how to write a book review for academic journal

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Write an Academic Book Review

4-minute read

• 13th September 2019

For researchers and postgraduates , writing a book review is a relatively easy way to get published. It’s also a good way to refine your academic writing skills and learn the publishing process. But how do you write a good academic book review? We have a few tips to share.

1. Finding a Book to Review

Before you can write a book review, you need a suitable book to review. Typically, there are two main ways to find one:

• Look to see which books journal publishers are seeking reviews for.
• Find a book that interests you and pitch it to publishers.

The first approach works by finding a journal in your field that is soliciting reviews. This information may be available on the journal’s website (e.g., on a page titled “Books for Review”). However, you can also email the editor to ask if there are book review opportunities available.

Alternatively, you can find a book you want to review and pitch it to journal editors. If you want to take this approach, pick a book that:

• Is about a topic or subject area that you know well.
• Has been published recently, or at least in the last 2–3 years.
• Was published by a reputable publisher (e.g., a university printing press).

You can then pitch the review to a journal that covers your chosen subject.

Some publishers will even give reviewers access to new books. Springer, for example, has a scheme where reviewers can access books online and receive a print copy once a review is published. So this is always worth checking.

2. Follow the Style Guide

Once you know the journal you want to write for, look for the publisher’s style guide. This might be called the “Author Instructions” or “Review Guidelines,” but it should be available somewhere on the publisher’s website. If it is not obviously available, consider checking with the editor.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

When you have found the style guide, follow its instructions carefully. It should provide information on everything from writing style and the word count to submitting your review, making the process much simpler.

3. Don’t Make It About You!

You’d be surprised how often people begin by summarizing the book they’re reviewing, but then abandon it in favor of explaining their own ideas about the subject matter. As such, one important tip when reviewing an academic book is to actually review the book , not just the subject matter.

This isn’t to say that you can’t offer your own thoughts on the issues discussed, especially if they’re relevant to what the author has argued. But remember that people read reviews to find out about the book being reviewed, so this should always be your focus.

4. Questions to Answer in a Book Review

Finally, while the content of a review will depend on the book, there are a few questions every good book review should answer. These include:

• What is the book about? Does it cover the topic adequately? What does the author argue? Ideally, you will summarize the argument early on.
• Who is the author/editor? What is their field of expertise? How does this book relate to their past work? You might also want to mention relevant biographical details about the author, if there are any.
• How does the author support their argument? Do they provide convincing evidence? Do they engage with counterarguments? Try to find at least one strength (i.e., something the book does well) and one weakness (i.e., something that could be stronger) to write about.
• As a whole, has the book helped you understand the subject? Who would you recommend it to? This will be the concluding section of your review.

If you can cover all these points, you should end up with a strong book review. All you need then is to have it proofread by the professionals .

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

3-minute read

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

2-minute read

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

What Is Market Research?

No matter your industry, conducting market research helps you keep up to date with shifting...

8 Press Release Distribution Services for Your Business

In a world where you need to stand out, press releases are key to being...

How to Get a Patent

In the United States, the US Patent and Trademarks Office issues patents. In the United...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Chiropr Educ
• v.24(1); Spring 2010

How to Write a Scholarly Book Review for Publication in a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Alexander d. lee.

Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College

Bart N. Green

Naval Medical Center, San Diego, National University of Health Sciences

Claire D. Johnson

National University of Health Sciences

Julie Nyquist

University of Southern California

Alexander Lee is with the Department of Graduate Education and Research Programs, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College. Bart Green is with the Chiropractic Division, Department of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, the Department of Publications, National University of Health Sciences, and is Editor-in-Chief for The Journal of Chiropractic Education . Claire Johnson is with the Department of Publications, National University of Health Sciences. Julie Nyquist is with the Division of Medical Education, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California.

To describe and discuss the processes used to write scholarly book reviews for publication in peer-reviewed journals and to provide a recommended strategy and book appraisal worksheet to use when conducting book reviews.

A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature was conducted in June 2009 using a combination of controlled vocabulary and truncated text words to capture articles relevant to writing scholarly book reviews for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

The initial search identified 839 citations. Following the removal of duplicates and the application of selection criteria, a total of 78 articles were included in this review including narrative commentaries ( n  = 26), editorials or journal announcements ( n  = 25), original research ( n  = 18), and journal correspondence pieces ( n  = 9).

Discussion:

Recommendations for planning and writing an objective and quality book review are presented based on the evidence gleaned from the articles reviewed and from the authors' experiences. A worksheet for conducting a book review is provided.

Conclusions:

The scholarly book review serves many purposes and has the potential to be an influential literary form. The process of publishing a successful scholarly book review requires the reviewer to appreciate the book review publication process and to be aware of the skills and strategies involved in writing a successful review.

Introduction

In the current publishing market, there is no shortage of books written for the busy health care practitioner or academic professional. 1 The scholarly book reviewer plays an important role in informing readers about new books and guiding their reading preferences as they explore the Internet and large catalogues provided by publishers. With the expectations of the many stakeholders in the book review process (readers, authors, journal editors, and publishers) mounted on the reviewer's shoulders, the production of a well balanced, engaging, and informative critique, within the confines of a predetermined word limit, is no simple task. Some book review editors describe book reviewing as a fine art. 2

The scholarly book review is considered by some to be a form of academic writing that serves to describe and critically evaluate the content, quality, meaning, and significance of a book. 3–6 A well constructed book review can provide a thoughtful perspective and will be appreciated by all; however, “…a bad review blows up in your face, not just in the author's.” 7 Many problems identified in poorly conducted book reviews can be attributed to the poor evaluative and writing skills of the reviewer. 8 However, sometimes these problems are rooted in the book reviewer's lack of understanding of portions of the book review process. 7 An appreciation of the purpose and significance of all aspects of the book review process can provide the book review author with a wider perspective to employ when crafting a book review.

In the biomedical literature, there are a number of expert opinion pieces that describe strategies for evaluating books and writing book reviews. 2 , 5 , 6 , 9–14 However, we were unable to find an evidence-based source to assist authors when writing a book review. Thus, we conducted a structured literature search and narrative review of the literature to equip the book reviewer with an evidence-based understanding of all aspects pertaining to the book review process. This article provides an amalgamation of recommendations and a helpful worksheet to use when conducting book reviews.

A literature search was conducted in June 2009 using the following databases: MEDLINE (1950– 2009) and EMBASE (1980–2009) through OVID Publishing, CINAHL Plus with Full Text (1937– 2009) through EBSCO Publishing, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature (2000–2009). The search strategy used a combination of controlled vocabulary from the respective databases and truncated text words. All terms from the controlled vocabularies were exploded and searched as major concepts when available. Reference lists of the retrieved studies were scanned to identify any articles that may have been missed from the literature search. A full search strategy is provided in Figure ​ Figure1 1 .

The search strategies used to obtain articles for this report.

Articles retrieved from the search were screened using abstracts and citations. In instances in which the article topic was unclear, the full text was retrieved. Article screening and selection was conducted by the primary author (ADL). Selection criteria for articles to be included in the review were that they must have been published in a peer-reviewed journal and reported on one or more of the following criteria: strategies for conducting scholarly book reviews, thematic issues related to the publication of scholarly book reviews, or recommendations on academic writing of which a section pertained to writing scholarly book reviews.

Articles that met the inclusion criteria were descriptively analyzed by the primary author (ADL) and the data extracted included: author(s), publication type, and narrative information concerning scholarly book reviews and their publication. To generate recommendations for conducting book reviews, the authors' personal experiences writing book reviews and acting as journal editors were used to supplement the evidence gleaned from the articles included in this review.

The initial search yielded 839 citations. After duplicate citations were removed and selection criteria were applied, a total of 76 articles were identified as being relevant for this report. Scanning of reference lists within each article yielded an additional 10 articles. Despite efforts made to contact the sources of eight publications, these articles were irretrievable due to lost holdings from accessed libraries and cessation of journal publication. Therefore, a total of 78 articles 1–78 were included in this review. The articles included were classified into four groups according to their publication formats: 1) narrative commentaries ( n  = 26), 2 , 4–7 , 9–14 , 47–61 2) editorials or journal announcements ( n  = 25), 1 , 3 , 15–37 3) original research ( n  = 18), 8 , 62–78 and 4) journal correspondence ( n  = 9). 38–46

Stakeholders and Purpose of the Book Review

The scholarly book review serves many purposes and is best appreciated by understanding the perspectives of the stakeholders involved. The primary audience for a book review is the journal's readership. Book reviews are an excellent vehicle to inform readers about new books in the marketplace. 27 , 52 Books are relatively expensive and scholars have limited time to commit to reading. Thus, journal patrons may rely upon the book review's evaluative purpose to guide their reading preferences. 11 , 14 Readers need to be informed of new, innovative, and ground-breaking books while being warned of books of poor quality and those that may not relate to their area of interest. 2 The book review can also increase a reader's scope by introducing books that a reader may not otherwise consider reading. 2 , 14

Interestingly, the authors of the books under review may be the most avid readers of book reviews. 10 , 18 Authors have invested much time and effort into writing their books, and it is not surprising that an author would be curious about how other scholars perceive their books. The reviewer has the opportunity to provide the author with the recognition or appreciation they deserve or to provide suggestions for any faults identified in the final product. 23 , 43 Therefore, the book review can play a large role in influencing the development of future editions. 18

Publishers have a vested interest in book reviews because they are an indirect form of advertising and have the potential to influence book sales. 23 While this review did not identify a study that has evaluated the effect of book reviews on book sales, publishers continue to send review copies of their books to journal editors with the prospect of obtaining a book review. 50 In 1983, Morton 64 obtained survey data from 15 publishers. All publishers surveyed believed book reviews had a positive effect on sales to physicians, and each of the publishers in this study distributed review copies to medical journals in the hopes of having a review appear in one or more of the prestigious journals. Publishers may use book reviews to determine if a book is worthy of a future edition, whether changes need to be made for a future edition, and whether the author is worthy of another book contract. 10 , 58 The contents of a favorable review may be used in promotional materials and book reviews can be used for market research for the planning of future titles. 10 , 32

