"What kind of a profession is it that lets some 3.3%, 15 watt,
illiterate some of a bitch tear your work and your reputation to shred
and get paid for it?" ~ Sinclair Lewis
"It is all but impossible to review a book adequately when the
review is
limited to 5% or less of the length of the book, and very few reviews
are
allowed to go further." ~ David Henige
"Unless a reviewer has the courage to give you unqualified praise, I
say ignore the bastard." ~ John Steinbeck
"Reviewing can never be objective, for it is an act of
interpretation and judgment performed by a human being reading at a
particular time in a particular culture." ~ Lynn Z. Bloom
"Good reviews are forgotten; bad reviews remembered; and the very
worst
are etched with acid in the victim's mind. ... It's odd that, although
one
hates getting them oneself, bad reviews (even of one's dearest friends)
are
good reading. Nothing like the smell of hot blood in the morning as you
open
your literary supplement. So long, that is, as its not spurting from
your
veins." ~ John Sutherland
"For better or worse, a motley assortment of underpaid and often
anonymous reviewers using their own unfettered judgment have a great
deal of influence over the books you are most likely to come across in
your neighborhood bookstore and, if you are shopping on line, buy." ~
Adelle Waldman
"It is all but impossible to review a book adequately when the
review is limited to five percent or less of the length of the book,
and very few reviews are allowed to go further." David Henige
"Ethics demands a sense of proportion. It is fairer to take issue
with false conclusions or glaring omissions that with occasional slips.
To say that because I misspelled the name Tolkien (or the publishers
did, and I did not catch it) once in a 400 page, fact-packed manuscript
is no good reason to conclude that nothing at all in it can be
accurate." ~ Leonard R.N. Ashley
Reviews serve at least two purposes:
Ordinarily, selectors do not look for reviews. Reviews come to the selector via routed periodicals, dedicated subscriptions, or mentions on discussion lists. Review excerpts may appear with promotional material from publishers and from others who have read, viewed, or listened and want to share their thoughts on the new item.
Selectors do look for reviews when an item is controversial, expensive, and/or the author or publisher is unknown. Searching for reviews requires more time and effort than many selectors seem to have.
Typically, reviews are used to reduce risk. As risk is reduced, the need for reviews is also reduced. What can be done to reduce risk when there are no reviews? Consider:
It is important for the selector to consider when reviews are needed and what sort of information is required to make an appropriate selection decision. Waiting for reviews when they are not needed is unprofessional. Selecting a more expensive item based on an inadequate review can lead to loss of face.
Proxy selection depends on current, reliable, useful, and
accurate reviews. Thus, reviewing is perhaps the most important process
in
developing collections. As you might expect, there is considerable
variation
in review content and many reviewers vary in their subject knowledge
and
writing ability. As Polack says, "a good review is no more or less than
an
honest personal reaction" to an item. Ideally, reviews would be issued
before or very soon after an item is released. For selectors, who need
to
read many reviews, reviews need to be relatively short and decisive,
closing
with a persuasive recommendation.
Review sources are able to review only a small proportion of new
content. The Los Angeles Times Book Review receives about 60,000
reviews and reviews about 1,500. The Book Review Editor comments: "it's
triage every day. I feel like a First World War surgeon might have felt
on the battle field at Verdun. [Steve Wasserman]"Most newspapers have
substantially reduced the number of items reviewed because of reduced
advertising reviews.
Public libraries are most likely to use Library Journal,
Kirkus, Booklist, and Publishers
Weekly. PW reviews [mostly written by freelancers reviewed
by editors] more titles [about 10,000 per year],
more quickly, and reviews are more likely to be critical. Kirkus is limited to general
interest reviews [about 7,000 per year] and also uses freelancers.
Because Kirkus has launched pay for review initiatives, some are
critical of the integrity of all of their reviews. Reviews are lively,
and more unpredictable. College libraries
use Choice and school library media centers are still most
likely to
use School Library Journal. Using a few standard titles to
develop
collections can result in similar collections in many different
libraries.
Such collections may lack variety and not meet unique community needs.
