The appearance of praise in choice reviews of outstanding

Collection Management

Volumn 20, Issue 3-4, 1996, Pages 97-117

  Wheeler, Paula ^a   Natowitz, Carlo Allen ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85023935083     PISSN: 01462679     EISSN: 15452549     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J105v20n03_10     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Blake, Virgil. 1989. “The Role of Reviews and Reviewing Media in the Selection Process:An Examination of the Research Record,*’. Collection Management, 11(1/2):2
2. Watson, Dana. 1992. “Reviewing:A Strategic Service”. In A Service Profession, A Service Commitment:A Festschrift in Honor of Charles D. Patterson, Edited by:Van Fleet, Connie, and Wallace, Danny P., 23Metuchen, NJ:Scarecrow Press.
3. Edelman, Hendrik, and Muller, Karen. 1987. “A New Look at the Library Market”. Publishers Weekly, 23 May 28:32
4. Ream, Daniel. 1979. “An Evaluation of Four Book Review Journals”. Research Quarterly, 19 Winter:149
5. Serebnick, Judith. 1992. “Selection and Holdings of Small Publishers' Books in OCLC Libraries:A Study of the Influence of Reviews, Publishers, and Vendors”. The Library Quarterly, 62 July:3, 291
6. Watson. “Reviewing:A Strategic Service” 37
7. Cridland, Nancy. 1985. “History”. In Selection of Library Materials in the Humanities, Social Sciences and Sciences, Edited by:McClung, Patricia. 81Chicago:ALA. (For additional references to Choice’s unique role in academic collection development, see References 16, 17, 18, 20, and 21.)
8. Serebnick. “Selection and Holdings” 276
9. Sabosik, Patricia. 1994. “Choice at 30”. College and Research Libraries News, 55(3):150
10. Leavy, Marvin. 1992. “An Exploration of the Validity of Choice’s Outstanding Academic Books'. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 18(2):83
11. Carlo, Paula Wheeler, and Natowitz, Allen. 1995. “Choice Book Reviews in American History, Geography, and Area Studies:An Analysis for 1988–1993”. Library Acquisitions:Practice and Theory, 19(2) Summer
12. Watson. “Reviewing:A Strategic Service” 19–23.
13. Serebnick, Judith. 1984. “An Analysis of Publishers of Books Reviewed in Key Library Journals”. Library and Information Science Research, 6(3) July-Sept.:301–302.
14. Macleod, Beth. 1981. “Library Journal and Choice:A Review of Reviews”. The Journal of Academic Librarianship ?*, 1 March:23–28.
15. Champion, Dean J., and Morris, Michael F., 1973. “A Content Analysis of Book Reviews in the AJS, ASR, and Social Forces”. American Journal of Sociology, 78(5):1256–1265.
16. Schmitt, John P., and Saunders, Stewart. 1983. “An Assessment of Choice as a Tool for Selection”. College and Research Libraries, 44(5) Sept.:376
17. June 1993. “Choice Magazine Publishing Plan” June
18. Maclam, Helen. 1992. “About Choice”. Collection Management, 16(1):73
19. About Choice” (Internal Document)
20. Ream calculated the mean time lag as 127.7 days in “Four Book Review Journals” 150
21. 1989. For further discussion of this topic see Bridges, Anne. Scholarly Book Reviews and Collection Development:A Case Study in American History”. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 15(5) Nov.:290–292. Emmick, Nancy. “Historians and Librarians:A Productive Partnership”. The History Teacher 22, 4 (Aug. 1989), 377
22. 1“ 292
23. Bain, Anne Iee, and Rutledge, John. 1986. “Editing and Publishing Scholarly Book Reviews:A Dialogue”. Journal of Academic Librarianship, Jan.:358
24. Avi. 1986. “Review the Reviewers?. School Library Journal, 32 March:115
25. Furnham, Adrian. 1987. “Going by the Book:Should Academic Book Reviews be Peer Reviewed?. Times Higher Education Supplement, 742 Jan. 23:14–15.
26. Macleod. “Library Journal and Choice”, 23–28.
27. Bilhartz, Terry. 1984. “In 500 Words or Less:Academic Book Reviewing in American History”. The History Teacher, 17(4) Aug.:525–536.
28. Carlo and Natowitz. “Choice Book Reviews
29. Page, Terry G., and Thomas, J. B., 1980. International Dictionary of Education, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
30. Macleod. “Library Journal and Choice”, 23–28.
31. Bilhartz. “In 500 Words or Less” 525–536.
32. Bridges. “Scholarly Book Reviews” 290–293.
33. Champion and Morris. “Book Reviews in the AJS, ASR and Social Forces” 1256–1265.
34. Fox. “Choice as a Book Selection Tool in Sociology” 135–152.
35. Allen, Bryce, and Reser, David. 1990. “Content Analysis in Library and Information Science Research”. Library and Information Science Research, 12(3) July-Sept.:251–262.
36. Busha, Charles, and Harter, Stephen. 1980. Research Methods in Librarianship Techniques and Interpretation, 174New York:Academic Press.
37. Classic studies include, Budd, Richard, Thorp, Robert, and Donohew, Lewi’s. 1967. Content Analysis of Communications, New York:MacMillan and Co. Holsti, Ole R. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley, 1969. Krippendorff, Klaus. Content Analysis:An Introduction to its Methodology, Beverly Hills, CA:Sage, 1980
38. Dale, Doris Cruger. 1989. “Content Analysis:A Research Methodology for School Library Media Specialists”. School Library Media Quarterly, Fall:45–46.
39. There were a total of 403 reviews in the category of North American History, Geography, and Area Studies. Omitted from the study were 23 reviews pertaining to Canada, 2 microfilm series, and 3 titles that were categorized incorrectly
40. Bilhartz. “In 500 Words or Less”, Macleod. “Library Journal and Choice”
41. The criteria identified for use in this study are not the only kinds of information that may be cited in Choice reviews. Virtually all Choice reviews contain bibliographic information about price, publisher, number of pages, and the Library of Congress classification. In addition, audience levels are indicated for the overwhelming majority of books that are recommended for purchase
42. Blake. “The Role of Reviews” 36 Macleod, “Library Journal and Choice”. 23–28; Serebnick, “An Analysis of Publishers”. 301–302; Watson, “Reviewing:A Strategic Service”. 23
43. Madam. “About Choice” 75
44. These data are on file at the College of Staten Island Inquiries should be addressed to the authors