It has been suggested that librarians use book reviews in the selection process for acquiring library holdings. 10 , 60 , 64 , 65 , 68 , 77 Chen 68 cited an average time lag of 10.43 months from book release to book review publication, and Morton 64 identified publication time lag and inadequate book review indexing as limiting factors for the use of book reviews as selection tools. Book reviews may have an indirect effect on library selection by the recommendations of patrons and faculty for book selection. In 1986, Martin 65 surveyed 136 medical acquisition librarians and found that book reviews ranked seventh on a list of 10 selection aids used for book selection by medical librarians and concluded that reviews were often used in conjunction with other selection tools for book selection. Some experts have suggested that book reviews may serve more as aids against which librarians may check their holdings for titles missed or as a means for identifying very important or poor titles. 68 , 74 Whether book reviews are used to determine library holdings is debatable; however, librarians read them and may serve as book reviewers themselves. 77

Lastly, the book review serves several purposes for the reviewers. Publishing a scholarly book review allows the reviewer to contribute to the professional literature by acting as an entrusted critic with the responsibility of informing the readership of seminal works and warning it of inaccurate scholarship. 32 , 61 Publishing book reviews is also an exercise of self-education. Many reviewers welcome the opportunity to stay current by reading a newly released text and enjoy practicing their critical faculties. 50 Academic authorities have proposed that writing a book review may be an excellent first publication experience for the novice writer. 4 , 5 , 12 , 14 , 19 , 30 , 31 , 59 For experienced book reviewers, however, it may be their altruistic commitment to scholarship and the honor of being asked to review a book that may motivate them. 61

Book Review Publication Process

The book review process starts and is driven, to a large extent, by the publisher. 10 , 32 When review copies of new books are available, publishers send review copies to the staff of relevant journals in hopes that the book will be reviewed. Due to the overwhelming number of books sent to journals, not all books received are reviewed. Often the selection of books reviewed is made in accordance to a journal's aim, scope, and readership. 57 Once a book is selected for review, the book review editor must match the book with a qualified reviewer. 9 , 22

Most book reviews appearing in print are commissioned—meaning that book reviewers are invited by the book review editor to conduct the review. 11 , 22 , 36 Book reviewers are typically not paid for their work, but often get to keep the book once they have completed their review. 19 , 25 , 30 , 52 , 59 Therefore, editors tend to rely on a core group of book reviewers with different areas of expertise who have agreed to act in this capacity. Occasionally, the editor will invite a notable expert in the field to review a book. The ideal book reviewer has been described by Johnson 10 as someone who has published himself or herself in the field of concern. It is important that the author is familiar and well read on the topic. Being a specialist or an authority in one's field is an asset, but may not be a necessity. A few editorials and narrative commentaries mention that it is often advantageous to have reviews written by nonexperts who represent the intended audience of the book under review. 4 , 6 , 11 , 22 However, if the book is written for a specialist audience, sufficient knowledge is required to properly review the material. 9 , 11 , 12 , 30

Commissioned reviews are preferred by most editors because it is easier to ensure consistency with journal policy and safeguard from conflict of interest. 11 , 22 , 36 If the majority of reviews are invited, how does one become a reviewer? Occasionally journals will advertise for book reviewers. 6 , 10 , 12 , 26 The majority of experts on book reviewing recommend that interested potential book reviewers contact the book review editor of a journal to express their interest. This should be followed up by sending a curriculum vitae with a cover letter outlining one's area(s) of expertise and the area(s) in which one would like to serve as a reviewer. 11 , 12 , 30 It may be wise to send a portfolio of previously published book reviews and scholarly articles. 58 Unsolicited reviews, while not common, may be accepted by some journals if they are well written. 10 , 12 , 36 , 55 If one is interested in writing an unsolicited review, most authorities advocate contacting the editor(s) of the journal in question prior to writing a review. 10 , 12 , 36

Once an invitation has been extended by the journal editor, the reviewer must decide if he or she is an appropriate match for the book in question. 10 Professional ethics require that reviewers decline an invitation if their objectivity is compromised or if they are not qualified to conduct the review. 8 , 9 Reasons for declining the invitation may include instances when the reviewer has a personal relationship with the author, 2 is being published or is seeking to be published by the same publisher, is not representative of the intended audience, or will be unable to meet the deadline. 9 , 58 Certain journal editors mention that it is easier to handle an initial refusal than to navigate the ramifications of the aforementioned issues. 12 , 36 If the invitation is declined, it is common courtesy for the invited to suggest another potential reviewer and make arrangements to return the book if it is already in possession. 2 , 12

Accompanying the invitation to conduct the book review is a submission deadline that usually ranges from 1 to a few months. 4 , 14 , 19 Research on the time lag from book release to the publication of its review highlights the importance of conducting the review in a timely manner. 64 , 65 , 68 Book review editors have suggested that if the review cannot be completed by the deadline, the book should be sent back to the publisher so it can be reviewed promptly by another qualified individual. 4 , 12 Conducting a high-quality review within the allotted time frame will ensure subsequent invitations to conduct book reviews. 11 , 14

When the completed book review has been submitted, the editor reserves the right to edit or reject the review. 24 It should be noted that book reviews are edited but are not customarily peer reviewed. 50 , 60 Since many journals are not published monthly, it may take up to a year or longer for the review to appear in print. 58 Once published, the journal will sometimes send a copy of the book review to the book publisher.

Appraising the Book

Reading a book for the purposes of generating an informative critique necessitates a planned appraisal strategy. As a first step, the reviewer should research the author's qualifications and previous contributions to the topic area to determine the author's authority. 4 , 5 , 9 , 13 If it is obvious the author is not sufficiently qualified, it may be appropriate to comment on this in the review. Before reading the book in depth, one should briefly skim the book to orient oneself to the organization, layout, and visual appeal. Note the type of book one is reviewing because different methods may be used to review different works. 2 , 12 For example, the strategy for reviewing a new edition of a textbook will require an evaluation of any changes made from previous editions, whereas the assessment of a compilation of conference proceedings may focus on the organization and ease of locating abstracts. 2

The majority of articles included in this report highlight the importance of reading the preface and introduction of the book prior to reading its content. 2 , 4−6 , 9 , 12 , 14 , 52 These sections state the author's intentions, aims, and purpose for writing the book. Most importantly, these two sections will define the intended readership. It is important to judge the book by its aims and objectives and evaluate it from the perspective of the intended readership. 5 , 6 , 14 , 52 A key question to ask is whether the contents are appropriate for the readership level. 2 , 6 , 14 , 58 Book reviewers can error by judging a book by their own aims and objectives and by criticizing authors for something that was explained in the preface. 6 , 7 , 11

Another section of a book that warrants a book reviewer's attention is the table of contents. It provides the reviewer with information about the organization of the book, an overview of its contents, and the development of the topics to be discussed. 2 , 5 , 12 This section can be used to determine if all relevant topics were included or if any key topics were overlooked. 4 , 5

Once oriented to the preface, introduction, and table of contents, the reviewer now has a setting and perspective to appraise the book. The book should be read carefully, taking notes while reading, as any praise, arguments, criticisms, or conclusions made in the review should be substantiated. 5 , 52 The book should be evaluated on a variety of items such as accuracy, completeness, readability, and relevance. 3 , 5 , 11 A book appraisal worksheet is provided in the appendix (also online at www.journalchiroed.com ) and lists a variety of appraisal items to be evaluated when reading a book for review. It also functions as a notation sheet where a reviewer can make notes on any strengths or weaknesses, write comments, provide examples to support these remarks, and make suggestions for improvement. These notes will form the basis of the critique.

While it is important to assess the book on a variety of features, certain key questions should be considered. What makes the book unique? 5 , 11 , 58 , 61 Is the book useful to the intended readership? 5 , 10 , 58 Was the book successful in achieving its aims and objectives? 5 , 10 , 12 How does the book compare to its competitors? 5 , 6 , 10 , 19 What contribution does the book make to the field? 7 , 8 , 47 , 58 , 61 The answers to these questions will help the reviewer describe the distinguishing features of the book and place it within its field. Considering that a book review is a personal account of a book, it is important to note one's personal reactions to the book. 6 , 11

A recurring question in articles that discussed book appraisal strategies was whether the entire book must be read in order to write the review. All articles that answered this question made reference to the respect that must be given to an author's hard work. It would be disrespectful to the author(s) to write a review without carefully reading the entire book. 6 , 11 , 19 , 48 , 49 However, some articles noted exceptions. It may not be practical to read certain books from cover to cover, such as medical dictionaries, encyclopedias, and large multivolume texts. 6 , 52 In these instances, a method of sampling should be developed and these methods should be reported in the book review. 52

Writing the Book Review

Writing the review can be a challenge because there is a reluctance for journals to provide a prescriptive format for writing book reviews. 3 , 5 , 18 Book review editors often prefer reviews that are informative, engaging, and constructively opinionated. 6 , 11 Therefore, any attempt for a book review to be formatted to a strict preconceived style is “…stunting creativity and literary development.” 11 Critics of structured book reviews argue that such reviews are informative but dull. 23 , 28 Since each book is unique, reviews should be tailored to the uniqueness of the book under review and the writing style of the reviewer. Variety in book reviews helps maintain the reader's interest.