Editorial policies at major reviewing periodicals have an immediate
impact on libraries. For example, Publisher's Weekly decided to no
longer review poetry in a separate section. When asked about the
change, the review editor noted that most subscribers had little
interest in poetry and that poetry contributed little advertising
revenue. Few reviews of poetry books will likely lead to fewer books of
poetry in book stores and libraries.
Public and school libraries frequently use databases or catalogs
from vendors that contain evaluative comment from full-text reviews.
For example, Baker & Taylor's School Select provides access to
about 800,000 titles appropriate for the school library media center.
The E-list service provides collection development lists by subject and
grade level. Such a collection eliminates the need to keep up with
individual review sources.
The traditional sources for finding reviews are: Book Review Digest [1905] and Book Review Index [1965]. A newer
title is EBSCO's Book Index with
Reviews [database without print equivalent]. BIR stars popular
titles, lists forthcoming titles and includes jacket images. Since
Amazon.com as well as Barnes and Noble.com aggregate reviews, many
librarians use the websites instead of book review publications.
Multidisciplinary databases such as Expanded
Academic Index typically include many full-text book
reviews.
The earliest scholarly periodicals, issued between 1641-1665,
consisted
mostly of book notices. While these were not critical reviews, they do
indicate the importance scholarship places on knowing about new
knowledge/information, especially scientific discovery. The Edinburgh Review [1802-1929]
introduced modern literary book reviewing.
The New York Times Book Review , probably the best known book reviewing source, began in 1896. The Times Literary Supplement, the British periodical which some believe to be the best reviewing source, did not begin until 1901. Library Journal began in 1876 and Booklist in 1905. Reviewing as we know it is a recent phenomenon.
Most are descriptive with no or little evaluation--a short, straight-forward account of what it is about. While information professionals need evaluative reviews, review writers find it easier to briefly describe, often based on information supplied by the creator or producer of the product. Some reviews are detailed and others are impressionistic. Some are objective and some are biased. Sometimes, the New York Times for example, will have an opponent of the author review a book in what I suppose is an attempt to generate "buzz" or excitement. Some reviews are poorly organized and written. Since there are no enforced standards for reviews or reviewers, the average review is often not very useful to the selector.
Reviewers review and not publications. For example, the New York Times does not review books, but Susan Williams does. Obviously, the stature of the reviewing periodical will lend an aura to the review. Still, the key to using reviews is to become familiar with the reviewer so that you know if what the reviewer recommends is what you would recommend. Over time, become familiar with the reviewer.
The vast majority of new books are not reviewed. The New York Times Book Review reviews about 2,200 books per year. The Washington Post may review about 1,500. Publishers Weekly will review about 7,600 works and Kirkus about 4,800 with Library Journal near 6,300 and Choice about 7,200. With about 50,000 new books issued in the U.S. each year, this means that the selector who uses these sources will only see the tip of the iceberg. Many useful items are not reviewed or are reviewed in relatively obscure sources. Some effort is required to find reviews for the variety of material likely to interest adults who use a public library. The general review sources, such as Booklist, have space for only a few reviews and focus on works that are
This means that only a fraction of the new books, videos, or whatever will be reviewed. Choice, for example, reviews but 3000 of the 23,000 or so items it receives in a typical year. It is somewhat different from the normal review periodical since it actively solicits items for review consideration. Specialist periodicals are likely to review a large proportion of new material in their subject area, but there may be notable time-lag. Material published abroad or in a foreign language is least likely to be reviewed or reviewed in a timely manner.
Most reviews are cheerleader's; that is overly descriptive and positive. As might be expected, specialist reviews are most likely to be critical, especially in scholarly periodicals. Creative work, fiction, for example, is more likely to receive negative reviews. It is certainly easier to make positive comments than negative ones. It also takes fewer words to praise than to criticize. Too, reviewers, especially scholarly ones, would rather not savage colleagues. A 1995 study found these percentages of positive reviews:
Few reviews are based on rigorous testing. The Consumer's
Union
model with labs, tests, and engineers is unusual. And even CU is
not
too rigorous with its taste panels to identify the best-tasting peanut
butter. Testing is most likely to be found in computer
hardware/software
reviews where the periodical has established labs and technical staff
to do
the reviews. With some informational products, it is easier to find
objective
evidence to support notions of goodness. In the humanities, it is
difficult
to "test" new products except via opinion or professional
judgment. Reference material may be tested by comparing responses
to
known answers, but even right answers may be in dispute. Still, "it is
difficult to gauge the correctness of every fact in every book."
