the field or discipline?
• Does the book relate to a current debate or trend in the field and if so, how?
• What is the theoretical lineage or school of thought out of which the book rises?
• Is the book well-written?
• What are the books terms and are they defined?
• How accurate is the information (e.g., the footnotes, bibliography, dates)?
• Are the illustrations helpful? If there are no illustrations, should there have been?
• Who would benefit from reading this book?
• How does the book compare to other books in the field?
• If it is a textbook, what courses can it be used in and how clear is the book’s structure and examples?

It can be worthwhile to do an on-line search to get a sense for the author’s history, other books, university appointments, graduate advisor, and so on. This can provide you with useful context..

Making a Plan

Book reviews are usually 600 to 2,000 words in length. It is best to aim for about 1,000 words, as you can say a fair amount in 1,000 words without getting bogged down. There’s no point in making a book review into a 20-page masterpiece since the time would have been better spent on an academic essay that would count for more on your c.v.

Some say a review should be written in a month: two weeks reading the book, one week planning your review, and one week writing it.

Although many don’t write an outline for an essay, you should really try to outline your book review before you write it. This will keep you on task and stop you from straying into writing an academic essay.

Classic book review structure is as follows:

• Title including complete bibliographic citation for the work (i.e., title in full, author, place, publisher, date of publication, edition statement, pages, special features [maps, color plates, etc.], price, and ISBN.
• One paragraph identifying the thesis, and whether the author achieves the stated purpose of the book.
• One or two paragraphs summarizing the book.
• One paragraph on the book’s strengths.
• One paragraph on the book’s weaknesses.
• One paragraph on your assessment of the book’s strengths and weaknesses.

Writing the Review

Once you’ve read the book, try to spend no more than one or two weeks writing the review. Allowing a great deal of time to fall between reading the book and writing about it is unfair to you and the author. The point of writing something short like a book review is to do it quickly. Sending a publication to a journal is always scary, sitting on the review won’t make it less so.

Avoiding Five Common Pitfalls

• Evaluate the text, don’t just summarize it. While a succinct restatement of the text’s points is important, part of writing a book review is making a judgment. Is the book a contribution to the field? Does it add to our knowledge? Should this book be read and by whom? One needn’t be negative to evaluate; for instance, explaining how a text relates to current debates in the field is a form of evaluation.
• Do not cover everything in the book. In other words, don’t use the table of contents as a structuring principle for your review. Try to organize your review around the book’s argument or your argument about the book.
• Judge the book by its intentions not yours. Don’t criticize the author for failing to write the book you think that he or she should have written. As John Updike puts it, “Do not imagine yourself the caretaker of any tradition, an enforcer of any party standards, a warrior in any ideological battle, a corrections officer of any kind.”
• Likewise, don’t spend too much time focusing on gaps. Since a book is only 200 to 500 pages, it cannot possibly address the richness of any topic. For this reason, the most common criticism in any review is that the book doesn’t address some part of the topic. If the book purports to be about ethnicity and film and yet lacks a chapter on Latinos, by all means, mention it. Just don’t belabor the point. Another tic of reviewers is to focus too much on books the author did not cite. If you are using their bibliography just to display your own knowledge it will be obvious to the reader. Keep such criticisms brief.
• Don’t use too many quotes from the book. It is best to paraphrase or use short telling quotes within sentences.

For further advice about writing for publication, see Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success by Wendy Laura Belcher (University of Chicago Press, 2019).

Writing the Academic Book Review

I no longer teach this course , but you might want to think about teaching it, so I provide the information here.

This workshop aids students in actually writing and publishing a book review for a peer-reviewed journal. At the first session, students receive instruction on why graduate students should (or should not) write book reviews, how to choose a book for review, how to chose a journal for submission, how to read a book for review, how to plan and structure a book review, and five common pitfalls of reviewing. Students also form small groups to discuss the book each plans to review.At the second meeting, students bring a draft of their book review for exchange and feedback. At the third meeting, students arrive with a final version of their essay to submit to an editor for publication.

This workshop is sometimes offered by a particular journal with the editors serving on a panel the first night to provide students with specific advice for submitting reviews to their journal. I did such a workshop for Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies , with the editors Chon A. Noriega and Alicia Gaspar de Alba.