It should be noted that certain journals may have specific format requirements; for instance, the inclusion of the book's specifications (eg, author, publisher, ISBN, number of pages, etc.) and word limit. A reviewer should become familiar with the journal's book review policy before writing the review. Although most journals do not provide strict book review writing guidelines, most exhibit an underlying “house style.” 6 , 29 A perusal of book reviews appearing in the journal will orient the reviewer to the journal's informal house style. Word limits vary between journals and can be as short as 75 words to greater than 2000. 6 , 57 Chen's 67 study of 3347 biomedical book reviews found most reviews to be over 265 words. Kroenke 62 identified a mean limit of 373 words among 480 medical book reviews and found that tangential information and reviewer opinions on the subject of the book increased the length of reviews. The majority of sources consulted in this review reported word limits ranging from 250 to 500 words with editors' preferences toward shorter reviews. 5 , 6 , 10 , 20 , 24 , 57 Limited word counts necessitate a concise writing style. Methven 4 recommended combining several ideas into a single sentence to achieve the goal of being succinct. Many book review editors believe the quality of a book review is rarely associated with its length. 4 , 10 , 22 , 24 , 57

While there is no prescriptive style when writing a review, many experts outline a common strategy utilized to convey their critique, 3–5 which is summarized in Table ​ Table1. 1 . These recommendations are in line with Motta-Roth's 79 findings of four main rhetorical moves identified in scholarly book reviews. These four moves are: 1) introduce the book, 2) outline the book, 3) highlight parts of the book, and 4) provide a general evaluation of the book. These four moves were often associated with the start of a new paragraph. 79

A recommended strategy for crafting a book review

The reviewer must now decide which appraisal items to comment on in the review. Kroenke 62 surveyed 480 book reviews and found that the mean number of features commented on per review was 9.0 ± 2.7. With most reviews spanning 250 to 500 words, it is not possible to include a critique of all appraisal items evaluated. The reviewer must decide which items are most important to mention to provide a balanced and informative critique. The book appraisal worksheet found in the appendix is designed to assist the reviewer in compiling all appraisal notes into a single, efficient format for ease of identification of items to be included in the review.

Depending on the specific book under review, certain appraisal items may deserve more mention than others. For instance, a student textbook with an index of limited utility is an important finding; however, the same finding in a patient handbook may not deserve mention. Similarly, the importance of image quality differs for a radiology text compared to a medical dictionary. It is important to recognize that appraisal item selection is specific to the book under review. In addition to these book-specific items, many experts suggest that attempts should be made to place a book in a larger, broader context to allow judgment of the book against its competitors and to allow for the determination of the book's contribution to its field. 3–5 , 8 , 19 , 61 , 62

A final note regarding book review writing is on how to convey criticism. A book review is an evaluative critique. 4 Readers are interested in the book reviewer's opinions and a reviewer should not be afraid to state opinions. 4 Any factual mistakes, shortcomings, or weaknesses should be made known. 6 However, reviewers should be respectful to the authors and write in a professional manner. Book reviewers are not anonymous and the rules of basic courtesy and libel law apply. 25 , 31 , 32 Given that book authors are often readers of book reviews, any unwarranted criticism likely will be read by the book author. 10 , 18 Hill 14 and Boring 47 recommend using descriptive comments, and not conclusions, to describe problems identified in books to allow readers to arrive at their own conclusions. Any criticism should be substantiated with examples or a relevant explanation of the reasons for the criticism to avoid confusion about a reviewer's arguments. 14 , 33 Criticism should also be constructive. 10 , 18 , 33 The reviewer, where possible, should provide suggestions for improvement, because these suggestions may influence the crafting of a future edition. The book appraisal worksheet found in the appendix is designed to aid the reviewer in developing sound criticism by providing a template to document examples to be used to substantiate criticism and to provide suggestions for improvement to ensure constructive comments. Desirable and undesirable characteristics of book reviews are listed in Figure ​ Figure2 2 .

Desirable and undesirable characteristics of book reviews.

Issues Relating to Book Reviews

Three issues deserve special attention: conflicts of interest, reviewer bias, and time lag in publication of reviews. One issue that can affect the credibility of a book review is the influence of a conflict of interest, which exists in scholarly publication when an author, reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence his or her actions. 80 Conflicts of interest can occur when a book under review is published by the same publisher who publishes the journal that prints the review, 63 a book is reviewed by a journal and one of the author(s) or editor(s) of the book is an employee of the journal, 63 the reviewer is a personal friend of the author, 17 the reviewer is a competing researcher or author, 17 or there is financial gain that influences the outcome of the review. 17 Avoiding these conflicts when publishing book reviews can be difficult, especially in highly specialized fields of study, when the pool of qualified experts who contribute to scholarly activities is small. In these situations, the likelihood of book reviewers, book authors, publishers, and journal editors having preexisting relationships increases, potentially affecting one's objectivity. When these conflicts of interest exist, transparency and proper disclosure of conflicts of interest are essential. 17 , 63

In addition to conflicts of interest, reviewer bias can influence book reviews. Fairness, accuracy, and objectivity of a review remain a problematic issue in publishing book reviews. 18 , 20 For instance, book reviewers known to be overly critical may more likely produce negative reviews, enthusiastic reviewers may not scrutinize a literary work properly, and advocates for one opinion in a polarized field of study may not fairly judge a book about competing viewpoints. 18 Reviewer bias has the potential to provide an inaccurate representation of the book in question and may negatively influence a readership's perceived value of the book review process. To increase the objectivity of book reviewers, some authors suggest that journals should encourage printed communication between the reviewer and book author, 18 multiple reviews of the same title should be conducted, 40 and book reviews should be subjected to peer review. While some journals have implemented the former two suggestions, peer review of book reviews has not been widely accepted. 40

As mentioned earlier, the time lag of book review publication is an important issue affecting book reviews. For most academic works, the first year after publication is the period of greatest sales. On average, a book's use declines most rapidly in the early years following publication. 57 , 66 Part of the problem relating to the time lag of book review publication can be attributed to the publishers. Review copies of books are often not available early enough for people to review them in time to coincide with a book's release date. Even if review copies were available, by the time the review is completed, has passed the editing process, and has sat in line for publication, most experts and publishers believe the review would appear in print after the book publication anyway. 64

Future of Book Reviews

The future of the book review is uncertain. Recently, a perceived lack of utility of the book review has contributed to a fall in popularity of the literary form. In the past, the book review may have served more purpose in informing librarians and readers of new books. Currently, in the age of the Internet, librarians and readers are targeted more readily by publishers directly. 32 Also, book reviews do not rank high in the hierarchical scale of professional scholarship. Academic institutions often do not give their scholars credit for publishing book reviews. 23 From a journal's perspective, the book review makes no contribution to the journal's impact factor. 32 , 72 There is also an issue of journal space and limited page count. The publication of a few pages of book reviews implies the rejection or delay in publication of an original research paper, which negatively impacts journal content and timeliness to publication. 32 Currently, there is no evidence to suggest that the publication of book reviews helps sell books, increase readership of journal contents, or generate subscriptions to journals. 32

While some authors highlight issues detracting from the popularity of the scholarly book review, reforms have been proposed to contribute to the evolution of this literary form. Book review editors have proposed the exploration of different book review formats: specifically, the rejoinder, multidisciplinary, special issue, and integrated formats. 8 , 16 , 34 , 61

Rejoinders are reviews where the reviewer and author are given the opportunity to discuss the book and its review in the same journal issue, increasing the objectivity of the reviewer and providing the reader with a more balanced perspective of the book being evaluated. 16 , 52 The multidisciplinary format requires a book be reviewed by multiple reviewers, each coming from a different discipline, allowing a book to be reviewed in a broader disciplinary context. 16 While appearing periodically, the special issue format is used to review books that supplement the central theme of papers in a special journal issue and may allow for better evaluation of a book's contribution to its topic area. 16 The integrated review is a format conducted as an essay commissioned on a specific theme, and imbedded within the essay are reviews of books related to the paper's thesis. By merging book reviews within a treatise of a select topic, reviewers have the opportunity to utilize comparative analysis to extend reader understanding of writings on a topic, while publishing a substantial scholarly paper. 16 , 31 Readers of this format have the opportunity to be enlightened by the essay and will appreciate more the book's significance and contribution of each book to the specific theme under discussion. 16 , 31 , 34 , 35 While these alternative formats may seem appealing, they must demonstrate their usefulness in the framework of the dilemmas that journal editors face, including limited page space, impact factor, reader interest, and a priority to referee peer review of original manuscripts.

Another influential factor affecting the future of book reviews is information technology, which will influence how book reviews will be published as well as what is reviewed. There have been calls for book reviews to be published on the Internet to allow for immediacy and ease of discussion. 22 , 77 With online publication, competition for print space will lessen and reviews may be able to extend to larger word limits as well as expand to use “new” formats. 57 Also, journal editors are increasingly receiving various information technology media for review. 3 , 31 , 44 Book review sections of journals are slowly expanding their sections to include reviews of information technology media such as DVD, video, and websites. 3 , 22 , 31 , 44

Limitations and Research Directives

A limitation of this review is that the majority of literature used to formulate this report was based largely on expert opinion found in narrative commentaries, editorials, and journal correspondence. Original research constituted 23% of the articles included in this review; however, only three of the studies 8 , 72 , 77 were published within the past 5 years.

To improve the scholarly rigor in the book review literature, future efforts could investigate the validity of using expert opinion as a means for conducting book reviews, and formal studies could assess the impact of book reviews on book sales and journal subscriptions. Readership surveys could be conducted to assess reader interest in new book review formats and publishing venues, and more importantly, examine the impact of review formats on reader usage of information in their professional work. An exploration of these issues will contribute to the development of our understanding of writing and publishing scholarly book reviews.