The inability to test leads to reviews with dramatically different
conclusions. Bloedow, reviewing a biograph of Arthur Evans, found the
book "to be poorly organized, poorly written, and with factual errors.
Traill, reviewing the same work, found the book to be a notable
achievement.
While price is almost always important and some information agencies place caps on purchases, the key here is value. A free item that is not useful and used is a poor value. An expensive item that is useful and heavily used is a good value. When considering the price of an item, a few variables are important:
In general, it is useful to read reviews for expensive items since they may be a good value. Too, if they are a good enough value, funding may be found to facilitate purchase.
While there are not likely to be any ideal reviewers, we should consider their attributes:
Clements identifies eight unethical reviewers:
Rettig says that a good review should teach:
Juhl says that a good review should answer these questions:
In academe, the reward structure (focus on refereed publications) discourages reviewing since reviewing is felt to be a minor contribution (mere opinion about a new work and appearing in a space too limited to develop serious argument) to new knowledge, if any, and earns few points for tenure and promotion. Contrast this with the fact that about half of the typical scholarly periodical is devoted to reviews and announcements of new items. Elsewhere, reviewing may bring helpful recognition and some status. Reviewing does provide an opportunity for professional growth. The opportunity to "clarify, organize, and analyze the swirling impressions and ideas generated from using an intellectual product" before others see it can be exciting and a wonderful learning experience."
For reviewers, reviewing offers intellectual engagement in the field as well as an opportunity to demonstrate knowledge and ability. In a sense, being a reviewer is evidence that a scholar has joined the scholarly (or other) community as a thoughtful reader and writer.
For publishers {whoever sells or distributes an intellectual product}, the review promotes a new product and provides an evaluation of product goodness (feedback). A positive review may cause sales to increase and will certainly enhance the reputation of the house. Even a negative review will provide useful information about product quality, the competition, and the state of the market.
For creators, the review provides evaluation and suggestions for improvement. Since reviews may be negative, there is a strong tension between authors and reviewers. As one author said to the reviewer, "How many novels have you had published? Margaret Atwood commented that a review may make you "...feel as if someone has removed your skin and then locked you into the stocks, where the populace at large can jeer and throw rotting vegetables at you." Reviewers are praised when they praise an author's work, but may be greeted with contempt when the review is negative.
For scholars, reviews offer the same negatives and positives as mentioned above. Reviews announce new work in related areas that the scholar may be unaware of. Reviews also represent the most obvious or visible example of the peer review process at work. In addition, reviews suggest directions for further study or identify knowledge gaps. A thoughtful review may also provide an opportunity for dialog on the state of knowledge in the field. The substantial and comparative review may also function as a bibliographic essay which characterizes the state of knowledge in a particular area and this is useful to the scholar interested in a new area. Since reviews are often the most widely read feature in a scholarly periodical, they are important to scholars. Too, one study found that about 60% of the scholars in a field had written book reviews.
For users, reviews help to identify what is good and what is not. With time and money being scarce, the review tells you which new products are a worthy investment. Reviews may also be a substitute for using the work. A longer review may tell you all that you need to know about the findings of a new monograph, i.e. a de facto abstract which keeps you current in the field.
For collection developers, reviews help us to identify what is noteworthy and what is likely to be popular. Reviews drive selection decisions; evidence clearly indicates that the more often an item is reviewed, the more likely that it will be added to collections.
There is little evidence except in the library environment where the relationship between reviews and selection is well-documented. In other areas, there is much opinion that reviews have substantial impact. Software reviews can dramatically facilitate or inhibit sales of new products. Film, theater, and restaurant reviews can make relative unknowns popular and successful. Many people make major purchase decisions based on Consumer Reports reviews.