Session 1, Week 1

• Introduction to book reviewing
• Selecting an appropriate book to review
• Five essential elements of any book review
• Typical errors graduate student reviewers make

Session 2, Week 10

• Assignment: First draft due
• Discussion of the writing process and challenges
• Exchanging and critiquing first drafts
• Some instructions on revising

Session 3, Week 16

• Assignment: Final draft due
• Working with editors and the publication process
• Refreshments

The Straits Times

• International
• Print Edition
• news with benefits
• SPH Rewards
• STClassifieds
• Berita Harian
• Hardwarezone
• Shin Min Daily News
• SRX Property
• Tamil Murasu
• The Business Times
• The New Paper
• Lianhe Zaobao
• Advertise with us

Book review: Drawn-out and overly academic feel to sleepwalking murder mystery Anna O

By Matthew Blake

Mystery/HarperCollins/Paperback/448 pages/$26.19/Amazon SG ( amzn.to/43Lgxx7 ) 3 stars

Four years ago, Anna Ogilvy murdered her two best friends and then fell into a deep sleep from which she has never woken.

The media dubs her Anna O, the Sleeping Beauty who committed one of the worst crimes of the decade. Obsessed fanatics argue over her guilt. Internet sleuths hypothesise about a motive for the gruesome deaths.

None of that matters, only that Dr Ben Prince has been tasked with waking her so the legal system can finally decide if Anna was awake or sleepwalking when she stabbed two people to death.

While observing Anna from outside her patient room, Ben thinks: “I am within touching distance of a murderer. The thought is disturbing in every possible sense. Evil, in some people’s eyes, is literally sleeping in the next room.”

Formerly a researcher and speechwriter at the Palace of Westminster, British debut author Matthew Blake ventured into the world of fiction writing after learning that the average person spends 33 years of their life asleep – the same fact he opens the novel with. He is now a full-time writer based in London.

Blake’s detailed research into sleep-related crimes and resignation syndrome – a hypothesised condition induced by a state of minimal consciousness after trauma – is evident. However, a tendency to info-dump leaves chunks of the book feeling like an academic work rather than a murder mystery.

Instances where Anna describes her confusion and fear after waking from bouts of sleepwalking are the most human moments, breaking free of the textbook-like feel that the rest of the novel has when talking about other sleep-related illnesses.

Anna journals: “I am scared about who I become at night and what I might do. I am scared by the dark thoughts that sleep inside me.”

More interesting than the primary mystery are the journal entries in which Anna details her life in the months leading up to the murders. Writings of family drama, her desire for fame as a writer and a frenzied attempt to understand her sleepwalking are reminders Anna was once a young woman searching for her place in the world.

Much of the novel takes place through the eyes of Ben, with occasional chapters from other perspectives like those of his estranged wife Clara, Anna’s journal in 2019 and a mysterious woman named Lola.

As is often the nature of a male writer attempting the female voice, none of the women’s perspectives feels particularly convincing. The saving grace is that Blake avoids the women talking about themselves in a sexual manner or turning them into some ideal fantasy woman.

The drawn-out pacing sets the novel up to feel like a television show. Aptly enough, the adaptation rights have recently been acquired by Berlanti Productions and Warner Bros. Television, according to a Deadline article.

Where certain chapters feel dull in written form, they are likely to fare better where the visual format can build the visual and auditory tension that the text lacks.

Boldly, Blake offers an ending to the story with over 100 pages left, allowing readers and the characters to wonder if the mystery has truly been solved. The final reveal, while clever, lacks the intended impact after chapter upon chapter of lengthy mulling with little tension.

A drawn-out 448 pages in need of editing, Anna O reads like a one-hit-wonder too eagerly snapped up by television studios.

If you like this, read: Conviction by Jack Jordan (Simon & Schuster UK, 2023, $7.90, Amazon SG, go to amzn.to/3xjNnt9 ). Criminal lawyer Neve Harper is tasked with proving the innocence of a man accused of murdering his entire family. Blackmailed to ensure his jail sentence, she is torn between her legal duties and a guilty secret she has carried for years.

Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

• Book review

Read 3 articles and stand to win rewards

Spin the wheel now

Advertisement

Supported by

editors’ choice

7 New Books We Recommend This Week

Suggested reading from critics and editors at The New York Times.

• Share full article

Where are all the books about work? That question lands in our inbox from time to time, and no wonder: In terms of hours and paychecks and the sense of identity they impart, jobs are a consuming part of our lives that authors do indeed too often neglect. So this week we recommend three books that put the world of paid labor front and center: Adelle Waldman’s novel “Help Wanted” is set in a suburban box store, Hamilton Nolan’s “The Hammer” assesses the current state of union organizing, and Jane Kamensky’s “Candida Royalle and the Sexual Revolution” takes the measure of a proto-girlboss who went from starring in pornographic movies to launching her own production company with a feminist slant.