The scholarly book review serves many purposes and has the potential to be an influential literary form. It can help guide a readership's reading practices, provide authors with constructive feedback, and help publishers plan and develop future books. However, due to the expectations of these same stakeholders, it is a challenging literary form to master. A reviewer must be aware of not just the strategies employed to conduct a review, but should be knowledgeable of the many issues affecting the entire book review process. An appreciation of this literary form in a broader context will allow the altruistic reviewer to publish a review more likely to be perceived as a valuable contribution to the literature.

Conflict of Interest

The second author of this article is also the Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Chiropractic Education . To mitigate conflicts of interest, this paper was refereed by a guest editor, Dr. Robert Ward. The paper was reviewed by blinded peer reviewers and Dr. Robert Ward is the sole person responsible for decisions regarding the disposition of this manuscript and the only person who knows the identities of the reviewers.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the assistance of Anne Taylor-Vaisey, MLS, with the literature searches.

Appendix: Book Appraisal Worksheet (Available as a free download in Microsoft Word from www.journalchiroed.com )

Contributor Information

Alexander D. Lee, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College.

Bart N. Green, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, National University of Health Sciences.

Claire D. Johnson, National University of Health Sciences.

Julie Nyquist, University of Southern California.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Africa’s postdoc workforce is on the rise — but at what cost?

Career Feature 02 APR 24

Impact factors are outdated, but new research assessments still fail scientists

World View 02 APR 24

How scientists are making the most of Reddit

Career Feature 01 APR 24

Adopt universal standards for study adaptation to boost health, education and social-science research

Correspondence 02 APR 24

How can we make PhD training fit for the modern world? Broaden its philosophical foundations

Allow researchers with caring responsibilities ‘promotion pauses’ to make research more equitable

The corpse of an exploded star and more — March’s best science images

News 28 MAR 24

How papers with doctored images can affect scientific reviews

Nature is committed to diversifying its journalistic sources

Editorial 27 MAR 24

Faculty Positions, Aging and Neurodegeneration, Westlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine

Applicants with expertise in aging and neurodegeneration and related areas are particularly encouraged to apply.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine (WLLSB)

Faculty Positions in Chemical Biology, Westlake University

We are seeking outstanding scientists to lead vigorous independent research programs focusing on all aspects of chemical biology including...

School of Life Sciences, Westlake University

Faculty Positions in Neurobiology, Westlake University

We seek exceptional candidates to lead vigorous independent research programs working in any area of neurobiology.

Seeking Global Talents, the International School of Medicine, Zhejiang University

Welcome to apply for all levels of professors based at the International School of Medicine, Zhejiang University.

Yiwu, Zhejiang, China

International School of Medicine, Zhejiang University

Nanjing Forestry University is globally seeking Metasequoia Scholars and Metasequoia Talents

Located next to Purple Mountain and Xuanwu Lake, Nanjing Forestry University (NJFU) is a key provincial university jointly built by Jiangsu Province

Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

Nanjing Forestry University (NFU)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

A book review is a thorough description, critical analysis, and/or evaluation of the quality, meaning, and significance of a book, often written in relation to prior research on the topic. Reviews generally range from 500-2000 words, but may be longer or shorter depends on several factors: the length and complexity of the book being reviewed, the overall purpose of the review, and whether the review examines two or more books that focus on the same topic. Professors assign book reviews as practice in carefully analyzing complex scholarly texts and to assess your ability to effectively synthesize research so that you reach an informed perspective about the topic being covered.

There are two general approaches to reviewing a book:

• Descriptive review: Presents the content and structure of a book as objectively as possible, describing essential information about a book's purpose and authority. This is done by stating the perceived aims and purposes of the study, often incorporating passages quoted from the text that highlight key elements of the work. Additionally, there may be some indication of the reading level and anticipated audience.
• Critical review: Describes and evaluates the book in relation to accepted literary and historical standards and supports this evaluation with evidence from the text and, in most cases, in contrast to and in comparison with the research of others. It should include a statement about what the author has tried to do, evaluates how well you believe the author has succeeded in meeting the objectives of the study, and presents evidence to support this assessment. For most course assignments, your professor will want you to write this type of review.

Book Reviews. Writing Center. University of New Hampshire; Book Reviews: How to Write a Book Review. Writing and Style Guides. Libraries. Dalhousie University; Kindle, Peter A. "Teaching Students to Write Book Reviews." Contemporary Rural Social Work 7 (2015): 135-141; Erwin, R. W. “Reviewing Books for Scholarly Journals.” In Writing and Publishing for Academic Authors . Joseph M. Moxley and Todd Taylor. 2 nd edition. (Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield, 1997), pp. 83-90.

How to Approach Writing Your Review

NOTE:   Since most course assignments require that you write a critical rather than descriptive book review, the following information about preparing to write and developing the structure and style of reviews focuses on this approach.

I.  Common Features

While book reviews vary in tone, subject, and style, they share some common features. These include:

• A review gives the reader a concise summary of the content . This includes a description of the research topic and scope of analysis as well as an overview of the book's overall perspective, argument, and purpose.
• A review offers a critical assessment of the content in relation to other studies on the same topic . This involves documenting your reactions to the work under review--what strikes you as noteworthy or important, whether or not the arguments made by the author(s) were effective or persuasive, and how the work enhanced your understanding of the research problem under investigation.
• In addition to analyzing a book's strengths and weaknesses, a scholarly review often recommends whether or not readers would value the work for its authenticity and overall quality . This measure of quality includes both the author's ideas and arguments and covers practical issues, such as, readability and language, organization and layout, indexing, and, if needed, the use of non-textual elements .

To maintain your focus, always keep in mind that most assignments ask you to discuss a book's treatment of its topic, not the topic itself . Your key sentences should say, "This book shows...,” "The study demonstrates...," or “The author argues...," rather than "This happened...” or “This is the case....”

II.  Developing a Critical Assessment Strategy

There is no definitive methodological approach to writing a book review in the social sciences, although it is necessary that you think critically about the research problem under investigation before you begin to write. Therefore, writing a book review is a three-step process: 1) carefully taking notes as you read the text; 2) developing an argument about the value of the work under consideration; and, 3) clearly articulating that argument as you write an organized and well-supported assessment of the work.

A useful strategy in preparing to write a review is to list a set of questions that should be answered as you read the book [remember to note the page numbers so you can refer back to the text!]. The specific questions to ask yourself will depend upon the type of book you are reviewing. For example, a book that is presenting original research about a topic may require a different set of questions to ask yourself than a work where the author is offering a personal critique of an existing policy or issue.

Here are some sample questions that can help you think critically about the book:

• Thesis or Argument . What is the central thesis—or main argument—of the book? If the author wanted you to get one main idea from the book, what would it be? How does it compare or contrast to the world that you know or have experienced? What has the book accomplished? Is the argument clearly stated and does the research support this?
• Topic . What exactly is the subject or topic of the book? Is it clearly articulated? Does the author cover the subject adequately? Does the author cover all aspects of the subject in a balanced fashion? Can you detect any biases? What type of approach has the author adopted to explore the research problem [e.g., topical, analytical, chronological, descriptive]?
• Evidence . How does the author support their argument? What evidence does the author use to prove their point? Is the evidence based on an appropriate application of the method chosen to gather information? Do you find that evidence convincing? Why or why not? Does any of the author's information [or conclusions] conflict with other books you've read, courses you've taken, or just previous assumptions you had about the research problem?
• Structure . How does the author structure their argument? Does it follow a logical order of analysis? What are the parts that make up the whole? Does the argument make sense to you? Does it persuade you? Why or why not?
• Take-aways . How has this book helped you understand the research problem? Would you recommend the book to others? Why or why not?

Beyond the content of the book, you may also consider some information about the author and the general presentation of information. Question to ask may include:

• The Author: Who is the author? The nationality, political persuasion, education, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details about how a work takes shape. Does it matter, for example, that the author is affiliated with a particular organization? What difference would it make if the author participated in the events they wrote about? What other topics has the author written about? Does this work build on prior research or does it represent a new or unique area of research?
• The Presentation: What is the book's genre? Out of what discipline does it emerge? Does it conform to or depart from the conventions of its genre? These questions can provide a historical or other contextual standard upon which to base your evaluations. If you are reviewing the first book ever written on the subject, it will be important for your readers to know this. Keep in mind, though, that declarative statements about being the “first,” the "best," or the "only" book of its kind can be a risky unless you're absolutely certain because your professor [presumably] has a much better understanding of the overall research literature.

NOTE: Most critical book reviews examine a topic in relation to prior research. A good strategy for identifying this prior research is to examine sources the author(s) cited in the chapters introducing the research problem and, of course, any review of the literature. However, you should not assume that the author's references to prior research is authoritative or complete. If any works related to the topic have been excluded, your assessment of the book should note this . Be sure to consult with a librarian to ensure that any additional studies are located beyond what has been cited by the author(s).

Book Reviews. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Book Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Hartley, James. "Reading and Writing Book Reviews Across the Disciplines." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (July 2006): 1194–1207;   Motta-Roth, D. “Discourse Analysis and Academic Book Reviews: A Study of Text and Disciplinary Cultures.”  In Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes . Fortanet Gómez, Inmaculada  et  al., editors. (Castellò de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, 1998), pp. 29-45. Writing a Book Review. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing Book Reviews. Writing Tutorial Services, Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. Indiana University; Suárez, Lorena and Ana I. Moreno. “The Rhetorical Structure of Academic Journal Book Reviews: A Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Approach .” In Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, María del Carmen Pérez Llantada Auría, Ramón Plo Alastrué, and Claus Peter Neumann. Actas del V Congreso Internacional AELFE/Proceedings of the 5th International AELFE Conference . Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza, 2006.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Bibliographic Information

Bibliographic information refers to the essential elements of a work if you were to cite it in a paper [i.e., author, title, date of publication, etc.]. Provide the essential information about the book using the writing style [e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago] preferred by your professor or used by the discipline of your major . Depending on how your professor wants you to organize your review, the bibliographic information represents the heading of your review. In general, it would look like this:

[Complete title of book. Author or authors. Place of publication. Publisher. Date of publication. Number of pages before first chapter, often in Roman numerals. Total number of pages]. The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle over American History . By Jill Lepore. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010. xii, 207 pp.)