While it is important to have critical objective reviews, a lifetime of work can be destroyed in a few words. In other situations, for example, the sequel to Gone with the Wind, a large number of negative reviews may have little or no impact on sales.
It is best to have a positive review in a well-regarded source. However, a negative review is better than no review and if the negative review is vicious enough, it could be a powerful sales stimulant--"the worst book that I have ever read"--by stimulating controversy and demand.
Who reviews the reviewers? With a few exceptions for highly visible reviewers in the national media, no one reviews the reviewers. This is a rich area for research.
Reviews are relatively short, normally devoted to a single item, and contain purchase information, description, evaluation, and a recommendation for purchase. The review audience is the potential user or purchaser.
Review articles or essays review several similar works at the same time, normally comparing the works.
Annual reviews, sometimes called "advances in"... or "progress in"... are a state of the art summary of progress--the state of the art--in a specific field, typically in the natural or social sciences. These reviews represent a comprehensive review of the literature with some emphasis on describing and evaluating the best new work in the filed.
Annotation is a brief description of a work, normally without evaluation.
Literary criticism focuses on the quality and character of the work. Literary critics speak to the author while reviewers speak to the user. Literary criticism tends to be longer, more reflective, with more explication, uses critical theories, places works in context, and is less timely. Reviews tend to be shorter, more reactive, more descriptive, more likely to praise or blame, and more timely.
A list of items received includes items to be reviewed later as well as some that will not be reviewed.
Typically, the review contains four parts:
Evaluation is probably the weakest element in current reviewing. For example, most reviews of new novels are almost completely plot summary. Scholarly book reviews are most likely to be comparative. Popular book reviews are least likely to be comparative.
Review copies must be sent to the review editor since they are not normally solicited. Smaller firms may not know where to send review copies or may be able to afford to send only a limited number of review copies. Their works are less likely to be reviewed. Larger firms send out many review copies and thus get more reviews. Larger firms are also more likely to provide a variety of value-added material to accompany the item to be reviewed, including all the information needed to create a quick, easy review. Generally, the editor and author responsible for an item will work together to create a list of reviewing sources that should receive the item.
Typically, only a few items will be reviewed in a general reviewing source. More specialized sources review more new items, but even they do not review all the items received. Library Journal typically reviews less than 10 percent of what it receives (about 600 books/week).
The review editor selects what to review and is thus a gate-keeper. In general,
The more specialized an item, the less likely that it will be reviewed. Thus, a few works are reviewed repeatedly while others are not reviewed at all. It is estimated that fewer than 10% of the books published in the U.S, each year are reviewed. A study of business management books found that 10 percent were reviewed 3 times or more, 31 percent were reviewed once, and 58 percent were not reviewed.
The review editor is responsible for preparing or having prepared the checklist that accompanies material sent to reviewers. This checklist often determines which elements are included in the finished review. School Library Journal provides good examples of checklists for various types of books. These checklists should be useful for prospective reviewers.
The editor will decide whether or not to review items likely to result in a negative review. For example, some hobby periodicals will not publish negative reviews of new products {hurts advertising revenue}. Booklist only reviews good stuff. About 90 percent of Choice and LJ reviews are positive. A focus on good material and positive reviews creates a problem for the selector who does not know if a non-reviewed item is bad, too specialized, or just escaped the notice of the review editor. In general, a negative review requires more specifics so that a proper negative review requires more effort and space than a positive one.
The editor selects the reviewer. Matching the book to the proper reviewer is the key. The American Historical Review has about 7,000 reviewers in its file and reviews more than 1,000 works per year. All AHR reviewers are required to have published at least one book length monograph. Most editors favor senior or established reviewers. The editor is responsible for recruiting, selecting, and monitoring reviewers. Since reviewers are typically not paid and are often quite busy, it is sometimes difficult to find willing reviewers. The editor must follow up to insure that the review is delivered on time and is of reasonable quality. The literature suggests that 10 to 20 percent of the reviewers will not complete their review. Scholarly book reviews often take about 7 months to complete.
The editor edits reviews to insure that they are accurate, complete, and fair. Many reviews are not well written or organized. Editing should improve the quality of the review without altering the judgment of the reviewer. Established reviewing sources usually have checklists that reviewers must follow.
