Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 57, Issue 9, 2006, Pages 1194-1207

  Hartley, James ^a  

^a KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMICS; BOOK REVIEW; ELECTRONIC QUESTIONNAIRE;

FEATURE EXTRACTION; NATURAL SCIENCES; SOCIAL SCIENCES; TEXT PROCESSING;

INFORMATION THEORY;

EID: 33749570582     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20399     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Amabile, T.M. (1983). Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluators. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 146-156.
2. Bainbridge L., & Sanderson, P. (2005). Verbal protocol analysis. In J.R. Wilson & N. Corlett (Eds.), Evaluation of human work (pp. 159-184). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
3. Barker, P. (1997). Book reviews online. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 5(3), 54-62.
4. Barnum, C. (2002/2003). The 'magic number 5': Is it enough for webtesting? Information Design Journal and Document Design, 11(2/3), 160-170.
5. Bellardo, T. (1985). On book reviewing [editorial]. Information Processing & Management, 21, 81-82.
6. Bilhartz, T.D. (1984). In 500 words or less: Academic book reviewing in American history. The History Teacher, 17(4), 525-536.
7. Bressler, M. (1999), Contemporary sociology: A quarter century of book reviews. Sociological Forum, 14(4), 707-720.
8. Carlo, P.W., & Natowitz, A. (1996). The appearance of praise in Choice reviews of outstanding and favorably assessed books in American history, geography, and area studies. Collection Management, 20(3-4), 97-116.
9. Champion, D.J. & Morris, M.F. (1973). A content analysis of book reviews in the AJS, ASR and Social Forces. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 5, 1256-1265.
10. Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Language, 35(1), 26-58.
11. Cortada, J.W. (1998). Five ways to be a terrible book reviewer. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 30(1), 34-37.
12. Day, R.A. (1998). How to write and publish a scientific paper (5th ed.). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
13. Doessel, D.P. (2003). Some notes on 20 years of book reviews in Prometheus. Prometheus, 21(4), 523-534.
14. Dunleavy, P., & Kelly, P. (2003). Editorial: Introducing Political Studies Review. Political Studies Review, 1(1), 1-3.
15. Faulkner, L. (2003). Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(3), 379-383.
16. Furnham, A. (1986). Book reviews as a selection tool for librarians: Comments from a psychologist. Collection Management, 8(1), 33-43.
17. Furnham, A. (1997). The positive consequences of being negative: The perception of a critical reviewer. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(2), 585-594.
18. Gastel, B. (1993). Completeness of textbook reviews in medical journals: A look at a neglected aspect of peer review. Retrieved March 25, 2005, from http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/weeklydoc/gastel.asp
19. Gilbert, T.F. (1960). On the relevance of laboratory investigation of learning to self-instructional programming. In A.A. Lumsdaine, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Teaching machines and programmed learning: A sourcebook (pp. 475-485). Washington: National Education Association.
20. Goldmann, D.R. (1997). Medical writings: A new section for Annals. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126(1), 83.
21. Goldmann, D.R. (1999), Medical writings revisited. Annals of Internal Medicine, 131(5), 389-390.
22. Hartley, J. (2003). On the presentation of book reviews. Learned Publishing, 16(3), 219-220.
23. Hartley, J. (2004a). Designing informational and instructional text. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 917-947). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Hartley, J. (2004b). Current findings from research on structured abstracts. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 92(3), 368-371.
25. Hartley, J. (2005a). How do scientists read and write book reviews? European Science Editing, 31(3), 76-78.
26. Hartley, J. (2005b). Book reviewing in the BJET: A survey of BJET's referees' and writers' views. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 897-905.
27. Hartley, J., Pennebaker, J.W., & Fox, C. (2003). Abstracts, introductions, and discussions: How far do they differ in style? Scientometrics, 57(3), 389-398.
28. Henige, O. (2001). Reviewing reviewing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 33(1), 23-36.
29. Hirsch, W., Kulley, A.M., & Efron, R.T. (1974). The gatekeeping process in scientific communication: Norms, practices and contents of book reviews in professional journals (Working paper No. 83). Indianapolis, IN: Purdue University, Institute of the Study of Social Change.
30. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Pearson Education.
31. King, L. (1978). A guide to scientific writing. New York: Little Brown.
32. 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.
33. Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861-878.
34. 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.
35. Miranda, E.O. (1996). On book reviewing. Journal of Educational Thought, 30(2), 191-202.
36. Moore, M. (1978). Discrimination or favoritism? Sex bias in book reviews. American Psychologist, 33(100, 936-938).
37. 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: Universitat Jaume.
38. Naiman, J.L. (1995). Review of race, gender & science. New England Journal of Medicine, 332, 1386-1387.
39. Neilsen, J. (1989). Usability engineering at a discount. In G. Salvendy & M.J. Smith (Eds.), Designing and using human-computer interfaces and knowledge-based systems (pp. 394-401). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
40. Nicolaisen, J. (2002a). The scholarliness of published peer reviews: A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation, 11(3), 129-140.
41. Nicolaisen, J. (2002b). The J-shaped distribution of citedness. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 383-395.
42. Nicolaisen, J. (2002c). 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: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (pp. 123-135). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
43. Parker, F., & Riley, K. (1995). Writing for academic publication: A guide to getting started. Superior, WI: Parlay Press.
44. Pohlman, E. (1967). Science uber alles: A plan for psychometrically sanitary book reviewing. Contemporary Psychology, 12(5), 252-253.
45. Richardson, P. (2003). Review of Brown et al. serial publications: Guidelines for good practice in publishing printed and electronic journals. Learned Publishing, 16(3), 226.
46. Riley, L.E., & Spreitzer, E.A. (1970, November). Book reviewing in the social sciences. American Sociologist, 25, 358-363.
47. Sabosik, P.E. (1988, Summer). Scholarly reviewing and the role of Choice in the postpublication review process. Book Research Quarterly, 25, 10-18.
48. Sarton, G. (1960). Notes on the reviewing of learned books. Science, 131, 1182-1187.
49. Schubert, A., Zsindely, A. Telcs, T., & Braun, T. (1984). Quantitative analysis of a visible tip of the peer review iceberg: Book reviews in Chemistry. Scientometrics, 6(6), 433-443.
50. Simon, L. (1996). The pleasures of book reviewing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 27(4), 237-241.
51. Smith, L.D., Best, L.A., Stubbs, A., Archibald, A.B., & Robertson-Nay, R. (2002). Constructing knowledge: The role of graphs and tables in hard and soft Psychology. American Psychologist, 57(10), 749-761.
52. Snizek, W.G., & Fuhrman, E.R. (1979). Some factors affecting the evaluative content of book reviews in sociology. American Sociologist, 14(1). 108-114.
53. 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.
54. Stowe, S. (1991). Thinking about reviews. Journal of American History, 78(2), 591-595.
55. Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
56. Thompson, A. (1991, December). How to review a book. Canadian Library Journal, 25, 416-418.
57. Tomlins, C.L. (1996, August 9). Print and electronic book reviewing can peacefully co-exist. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 2, 2005, from http://www.h-net.org/about/press/articles/peace.html
58. Virzi, R.A. (1992). Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects is enough? Human Factors, 34, 457-468.
59. Wareing, S. (2005). Discipline-specific professional development: Just branding? Educational Developments, 6(1), 11-15.
60. Wessely, S. (2000). And now the book reviews... British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 388-389.
61. 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.