Reviewed by [your full name].

II.  Scope/Purpose/Content

Begin your review by telling the reader not only the overarching concern of the book in its entirety [the subject area] but also what the author's particular point of view is on that subject [the thesis statement]. If you cannot find an adequate statement in the author's own words or if you find that the thesis statement is not well-developed, then you will have to compose your own introductory thesis statement that does cover all the material. This statement should be no more than one paragraph and must be succinctly stated, accurate, and unbiased.

If you find it difficult to discern the overall aims and objectives of the book [and, be sure to point this out in your review if you determine that this is a deficiency], you may arrive at an understanding of the book's overall purpose by assessing the following:

• Scan the table of contents because it can help you understand how the book was organized and will aid in determining the author's main ideas and how they were developed [e.g., chronologically, topically, historically, etc.].
• Why did the author write on this subject rather than on some other subject?
• From what point of view is the work written?
• Was the author trying to give information, to explain something technical, or to convince the reader of a belief’s validity by dramatizing it in action?
• What is the general field or genre, and how does the book fit into it? If necessary, review related literature from other books and journal articles to familiarize yourself with the field.
• Who is the intended audience?
• What is the author's style? Is it formal or informal? You can evaluate the quality of the writing style by noting some of the following standards: coherence, clarity, originality, forcefulness, accurate use of technical words, conciseness, fullness of development, and fluidity [i.e., quality of the narrative flow].
• How did the book affect you? Were there any prior assumptions you had about the subject that were changed, abandoned, or reinforced after reading the book? How is the book related to your own personal beliefs or assumptions? What personal experiences have you had related to the subject that affirm or challenge underlying assumptions?
• How well has the book achieved the goal(s) set forth in the preface, introduction, and/or foreword?
• Would you recommend this book to others? Why or why not?

III.  Note the Method

Support your remarks with specific references to text and quotations that help to illustrate the literary method used to state the research problem, describe the research design, and analyze the findings. In general, authors tend to use the following literary methods, exclusively or in combination.

• Description : The author depicts scenes and events by giving specific details that appeal to the five senses, or to the reader’s imagination. The description presents background and setting. Its primary purpose is to help the reader realize, through as many details as possible, the way persons, places, and things are situated within the phenomenon being described.
• Narration : The author tells the story of a series of events, usually thematically or in chronological order. In general, the emphasis in scholarly books is on narration of the events. Narration tells what has happened and, in some cases, using this method to forecast what could happen in the future. Its primary purpose is to draw the reader into a story and create a contextual framework for understanding the research problem.
• Exposition : The author uses explanation and analysis to present a subject or to clarify an idea. Exposition presents the facts about a subject or an issue clearly and as impartially as possible. Its primary purpose is to describe and explain, to document for the historical record an event or phenomenon.
• Argument : The author uses techniques of persuasion to establish understanding of a particular truth, often in the form of addressing a research question, or to convince the reader of its falsity. The overall aim is to persuade the reader to believe something and perhaps to act on that belief. Argument takes sides on an issue and aims to convince the reader that the author's position is valid, logical, and/or reasonable.

IV.  Critically Evaluate the Contents

Critical comments should form the bulk of your book review . State whether or not you feel the author's treatment of the subject matter is appropriate for the intended audience. Ask yourself:

• Has the purpose of the book been achieved?
• What contributions does the book make to the field?
• Is the treatment of the subject matter objective or at least balanced in describing all sides of a debate?
• Are there facts and evidence that have been omitted?
• What kinds of data, if any, are used to support the author's thesis statement?
• Can the same data be interpreted to explain alternate outcomes?
• Is the writing style clear and effective?
• Does the book raise important or provocative issues or topics for discussion?
• Does the book bring attention to the need for further research?
• What has been left out?

Support your evaluation with evidence from the text and, when possible, state the book's quality in relation to other scholarly sources. If relevant, note of the book's format, such as, layout, binding, typography, etc. Are there tables, charts, maps, illustrations, text boxes, photographs, or other non-textual elements? Do they aid in understanding the text? Describing this is particularly important in books that contain a lot of non-textual elements.

NOTE:   It is important to carefully distinguish your views from those of the author so as not to confuse your reader. Be clear when you are describing an author's point of view versus expressing your own.

V.  Examine the Front Matter and Back Matter

Front matter refers to any content before the first chapter of the book. Back matter refers to any information included after the final chapter of the book . Front matter is most often numbered separately from the rest of the text in lower case Roman numerals [i.e. i - xi ]. Critical commentary about front or back matter is generally only necessary if you believe there is something that diminishes the overall quality of the work [e.g., the indexing is poor] or there is something that is particularly helpful in understanding the book's contents [e.g., foreword places the book in an important context].

Front matter that may be considered for evaluation when reviewing its overall quality:

• Table of contents -- is it clear? Is it detailed or general? Does it reflect the true contents of the book? Does it help in understanding a logical sequence of content?
• Author biography -- also found as back matter, the biography of author(s) can be useful in determining the authority of the writer and whether the book builds on prior research or represents new research. In scholarly reviews, noting the author's affiliation and prior publications can be a factor in helping the reader determine the overall validity of the work [i.e., are they associated with a research center devoted to studying the problem under investigation].
• Foreword -- the purpose of a foreword is to introduce the reader to the author and the content of the book, and to help establish credibility for both. A foreword may not contribute any additional information about the book's subject matter, but rather, serves as a means of validating the book's existence. In these cases, the foreword is often written by a leading scholar or expert who endorses the book's contributions to advancing research about the topic. Later editions of a book sometimes have a new foreword prepended [appearing before an older foreword, if there was one], which may be included to explain how the latest edition differs from previous editions. These are most often written by the author.
• Acknowledgements -- scholarly studies in the social sciences often take many years to write, so authors frequently acknowledge the help and support of others in getting their research published. This can be as innocuous as acknowledging the author's family or the publisher. However, an author may acknowledge prominent scholars or subject experts, staff at key research centers, people who curate important archival collections, or organizations that funded the research. In these particular cases, it may be worth noting these sources of support in your review, particularly if the funding organization is biased or its mission is to promote a particular agenda.
• Preface -- generally describes the genesis, purpose, limitations, and scope of the book and may include acknowledgments of indebtedness to people who have helped the author complete the study. Is the preface helpful in understanding the study? Does it provide an effective framework for understanding what's to follow?
• Chronology -- also may be found as back matter, a chronology is generally included to highlight key events related to the subject of the book. Do the entries contribute to the overall work? Is it detailed or very general?
• List of non-textual elements -- a book that contains numerous charts, photographs, maps, tables, etc. will often list these items after the table of contents in the order that they appear in the text. Is this useful?

Back matter that may be considered for evaluation when reviewing its overall quality:

• Afterword -- this is a short, reflective piece written by the author that takes the form of a concluding section, final commentary, or closing statement. It is worth mentioning in a review if it contributes information about the purpose of the book, gives a call to action, summarizes key recommendations or next steps, or asks the reader to consider key points made in the book.
• Appendix -- is the supplementary material in the appendix or appendices well organized? Do they relate to the contents or appear superfluous? Does it contain any essential information that would have been more appropriately integrated into the text?
• Index -- are there separate indexes for names and subjects or one integrated index. Is the indexing thorough and accurate? Are elements used, such as, bold or italic fonts to help identify specific places in the book? Does the index include "see also" references to direct you to related topics?
• Glossary of Terms -- are the definitions clearly written? Is the glossary comprehensive or are there key terms missing? Are any terms or concepts mentioned in the text not included that should have been?
• Endnotes -- examine any endnotes as you read from chapter to chapter. Do they provide important additional information? Do they clarify or extend points made in the body of the text? Should any notes have been better integrated into the text rather than separated? Do the same if the author uses footnotes.
• Bibliography/References/Further Readings -- review any bibliography, list of references to sources, and/or further readings the author may have included. What kinds of sources appear [e.g., primary or secondary, recent or old, scholarly or popular, etc.]? How does the author make use of them? Be sure to note important omissions of sources that you believe should have been utilized, including important digital resources or archival collections.

VI.  Summarize and Comment

State your general conclusions briefly and succinctly. Pay particular attention to the author's concluding chapter and/or afterword. Is the summary convincing? List the principal topics, and briefly summarize the author’s ideas about these topics, main points, and conclusions. If appropriate and to help clarify your overall evaluation, use specific references to text and quotations to support your statements. If your thesis has been well argued, the conclusion should follow naturally. It can include a final assessment or simply restate your thesis. Do not introduce new information in the conclusion. If you've compared the book to any other works or used other sources in writing the review, be sure to cite them at the end of your book review in the same writing style as your bibliographic heading of the book.

Book Reviews. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Book Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Gastel, Barbara. "Special Books Section: A Strategy for Reviewing Books for Journals." BioScience 41 (October 1991): 635-637; Hartley, James. "Reading and Writing Book Reviews Across the Disciplines." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (July 2006): 1194–1207; Lee, Alexander D., Bart N. Green, Claire D. Johnson, and Julie Nyquist. "How to Write a Scholarly Book Review for Publication in a Peer-reviewed Journal: A Review of the Literature." Journal of Chiropractic Education 24 (2010): 57-69; Nicolaisen, Jeppe. "The Scholarliness of Published Peer Reviews: A Bibliometric Study of Book Reviews in Selected Social Science Fields." Research Evaluation 11 (2002): 129-140;.Procter, Margaret. The Book Review or Article Critique. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Reading a Book to Review It. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Scarnecchia, David L. "Writing Book Reviews for the Journal Of Range Management and Rangelands." Rangeland Ecology and Management 57 (2004): 418-421; Simon, Linda. "The Pleasures of Book Reviewing." Journal of Scholarly Publishing 27 (1996): 240-241; Writing a Book Review. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing Book Reviews. Writing Tutorial Services, Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. Indiana University.