While most reviews are positive, the reviewer plays an important role in the selection process. The better and the more positive the review, the more likely that a new work will be selected and purchased.
Reviewers rarely have formal training in reviewing. It is generally assumed that anyone who is a subject specialist will also be a excellent reviewer. Anyone can be a reviewer and more people are reviewing via Internet discussion lists, news groups, reader's reviews on on-line book stores, and on web sites.
The literature suggests that there are several faults reviewers should avoid:
Bias may be a problem, even if it is unconscious. Most reviewers are white, middle class males (with PhDs if scholarly). Scholars may be biased against popular material because it is simplified and thus somewhat inaccurate. Members of particular communities may find it difficult to review a work by a member of their community.
Earlier, anonymous reviewing was the rule because it seemed to encourage more objectivity. Those reviewed felt that this was cowardly. In a small, specialist community, everyone may know everyone else regardless of whose name appears on the review. Today, with the exception of staff written reviews in PW and Kirkus, few reviews in major sources are anonymous. Kirkus has 70 reviewers who earn about $40.00 per review.
Most reviewers are amateurs, often academics, who do something else full-time. "Most reviewers see themselves as intellectual odd-jobbers." Financial rewards are limited since reviewers receive low fees or no fees (but keep whatever was reviewed if it was not too expensive). Few sources have full-time professional reviewers. PC Magazine Booklist, and Publishers Weekly are exceptions. There is often considerable turnover after two - three years.
The most visible example of amateur reviewers are the reader reviews appearing on Amazon.com. Amazon has even listed the most productive and most valued of these reviewers. The most highly ranked reviewer, Harriet Klausner has written 4910 reviews. Harriet is an acquisitions librarian.
There is considerable controversy about tags in reviews. Tags might be characters [E=earthy language, icons [stars, dog bones], words or phrases such as for "Mature users" or contains "Realistic language." They would ordinarily appear in the ID block of the review. There are two types of review tags. The first, and least controversial, is the summary judgment tag. For example, the Music Library Association Notes uses + for excellent, 0 for acceptable and - for unacceptable in a summary for the review itself. The question here is whether or not it is reasonable to collapse an entire review into a character or two. Still, this is frequently done and such tags are found in restaurant guides, movie and TV reviews, and elsewhere. The definition for some tags is so vague as to be meaningless. For example, what does a tag that means "of acceptable quality" mean when looking at reviews of genre fiction?
Escape to Romance.com uses these tags where the * used here should be a rose bud:
***** A true keeper, a story that will remain on your bookshelf and in your heart
**** 1/2 A sensational story, very highly recommended
**** An excellent book, one we highly recommend
***1/2 A moving story, strongly recommended
*** A good story, recommended
** An acceptable book
* Not worth your time or money
Library Journal in rating
travel book series uses these tags:
The second type of tag is one used to identify questionable content. Film reviews and announcements, TV programs, computer games and video games use tags to warn buyers, especially parents about material not suitable for children. How objective is the application of such tags? How reliable are they? Is a reviewer obligated to tag a new item when that element is a relatively minor part of a worthwhile work? Is the reviewer obligated to mention each time a character dresses as a witch for Halloween? While reviewers may be reluctant to tag "good stuff" for fear that fearful information professionals will then avoid it, the buyer does not like to be surprised by intellectual content. "Nobody wants to buy a pig in a poke." Tell me if an item is likely to cause controversy. But then would relevant, but controversial items ever be selected?
An interesting controversy tagging scheme is also found on Escape to Romance.com. Only words are used here.
Flame-thrower = hot and steamy, extremely explicit lovemaking, sex is a primary focus of the book
Spicy = lots of lovemaking, lots of details, different situations, explicit sex.
Tangy = love scenes included, although they leave room for your imagination
Sweet = emphasis on emotions and affection, implied or described love scenes
Innocent = may include sexual situations.
In contrast, the common tagging schemes are age based and notably vague. They certainly ignore the very different attitudes, experiences, and preferences of different people. Libraries are somewhat vulnerable to age based tagging since we have arranged collections by age and grade level and because publishers normally include age tags on the front flap copy. Films use the MPAA scheme:
G = general audiences, all ages
PG = parental guidance suggested
PG-13 = parents strongly cautioned
R = restricted, under 17 must be accompanied by adult
NC-17 = no one under 18 admitted.