Also recommended this week: a look at Saddam Hussein’s state of mind as America and Iraq approached war in 2003, a study of African American literature as a reflection of Black history, a warning about the impacts of climate-fueled migration and, in fiction, Percival Everett’s sparkling riff on the story of Huck Finn, this time centering the character of Huck’s fellow runaway Jim. Happy reading. — Gregory Cowles

JAMES Percival Everett

In this reworking of the “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” Jim, the enslaved man who accompanies Huck down the Mississippi River, is the narrator, and he recounts the classic tale in a language that is his own and with surprising details that reveal a far more resourceful, cunning and powerful character than we knew.

“Luxuriates in language. Everett, like Twain, is a master of American argot. … This is Everett’s most thrilling novel, but also his most soulful.”

From Dwight Garner’s review

Doubleday | $28

CANDIDA ROYALLE AND THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION: A History From Below Jane Kamensky

In 1984, Candida Royalle changed the porn industry when she co-founded the female-targeted Femme Productions. As Kamensky convincingly argues in this scholarly and engaging tribute, the performer, producer and director was more than a feminist pioneer; her life mirrored that of the sexual revolution itself.

“Her rigor and thoroughness demand that the reader take seriously an underdog who made her name in a stigmatized industry. This book is a labor of empathy that refuses to simplify or valorize its subject.”

From Rich Juzwiak’s review

Norton | $35

HELP WANTED Adelle Waldman

Waldman’s long-anticipated follow-up to her 2013 debut, “The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P.,” applies her sharp sense of relational drama and dark comedy to the retail work space. The big-box store is Town Square, and the cast of characters who toil there are as surprising and varied as the merchandise they stock.

“Waldman is skilled at building momentum and tension through intricacies of plot. The book shines whenever the group is together, concocting plans … in search of a shared sense of hope.”

From Alexandra Chang’s review

Norton | $28.99

THE HAMMER: Power, Inequality, and the Struggle for the Soul of Labor Hamilton Nolan

The longtime labor reporter and former Gawker journalist’s lively account of the current landscape of the American labor movement paints colorful portraits of union organizers from across the country alongside a pointed critique of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.

“Offers an impressive array of scenes from the front lines of the 21st-century economy. … As ‘The Hammer’ shows, the kind of solidarity that might naturally arise from shared frustrations on the conveyor belt doesn’t necessarily translate to the broader movement all on its own.”

From Willa Glickman’s review

Hachette | $30

THE ACHILLES TRAP: Saddam Hussein, the C.I.A., and the Origins of America’s Invasion of Iraq Steve Coll

Coll’s book stretches from Hussein’s earliest days in power to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, tracking the dictator’s state of mind with the help of 2,000 hours of rarely accessed audio from high-level meetings that Hussein “recorded as assiduously as Richard Nixon,” Coll says.

“Most of the story is vivid and sometimes even funny. … Unlike his main character, Coll succeeds in part because he has an eye for dramatic irony.”

From Noreen Malone’s review

Penguin Press | $35

ON THE MOVE: The Overheating Earth and the Uprooting of America Abrahm Lustgarten

The climate is changing, says the author, a climate scientist — and drought, fire and heat waves are going to cause massive demographic shifts. To get a sense of the scale of these changes, the author examines studies and models that simulate future migration scenarios, and combines his insights with first-person reportage. The results are often alarming and admittedly speculative, but never less than compelling.

“The author’s eloquent personal insights … are astonishing as well as gripping, presenting an intimate understanding of why poor agricultural workers, beset by droughts and calamitous economic circumstances, risk everything.”

From Jon Gertner’s review

Farrar, Straus & Giroux | $30

THE BLACK BOX: Writing the Race Henry Louis Gates Jr.

In his latest book, the Harvard scholar shows how African American writers have used the written word to shape their reality despite constraints imposed on them from outside, using the metaphor of the box to reflect ordeals withstood and survived since Africans were first brought to this continent.

“The allure of this book, and the reason for its existence, are the narrative links he draws. … This is a literary history of Black America, but it is also an argument that African American history is inextricable from the history of African American literature.”

From Tope Folarin’s review

Penguin Press | $30

Explore More in Books

Want to know about the best books to read and the latest news start here..

Stephen King, who has dominated horror fiction for decades , published his first novel, “Carrie,” in 1974. Margaret Atwood explains the book’s enduring appeal .

The actress Rebel Wilson, known for roles in the “Pitch Perfect” movies, gets vulnerable about her weight loss, sexuality and money  in her new memoir.

“City in Ruins” is the third novel in Don Winslow’s Danny Ryan trilogy and, he says, his last book. He’s retiring in part to invest more time into political activism .

​​Jonathan Haidt, the social psychologist and author of “The Anxious Generation,” is “wildly optimistic” about Gen Z. Here’s why .

Do you want to be a better reader?   Here’s some helpful advice to show you how to get the most out of your literary endeavor .

Each week, top authors and critics join the Book Review’s podcast to talk about the latest news in the literary world. Listen here .