Writing Tip

Always Read the Foreword and/or the Preface

If they are included in the front matter, a good place for understanding a book's overall purpose, organization, contributions to further understanding of the research problem, and relationship to other studies is to read the preface and the foreword. The foreword may be written by someone other than the author or editor and can be a person who is famous or who has name recognition within the discipline. A foreword is often included to add credibility to the work.

The preface is usually an introductory essay written by the author or editor. It is intended to describe the book's overall purpose, arrangement, scope, and overall contributions to the literature. When reviewing the book, it can be useful to critically evaluate whether the goals set forth in the foreword and/or preface were actually achieved. At the very least, they can establish a foundation for understanding a study's scope and purpose as well as its significance in contributing new knowledge.

Distinguishing between a Foreword, a Preface, and an Introduction . Book Creation Learning Center. Greenleaf Book Group, 2019.

Locating Book Reviews

There are several databases the USC Libraries subscribes to that include the full-text or citations to book reviews. Short, descriptive reviews can also be found at book-related online sites such as Amazon , although it's not always obvious who has written them and may actually be created by the publisher. The following databases provide comprehensive access to scholarly, full-text book reviews:

• ProQuest [1983-present]
• Book Review Digest Retrospective [1905-1982]

Some Language for Evaluating Texts

It can be challenging to find the proper vocabulary from which to discuss and evaluate a book. Here is a list of some active verbs for referring to texts and ideas that you might find useful:

• account for
• demonstrate
• distinguish
• investigate

Examples of usage

• "The evidence indicates that..."
• "This work assesses the effect of..."
• "The author identifies three key reasons for..."
• "This book questions the view that..."
• "This work challenges assumptions about...."

Paquot, Magali. Academic Keyword List. Centre for English Corpus Linguistics. Université Catholique de Louvain.

• << Previous: Leading a Class Discussion
• Next: Multiple Book Review Essay >>
• Last Updated: Mar 6, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

How to Write an Academic Book Review

Learning objectives.

Upon completion of this comprehensive and engaging course, you will be able to:

• Identify the primary goals of an academic book review
• Describe the 5 key benefits of writing an academic book review
• List the 6 main audiences of an academic book review
• Apply strategies for deciding which academic book to review
• Choose the peer-reviewed journal with the best goodness-of-fit for your academic book review
• Successfully write the 5 main sections of an academic book review
• Differentiate between best practices in writing a review of an authored book versus an edited book
• Avoid the 6 most common mistakes made when preparing an academic book review
• Use an e-mail template to solicit an academic book review opportunity from a peer-reviewed journal’s Editor-in-Chief

Paul M. Sutter, PhD is Research Professor of Astrophysics at Stony Brook University, Guest Researcher at the Flatiron Institute in New York City, and contributing editor to Forbes , Space.com , and LiveScience , where his articles are syndicated to CBS News , Scientific American , and MSN , amongst others. Author of over 60 peer-reviewed articles as well as 2 books (published by Prometheus Books and Pegasus Books), he received his PhD in Physics as Department of Energy Computational Science Graduate Fellow at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign before completing post-doctoral fellowships in France at the Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris and in Italy at the Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste. Since this time, Dr. Sutter has developed one of the most popular astrophysics podcasts in the world and has delivered over 100 conference presentations, seminars, and colloquia at prestigious institutions across the globe. A go-to expert for journalists and producers, he regularly appears on television, radio, and in print, including on the Discovery Channel, History Channel , Science Channel , and Weather Channel .

• Full Name *
• Contact Reason * -- General Inquiry -- Technical Support
• I consent to my data being stored according to the guidelines set out in the Privacy Policy *
• I consent to receiving e-mails with discounts and offers
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

© 2021-2024 Publication Academy, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Thursday Thinker Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to the use of cookies outlined in our Cookie Policy .

Wendy Laura Belcher

How to write an academic book review.

This article “Writing the Academic Book Review” was originally written by Belcher to aid participants in a workshop sponsored by the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center in February 2003 and to encourage book review submissions to  Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies . Book reviews in the field of Chicano studies can be sent to  the journal; for information, see the  new submissions page. The article was updated in 2015. Cite as Belcher, Wendy Laura. 2003. “Writing the Academic Book Review.” Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center. Last Modified 2015. Retrieved from https://www.wendybelcher.com/writing-advice/how-to-write-book-review/ on [month year]. See also the best-selling book of advice on writing, now in its second edition: Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success.

Why Write a Book Review?

Writing book reviews is not only the easiest and quickest route to publication, it is a good way to improve your writing skills, develop your analytical skills, learn how the journal publishing process works, and get to know editors. Since some libraries can’t buy books unless they have been reviewed and many individuals won’t buy books unless they have read a review, reviewing books can definitely advance your field. Indeed, scholars in smaller fields sometimes get together and assign books for review so that every book published in their field is reviewed somewhere. Just remember that book reviews do not “count” as much on a curriculum vitae as an academic essay. If you are doing more than two book reviews a year, you may be spending too much time on book reviews and not enough on your other writing.

Choosing a Book

Think about what kind of book would be most useful to you in writing your dissertation, finalizing a paper for publication, or passing your exams. Since book reviews do take time, like any writing, it is best to chose a book that will work for you twice, as a publication and as research. Alternatively, some recommend that graduate students focus on reviewing textbooks or anthologies, since such reviews take less background knowledge and editors can find it difficult to find people willing to do such reviews. Although the traditional book review is of one book, editors will often welcome book reviews that address two or more related books–called a review essay.

Choose a book that (1) is in your field, (2) is on a topic for which you have sound background knowledge, (3) has been published in the past two or three years, and (4) has been published by a reputable publisher (i.e., any press affiliated with a university or large commercial presses).

Books on hot topics are often of special interest to editors. It can also be rewarding to pick an obscure but useful book in order to bring attention to it. To avoid complications, it is best not to review books written by your advisor, spouse, or ex!

To identify a suitable book in your field:

• Look up the call number of the favorite book in your field and go to the stacks of your university library. Do a shelf search around the call number to see if anything similar or related has been published in the past couple of years.
• Go to any book database—your university library on-line, Worldcat , Amazon.com , the Library of Congress —and search using two or three keywords related to your field (e.g., Chicano fiction, Chicana politics, Latino demographics, Latina high school education) to find books in your area.
• Read magazines that review books before publication—such as Choice , Library Journal, or Kirkus Reviews —to get a sense for interesting books that will be coming out. You can get copies of books for review before they are published. Editors especially like reviews of just published books.
• Read those academic journals that list books recently received for review or recently published in their area. 
• Ask faculty members in your department for recommendations.

Once you have identified several books, locate copies and skim them. Pick the book that seems the strongest. Do not pick a book that has major problems or with which you disagree violently. As a graduate student, you do not have the protection of tenure and may one day be evaluated by the person whose book you put to the ax. If you really feel strongly that you must write a negative review of a certain book, go ahead and write the review. Academia is, after all, quite oedipal and young scholars do sometimes make their reputations by deflating those who came before them. Just realize that going on record in such a public way may have consequences.

Choosing a Journal

Identify several leading journals in your field that publish book reviews. One way to do this is to search an on-line article database or something like Book Review Digest , if your library has access. Using several key words from your field, limit your search to book reviews and note the journals where the results were published.

Before starting to write your review, contact the book review editor of one of the journals. This is important standard practice; in particular because most journals do not accept unsolicited reviews. You do not want to write an entire review of a book and send it to a journal, only to be told that they don’t accept unsolicited reviews or that a review of that very book is to appear in the next issue.

So, send a short e-mail to book review editors at prospective journals (most journals have websites with such information) identifying the book you would like to review and your qualifications for reviewing it. This e-mail need not be longer than two sentences: “I am writing to find out if you would welcome a review from me of [ Book Title ], edited by [editor] and published in 2012 by [pubisher]. I am currently writing my dissertation at Stanford on the history of the field of [name of a field related to book].”

Another reason why you want to contact the book review editor is that they often can get you the book for free. Publishers frequently send books for review straight to journals or, if the book editor directly contacts them, straight to you. Of course, you don’t need to wait for the book to start your review if you have access to a library copy. If you get a free book, make sure to write the review. A book review editor will never send you another book if you don’t deliver on the first.

If the book review editor says yes, they would like a review of the book from you, make sure to ask if the journal has any book review submission guidelines. In particular, you want to make sure you understand how long their book reviews tend to be.

If the book review editor says the book is already under review, move on to your next journal choice or ask the editor if they have any books on the topic that they would like reviewed. You are under no obligation to review a book they suggest, just make sure to get back to them with a decision. It is perfectly acceptable to say “Thanks for the suggestion, I’ve decided to focus on writing my prospectus/dissertation.”

Reading the Book

It is best, when writing a book review, to be an active reader of the book. Sit at a desk with pen and paper in hand. As you read, stop frequently to summarize the argument, to note particularly clear statements of the book’s argument or purpose, and to describe your own responses. If you have read in this active way, putting together the book review should be quick and straightforward. Some people prefer to read at the computer, but if you’re a good typist, you often start typing up long quotes from the book instead of analyzing it. Paper and pen provides a little friction to prevent such drifting.