Computer and video games use the ESRB scheme:
EC = early childhood, ages 3 -
E = everyone, ages 6 -
T= teen, ages 13 -
M = mature, ages 17 -
AO = adults only, ages 18 -
Those working in school library media centers and public libraries should expect regular demands by some community members to apply controversy tags to items in the collection.
In a nutshell, Bradford found that a small number of sources account for most of the useful items needed by users, but that complete coverage required a very large number of sources. This is also true of review sources. A few review sources (high yield titles) will contain most of the reviews for a particular subject. Selectors need to be familiar with these sources and insure that they are scanned regularly.
Many reviews are published in specialist periodicals or in news groups or list discussions where they are relatively invisible. There are many enthusiast sites on the web that include reviews, but not all are easily found via your favorite search engine. Access is especially a problem for information about hobbies and other leisure-time activities. Review access is also a problem for many non-print formats, with audio books a good example.
In general, collection developers use too few review sources. Public libraries, for example, make between 80 - 90 percent of their selection decisions on the basis of reviews in Booklist, Choice, Journal, New York Times Book Review, and Publishers Weekly. Collections based on a few review sources tend to be less diverse and less likely to meet the needs of smaller audiences. In particular, small and alternative presses are often neglected.
Vendors supplying books to schools and public libraries often include full-text reviews from notable reviewing sources in their database, via website gateway, and in printed catalogs. Book Wholesalers with its "Titletales" service and Brodart with its "FirstPic" service are good examples. It is much easier to find reviews gathered in a catalog or database that also indicate availability and discounted price.
Book Review Digestt and Book Review Index are the best known traditional sources for book reviews. BRI has been more useful because it has included many more reviews. However, BRD Plus has been much expanded via WilsonWeb with more summaries, more review sources, and more full-text reviews. If you are selecting in larger libraries, you should be familiar with both.
Most reviews are too brief to include all the elements and information needed by selectors. The mean trade book review contains about 212 words. The mean scholarly book review contains about 837 words. About 250 words fill a normal typed, double-spaced page. To tell a reviewer that she has only 300 words may be to say that the review or the item to be reviewed is not that important. Reviews are often shallow because there is not enough space to develop an argument or support one with evidence. However, busy selectors with little time prefer shorter reviews because they take less time to read.
Selectors rarely have time to read the available reviews. There are a growing number of reviews on the WWW, in discussion groups, and in news groups. However, the number of book reviews appearing in popular newspapers and periodicals has declined over time. Ordinary people are less likely to encounter book reviews than before.
Time-lag may be the most serious problem with reviews. The book review sources with the earliest reviews are those serving the library and book trades. Library Journal requires receipt of galleys at least three months prior to publication. Kirkus probably has the most early reviews. It is also more likely to have negative reviews. Other sources, Choice for example, will only review the final, complete, published work. Software reviews are very current and may appear before the software is in the marketplace. But reviews based on alpha or beta copies that differ from the final product sold in retail outlets may be misleading. Some publishers and film distributors withhold review copies because they fear that negative reviews will impact sales. The mean book trade review appears about 3 months after the work is widely available for sale. PW reviews more titles, more quickly and is more likely to give mixed or negative reviews. Typically, these appear about 4 weeks before most other reviews.
The mean scholarly book review appears about 9 months after the work is widely available for sale. Scholarly reviews are critical and thorough, but are too late except for retrospective collection development. In a field where currency is really important, most reviews will appear too late to be useful. Some works will be out of print after that long time-lag.
Samuel Pepys reviewed Shakespeare's "Midsummer Night's Dream" and said "The most insipid, ridiculous play that I ever saw in my Life." Hemingway, Stein, Whitman, and Thoreau all received very negative contemporary reviews for their work. There is a book devoted to contemporary reviews later repudiated [See Rotten Reviews by Bill Henderson.] Choice Said that the Motion Picture Guide was a classic, monumental work while Film Quarterly said that it was "laughably error-prone, slapdash, ill- edited, and unreliable."
