Book reviewing in the BJET: A survey of BJET's referees' and writers' views

British Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 897-905

  Hartley, James ^a  

^a KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC LIFE; BOOK REVIEWS; EDITORIAL PANELS; QUESTIONNAIRE;

DATA ACQUISITION; EDUCATION; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; SURVEYING;

TEXTBOOKS;

EID: 33745217786     PISSN: 00071013     EISSN: 14678535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00537.x     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Cortada, J. W. (1998). Five ways to be a terrible book reviewer. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 30, 1, 34-37.
2. Dunleavy, P. & Kelly, P. (2003). Editorial: Introducing Political Studies Review. Political Studies Review 1, 1, 1-3.
3. Goldmann, D. R. (1997). Medical writings: a new section for Annals. Annals of Internal Medicine 126, 1, 83.
4. Goldmann, D. R. (1999). Medical writings revisited. Annals of Internal Medicine 131, 5, 389-390.
5. Hartley, J. (2004). Current findings from research on structured abstracts. Journal of the Medical Library Association 92, 3, 368-371.
6. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
7. Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y. (1998). Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities: the flow of ideas within and amongst disciplines. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
8. McGrath, E. L., Metz, W. F. & Rutlege, J. B. (2005). H-Net book reviews: enhancing scholarly communication with technology. College and Research Libraries 66, 1, 8-19.
9. Miranda, E. O. (1996). On book reviewing. Journal of Educational Thought 30, 2, 191-202.
10. Motta-Roth, D. (1998). Discourse analysis and academic book reviews: a study of text and disciplinary cultures. In I. Fontanet (Ed.), Genre studies in English for academic purposes (pp. 29-58). Castello de la Plana, Spain: Universitat Jaume.
11. Nicolaisen, J. (2002a). Structure-based interpretation of scholarly book reviews: a new research technique. In H. Bruce, R. Fidel, P. Ingwersen & P. Vakkari (Eds), Emerging frameworks and methods: proceeings of the 4th international conference on conceptions of library and information science (pp. 123-135). Wesport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
12. Nicolaisen, J. (2002b). The scholarliness of published peer reviews: a bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation 11, 3, 129-140.
13. Simon, L. (1996). The pleasures of book reviewing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 27, 4, 237-241.
14. Spink, A., Robins, D. & Schamber, L. (1998). Use of scholarly book reviews: implications for electronic communication and scholarly publication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49, 4, 364-374.
15. Thompson, A. (1991). How to review a book. Canadian Library Journal December, 416-418.
16. Tomlins, C. L. (1996). Print and electronic book reviewing can peacefully coexist. Chronicle of Higher Education, 9th August. Retrieved February 02, 2005 from http://www.h-net.org/about/press/articles/peace.html.
17. Weisse, A. B. (2001). A loss of literacy? A century of changing substance and style in medical book reviewing. Hospital Practice 36, 8, 9-10, 13.