scholarly journals Book Review Template

Author(s):  
Otis Crandell

MS Word template for book reviews (specifically for Volume 3, Number 1).Length: maximum two pages (including the title, cover image, and first page footer)NOTES:Book reviews should include an overall summary of the book as well as chapter summaries. The author should note the highlights or special aspects of this book. We particularly encourage reviews of books that are not in English as this helps disseminate information that readers in other countries may not otherwise know about.Authors must declare whether they have reviewed the same book for another journal, and if so they should send us a copy of the other review. This declaration should be made before requesting to be assigned a book review. JLS might publish a book review which the reviewer has already reviewed for another journal if the new review is significantly different from the previous one and either it is a general book of importance to lithic researchers as a whole or the original review was published in a way which limits its dissemination (grey literature, small or regional publication, print only publication, in other language, self-published). The editors of the journal will decide on a case-by-case basis. If someone intends to review a book for us which they have already reviewed, they are advised to let us know about the situation before writing the review.

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christy Sich

Abstract Objective - This study compared the quality and helpfulness of traditional book review sources with the online user rating system in Amazon.com in order to determine if one mode is superior to the other and should be used by library selectors to assist in making purchasing decisions. Methods - For this study, 228 reviews of 7 different novels were analyzed using a content analysis approach. Of these, 127 reviews came from traditional review sources and 101 reviews were published on Amazon.com. Results - Using a checklist developed for this study, a significant difference in the quality of reviews was discovered. Reviews from traditional sources scored significantly higher than reviews from Amazon.com. The researcher also looked at review length. On average, Amazon.com reviews are shorter than reviews from traditional sources. Review rating—favourable, unfavourable, or mixed/neutral—also showed a lack of consistency between the two modes of reviews. Conclusion - Although Amazon.com provides multiple reviews of a book on one convenient site, traditional sources of professionally written reviews would most likely save librarians more time in making purchasing decisions, given the higher quality of the review assessment.


2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 656-670
Author(s):  
Kate Sutherland

Professor Joseph Weiler will soon stand trial for criminal libel in France for refusing to remove a book review from a website associated with an academic journal for which he serves as editor. His case has disturbing implications for all those who write, edit, and publish critical scholarly work. In this article, I explore those implications for Canadian scholars at home and as members of a global scholarly community. I assess the likelihood of success of a similar complaint under Canadian defamation law, and I consider the impact of libel chill and libel tourism. I conclude that although the defendant in such a case would have a good chance of prevailing under Canadian law through the defense of fair comment, a threat to academic freedom remains that requires action on the part of individuals and institutions committed to its preservation and enhancement.


2021 ◽  
pp. 102986492098396
Author(s):  
Jonathan De Souza
Keyword(s):  

Probation ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-33
Author(s):  
Michael Nyman

1989 ◽  
Vol 100 (4) ◽  
pp. 150-150
Author(s):  
H. Benedict Green
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document