The New York Times Book Review has placed more than 50,000 reviews from 1980- on its web site. Reviews are free, but registration is required. Booklist also has more reviews available on its web site. Older reviews especially are likely to be found on the web where they may quickly be searched with an in-house search engine.
Good sources for book reviews on the WWW include:
While vendors like Brodart have gathered reviews from several sources for their catalogs and current awareness services for years, this effort has become more sophisticated in. There are more review collections both in CD-ROM and at websites so that it is easier to locate reviews from a variety of sources at one location. BIP adds more reviews from more sources so that it will be easier to check status, check review recommendation, and order a new book in one source and quickly. About 10 percent of the titles in the version of BIP with reviews on disc or online have full-text reviews. Reader's Guide Abstracts Full Text includes a growing number of full text book reviews. The digital version of Gale's Book Review Index includes more than 3 million records.
We already see many more reader/consumer/user reviews on websites, news groups, and discussion lists on the Internet. These populist or "democratic" listener reviews on Amazon.com can be a good example and provide selectors with a much wider variety of reviews and recommendations. However, there have been problems with "fake" reviews from friends or enemies of an author. Some author comment appearing on Amazon was not written by the author, but by another. Amazon does not have any sort of screening mechanism for these reviews. One author has admitted that he had posted several anonymous puffs of his own novel to counter negative reviews by others. Reader reviews appear after staff reviews and those from newspapers and magazines and that may help. Note too that Amazon "recommends" books based on substantial fees paid by publishers.
A major problem here is the scattering of many useful reviews over the full breadth of the Internet. Many are difficult to find and some are available for only a few days before they disappear. Obviously, not all of these reviews are objective, well-written, and helpful.
The Bryn Mawr Classical Review (1990-) and the Bryn Mawr Medieval Review (1993-) are excellent examples. Reviews are by noted authorities, authors are guaranteed the right to reply, reviews are published (distributed digitally) as soon as they are edited and approved. Books received but without a reviewer are noted and reviewers are urged to apply thus giving them a much more diverse group of reviewers. Time-lag is dramatically reduced. Digital reviews may be published on a website with subscribers notified or they may be distributed to those on a email mailing list.
Perhaps based upon the shareware tradition, more intellectual products are available for preview on the web. Chapters from forthcoming books are increasingly available, especially for genre fiction. Some technical publishers have placed entire books on the web. Software is often available for free downloading, sometimes with some features disabled or that time out after 30 days. Previewing allows us to practice pure selection but it is expensive in time and effort.
If reviewing is to improve and to become more useful, we need to take these important steps:
In order to avoid being tool bound, broaden your review sources to include more non- traditional ones and get on the mailing list of specialist publishers and dealers.
Given: school library media specialist in a suburban high school. About 18 percent of your students receive a free lunch. About 32 percent of your graduates will attend college. There is a good vocational curriculum as well as the usual college prep one. Your current awareness sources for new material is limited to School Library Journal and vendor catalogs/flyers/newsletters.
How might you identify and use reviews of new items available on the Internet? What are the major assets and liabilities of using these reviews?
Given: an academic library in a university much like UTK. Your periodicals budget is again being reduced and some standard reviewing sources are likely to be cut. An administrator has suggested that "free" reviews from the Internet could easily replace those in expensive periodicals and would be more timely besides.
How would you respond? What do you see as the major assets and liabilities of using reviews from the Internet?
Given: public library much like Knox County. It has been suggested that on-line bookstores such as Amazon.com, with their reader and staff reviews of popular reading material, can easily replace the standard reviewing sources.
How would you respond? What are the major assets and liabilities of using these reviews? When would you feel comfortable using reader reviews?
You are a reviewer for Youth Book Reviews and have been asked to tag books reviewed to indicate the degree to which they contain offensive material. In particular, tags will be used to note sexuality, violence, and the supernatural.
How would you respond? Why?
Given: an information agency that has relied heavily on a small number of selection sources resulting in a standard collection. You would like to become less "tool bound."
What initiatives might you take to solve this problem?