Take particular note of the title (does the book deliver what the title suggests it is going to deliver?), the table of contents (does the book cover all the ground it says it will?), the preface (often the richest source of information about the book), and the index (is it accurate, broad, deep?).

Some questions to keep in mind as you are reading:

• What is the book’s argument?
• Does the book do what it says it is going to do?
• Is the book a contribution to the field or discipline?
• Does the book relate to a current debate or trend in the field and if so, how?
• What is the theoretical lineage or school of thought out of which the book rises?
• Is the book well-written?
• What are the books terms and are they defined?
• How accurate is the information (e.g., the footnotes, bibliography, dates)?
• Are the illustrations helpful? If there are no illustrations, should there have been?
• Who would benefit from reading this book?
• How does the book compare to other books in the field?
• If it is a textbook, what courses can it be used in and how clear is the book’s structure and examples?

It can be worthwhile to do an on-line search to get a sense for the author’s history, other books, university appointments, graduate advisor, and so on. This can provide you with useful context..

Making a Plan

Book reviews are usually 600 to 2,000 words in length. It is best to aim for about 1,000 words, as you can say a fair amount in 1,000 words without getting bogged down. There’s no point in making a book review into a 20-page masterpiece since the time would have been better spent on an academic essay that would count for more on your c.v.

Some say a review should be written in a month: two weeks reading the book, one week planning your review, and one week writing it.

Although many don’t write an outline for an essay, you should really try to outline your book review before you write it. This will keep you on task and stop you from straying into writing an academic essay.

Classic book review structure is as follows:

• Title including complete bibliographic citation for the work (i.e., title in full, author, place, publisher, date of publication, edition statement, pages, special features [maps, color plates, etc.], price, and ISBN.
• One paragraph identifying the thesis, and whether the author achieves the stated purpose of the book.
• One or two paragraphs summarizing the book.
• One paragraph on the book’s strengths.
• One paragraph on the book’s weaknesses.
• One paragraph on your assessment of the book’s strengths and weaknesses.

Writing the Review

Once you’ve read the book, try to spend no more than one or two weeks writing the review. Allowing a great deal of time to fall between reading the book and writing about it is unfair to you and the author. The point of writing something short like a book review is to do it quickly. Sending a publication to a journal is always scary, sitting on the review won’t make it less so.

Avoiding Five Common Pitfalls

• Evaluate the text, don’t just summarize it. While a succinct restatement of the text’s points is important, part of writing a book review is making a judgment. Is the book a contribution to the field? Does it add to our knowledge? Should this book be read and by whom? One needn’t be negative to evaluate; for instance, explaining how a text relates to current debates in the field is a form of evaluation.
• Do not cover everything in the book. In other words, don’t use the table of contents as a structuring principle for your review. Try to organize your review around the book’s argument or your argument about the book.
• Judge the book by its intentions not yours. Don’t criticize the author for failing to write the book you think that he or she should have written. As John Updike puts it, “Do not imagine yourself the caretaker of any tradition, an enforcer of any party standards, a warrior in any ideological battle, a corrections officer of any kind.”
• Likewise, don’t spend too much time focusing on gaps. Since a book is only 200 to 500 pages, it cannot possibly address the richness of any topic. For this reason, the most common criticism in any review is that the book doesn’t address some part of the topic. If the book purports to be about ethnicity and film and yet lacks a chapter on Latinos, by all means, mention it. Just don’t belabor the point. Another tic of reviewers is to focus too much on books the author did not cite. If you are using their bibliography just to display your own knowledge it will be obvious to the reader. Keep such criticisms brief.
• Don’t use too many quotes from the book. It is best to paraphrase or use short telling quotes within sentences.

For further advice about writing for publication, see Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success by Wendy Laura Belcher (University of Chicago Press, 2019).

Writing the Academic Book Review

I no longer teach this course , but you might want to think about teaching it, so I provide the information here.

This workshop aids students in actually writing and publishing a book review for a peer-reviewed journal. At the first session, students receive instruction on why graduate students should (or should not) write book reviews, how to choose a book for review, how to chose a journal for submission, how to read a book for review, how to plan and structure a book review, and five common pitfalls of reviewing. Students also form small groups to discuss the book each plans to review.At the second meeting, students bring a draft of their book review for exchange and feedback. At the third meeting, students arrive with a final version of their essay to submit to an editor for publication.

This workshop is sometimes offered by a particular journal with the editors serving on a panel the first night to provide students with specific advice for submitting reviews to their journal. I did such a workshop for Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies , with the editors Chon A. Noriega and Alicia Gaspar de Alba.

Session 1, Week 1

• Introduction to book reviewing
• Selecting an appropriate book to review
• Five essential elements of any book review
• Typical errors graduate student reviewers make

Session 2, Week 10

• Assignment: First draft due
• Discussion of the writing process and challenges
• Exchanging and critiquing first drafts
• Some instructions on revising

Session 3, Week 16

• Assignment: Final draft due
• Working with editors and the publication process
• Refreshments

Writing a book review for publication in an academic journal

Man reviewing a book.

Introduction

Book reviews appear in a variety of publications including academic journals, magazines, newspapers and on websites. However, surprisingly little has been written about how a book review should be written. These activities, aimed primarily at postgraduate research students focus on writing book reviews for academic journals, though the principles can be applied to writing other kinds of book reviews too.

• To understand what a book review is and is not • To explore the characteristics of a good book review • To be able to write a good book review for a journal or other publication

• Rate this Exercise

Activity 1: What is a book review?

You have probably read book reviews in newspapers, magazines, online or possibly in academic journals. The 'book report' is a common form of activity in school, though probably more so in North America than in the UK. This first activity will help you to think about what a book review is.

Instruction

In your opinion, what is the purpose of a book review? Make notes in the box below.

You may like to think about your experience of writing book reports at school or reading book reviews in newspapers, magazines, online or in academic journals.

These are just some of the things you may have thought of: • A book review explains to the reader what a book is about. • It tells other people whether or not the book is worth reading • It gives an opinion of whether a book is good or bad. • It may explain why a book is important (or not) • It says whether a book is boring, interesting, exciting or contains new or controversial ideas.

This activity has considered books reviews in general. The following activites are more specifically focused on book reviews for academic journals.

Activity 2: What is the purpose of an academic book review?

Many academic journals have book review sections. Subject associations sometimes put calls for book reviewers in their newsletters or e-mails lists along with a list of books that need reviewing for their journal. Even if the journals in your field do not do this, there is no harm in contacting the book review editor and asking him/her if you can review a book.

Look at the following list of reasons for writing a book review. Decide whether you think they are good reasons or bad reasons by selecting the appropriate button underneath each one.

1. To evaluate a book's contribution to your field of study

Good reason Bad reason

2. To get your name in print

3. To read a book which will contribute to your own research

4. To get a free book

5. To help others in your field decide whether or not they should read the book

These could all be good reasons for doing a book review. For many postgraduate students a book review will be their first publication, it is nice to get a free book, and hopefully the book will be useful to you in your own research. However, the main purpose of the book review is to evaluate the book in a way which will help others decide whether or not they ought to read it.

Activity 3: What questions should you ask and answer when writing a book review?

It is likely that most readers of your review will not have read the book you are reviewing. Ultimately your task is to help the reader to decide whether or not to read the book.

Look at the following list. What questions should you ask and answer when writing a book review? Select the tick symbol next to those questions you think are good ones, and select the cross next to those which you think are bad reasons.

Readers of your review will want to know the answers to all of these questions. Book reviews vary in the ways in which they are written and structured but good ones will answer all of these questions.

Activity 4: What are the characteristics of a good book review?

In this activity, you will examine Sarah Rule's 2009 review of John Field's book 'Listening in the Language Classroom,' an academic review which was published in Liaison , the magazine for the Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies. You will read this review and then consider the characteristics of good reviews.

Open the link below and read the review. Use the review to decide what the characteristics of a good book review are and tick the boxes beside those aspects you feel are characteristic of good book reviews.

Sarah Rule: review of 'Listening in the Language Classroom' (2009)

A good academic book review...

Is well structured Focuses on evaluating the book Is written in accordance with the journal's guidelines for book reviews Informs the reader of your view of the book Is critical of the author of a book which the reviewer does not like Is full of praise for the author for a book that the review thinks is really good.

These aspects are characteristics of good book reviews: - well structured - focuses on evaluating the book - is written in accordance with the journal's guidelines for book reviews - informs the reader of your view of the book Book reviews should focus on evaluating the book. Academic articles, not book reviews, are the most appropriate place to advance your own arguments. Book reviews are also not the place to tell everyone how much you love or hate the person who wrote the book. You may also wish to comment on the price of the book. If a book is good, but too expensive you may wish to say this. Some reviewers may criticise the author’s writing style or the editorial work on the book—if you wish to do this, remember to be polite. Book reviews are usually short pieces of work (perhaps as little as 300 words). It can be very challenging to do all these things with so few words, but it is possible.

Would you like to review the main points?

In these activities, you have considered the nature of a good book review. The key points may be summarised as: - Writing a book review is a good way of getting your first publication. - A good book review will summarise the author's main arguments and will evaluate its contribution to the field of study. - Book reviews need to be written with care. The book review is about the book, not about you or your opinion of the author. - Writing a good book review is very challenging, but can be a very rewarding excerise. For further reading about how to write a book review you may wish to visit these websites: How to write a book review by J. Hartley Five Kinds of Reviewer by R. Shiner Los Angeles Valley College Library

• References 1
• References 2

Listening in the Language Classroom

Born digital: understanding the first generation of digital natives.

© John Canning, University of Southampton, 20 August 2009. Image copyright http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixeleden/132146491/ Creative Commons

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections

How to Write a Peer Review

When you write a peer review for a manuscript, what should you include in your comments? What should you leave out? And how should the review be formatted?

This guide provides quick tips for writing and organizing your reviewer report.

Review Outline

Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized.

Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom.

Here’s how your outline might look:

1. Summary of the research and your overall impression

In your own words, summarize what the manuscript claims to report. This shows the editor how you interpreted the manuscript and will highlight any major differences in perspective between you and the other reviewers. Give an overview of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. Think about this as your “take-home” message for the editors. End this section with your recommended course of action.

2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement

It’s helpful to divide this section into two parts: one for major issues and one for minor issues. Within each section, you can talk about the biggest issues first or go systematically figure-by-figure or claim-by-claim. Number each item so that your points are easy to follow (this will also make it easier for the authors to respond to each point). Refer to specific lines, pages, sections, or figure and table numbers so the authors (and editors) know exactly what you’re talking about.

Major vs. minor issues

What’s the difference between a major and minor issue? Major issues should consist of the essential points the authors need to address before the manuscript can proceed. Make sure you focus on what is  fundamental for the current study . In other words, it’s not helpful to recommend additional work that would be considered the “next step” in the study. Minor issues are still important but typically will not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Here are some examples of what would might go in the “minor” category:

• Missing references (but depending on what is missing, this could also be a major issue)
• Technical clarifications (e.g., the authors should clarify how a reagent works)
• Data presentation (e.g., the authors should present p-values differently)
• Typos, spelling, grammar, and phrasing issues

3. Any other points

Confidential comments for the editors.

Some journals have a space for reviewers to enter confidential comments about the manuscript. Use this space to mention concerns about the submission that you’d want the editors to consider before sharing your feedback with the authors, such as concerns about ethical guidelines or language quality. Any serious issues should be raised directly and immediately with the journal as well.

This section is also where you will disclose any potentially competing interests, and mention whether you’re willing to look at a revised version of the manuscript.

Do not use this space to critique the manuscript, since comments entered here will not be passed along to the authors.  If you’re not sure what should go in the confidential comments, read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal first before submitting your review. If you are reviewing for a journal that does not offer a space for confidential comments, consider writing to the editorial office directly with your concerns.

Get this outline in a template

Giving Feedback

Giving feedback is hard. Giving effective feedback can be even more challenging. Remember that your ultimate goal is to discuss what the authors would need to do in order to qualify for publication. The point is not to nitpick every piece of the manuscript. Your focus should be on providing constructive and critical feedback that the authors can use to improve their study.

If you’ve ever had your own work reviewed, you already know that it’s not always easy to receive feedback. Follow the golden rule: Write the type of review you’d want to receive if you were the author. Even if you decide not to identify yourself in the review, you should write comments that you would be comfortable signing your name to.

In your comments, use phrases like “ the authors’ discussion of X” instead of “ your discussion of X .” This will depersonalize the feedback and keep the focus on the manuscript instead of the authors.

General guidelines for effective feedback

• Justify your recommendation with concrete evidence and specific examples.
• Be specific so the authors know what they need to do to improve.
• Be thorough. This might be the only time you read the manuscript.
• Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments too.
• Remember to say what you liked about the manuscript!

Don’t

• Recommend additional experiments or  unnecessary elements that are out of scope for the study or for the journal criteria.
• Tell the authors exactly how to revise their manuscript—you don’t need to do their work for them.
• Use the review to promote your own research or hypotheses.
• Focus on typos and grammar. If the manuscript needs significant editing for language and writing quality, just mention this in your comments.
• Submit your review without proofreading it and checking everything one more time.

Before and After: Sample Reviewer Comments

Keeping in mind the guidelines above, how do you put your thoughts into words? Here are some sample “before” and “after” reviewer comments

✗ Before

“The authors appear to have no idea what they are talking about. I don’t think they have read any of the literature on this topic.”

✓ After

“The study fails to address how the findings relate to previous research in this area. The authors should rewrite their Introduction and Discussion to reference the related literature, especially recently published work such as Darwin et al.”

“The writing is so bad, it is practically unreadable. I could barely bring myself to finish it.”

“While the study appears to be sound, the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow. I advise the authors work with a writing coach or copyeditor to improve the flow and readability of the text.”

“It’s obvious that this type of experiment should have been included. I have no idea why the authors didn’t use it. This is a big mistake.”

“The authors are off to a good start, however, this study requires additional experiments, particularly [type of experiment]. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their choice of methods.”

Suggested Language for Tricky Situations

You might find yourself in a situation where you’re not sure how to explain the problem or provide feedback in a constructive and respectful way. Here is some suggested language for common issues you might experience.

What you think : The manuscript is fatally flawed. What you could say: “The study does not appear to be sound” or “the authors have missed something crucial”.

What you think : You don’t completely understand the manuscript. What you could say : “The authors should clarify the following sections to avoid confusion…”

What you think : The technical details don’t make sense. What you could say : “The technical details should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.”

What you think: The writing is terrible. What you could say : “The authors should revise the language to improve readability.”

What you think : The authors have over-interpreted the findings. What you could say : “The authors aim to demonstrate [XYZ], however, the data does not fully support this conclusion. Specifically…”

What does a good review look like?

Check out the peer review examples at F1000 Research to see how other reviewers write up their reports and give constructive feedback to authors.

Time to Submit the Review!

Be sure you turn in your report on time. Need an extension? Tell the journal so that they know what to expect. If you need a lot of extra time, the journal might need to contact other reviewers or notify the author about the delay.

Tip: Building a relationship with an editor

You’ll be more likely to be asked to review again if you provide high-quality feedback and if you turn in the review on time. Especially if it’s your first review for a journal, it’s important to show that you are reliable. Prove yourself once and you’ll get asked to review again!

• Getting started as a reviewer
• Responding to an invitation
• Reading a manuscript
• Writing a peer review

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

How to Publish a Book Review

Book reviews serve a very important function in the world of scholarly communication. If you are ready to take the plunge, here is a step-by-step guide.

Updated on January 21, 2015

In another article , we presented academics new to publishing with some suggestions regarding how to begin their publication record in the humanities. Here, we will devote more attention to the book review since it is relatively easy to accomplish and an established form of academic publishing that can be added to the publications section of your CV.

Book reviews serve a very important function in the world of scholarly communication. They allow researchers and publishers to publicize their books; they allow journals, societies, and associations in very small subfields to circulate new research among their peers within the larger discipline; and last but not least, they are a way for readers to find out whether they would like to read a particular book.

If you are ready to take the plunge, here is a step-by-step guide to navigating this process:

1. identify a journal in your area of study that publishes book reviews.

If you are a graduate student, this is also a good opportunity for you to begin narrowing your area of study and getting familiar with journals that publish work in that area. If you don't know where to start, search for keywords or authors who interest you in a database and see where this work is getting published.

2. Reach out to the reviews editor

Typically, established researchers will be contacted to review a specific book, but it is perfectly acceptable for you to contact the journal. Most journals have a reviews editor whom you may contact to ask about books he or she would like reviewed. Remember to keep your e-mail to the reviews editor short and to the point, letting him or her know a little bit about yourself as a researcher. Here is a model template you can use if you do not have a particular book in mind:

Dear _______ ,

My name is _____ , and I'm a ___ -year PhD student in [area of study] at [name of university]. My area of research focuses on [1 or 2 sentences about your research].

I would love to have the opportunity to write a book review for [name of journal] if there are any books in my area that you would like reviewed.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you.

[your name]

[your contact information]

Before you contact the journal, however, make sure to see whether they have a Books Received section -- a lot of journals do. If you are interested in one of these books, make sure to ask whether anyone has already claimed that particular book.

If you have a specific book (usually published within the last two years) that you think will be a good fit for the journal and its audience, feel free to suggest it. Indeed, it's a good idea to be somewhat strategic in your book selection. Pick a book in an area you would like to begin developing expertise in, one that will help you with your qualifying exams, or one that will help you research and write a paper you already have in the works. If the journal is not interested in your idea, let them know that you'd also be open to reviewing one of their received books.

Note that there is no harm in emailing the reviews editor to express your interest in reviewing for the journal; failure to come to an agreement about a particular book will not damage your chances of publishing an article or book review in that journal in the future.

3. Look at other reviews while you are waiting for your book

If you come to an agreement on a book, congratulations! The journal will be sending you a copy of that book in the mail. In the meantime, look at other reviews published by the journal, as they will give you insight into what kind of balance they are looking for in terms of review vs. critique.

4. Read the book and write the review

There isn't a formula for writing a good review. Good book reviews will give a sense of the structure and main ideas of the book while also offering a critique of the ideas. You also don't want to champion or knock down every single idea and argument offered by the author, but rather, you should offer a sense of why it is important to engage with the book. Otherwise, there is no point in bringing attention to it and participating in the conversation. Again, looking over reviews in back issues of the journal is important, as it will give you a sense of what your journal expects of its book reviewers.

You will most likely also be receiving formatting guidelines at some point, either with your book or by email. Make sure to stick with them (the most important is to not go over the word limit) and with the due date, especially if you'd like to contribute another review in the future.

After submitting your review, you will enter a period of waiting. As you may be aware, the publishing world in the humanities operates within time frames all of its own. It could be up to 6 months or more before you even get your essay proofs. Publishers' proofs usually arrive by mail, together with copyright consent forms.

Writing a book review is a great opportunity for graduate students and new academics just starting out to begin to think about their interests and audience. It requires focusing on an area in your discipline and communicating with its audience. In other words, you can begin to participate in a particular research community. Writing a book review is also an excellent introduction to the academic publishing process, as you get first-hand experience communicating with journal editors, working within certain journal guidelines, and working with proofs. AJE wishes you the best of luck!

Celina Bragagnolo, PhD

Teacher at Washington International School

See our "Privacy Policy"

Writing a book review

Affiliation.

• 1 Singapore Medical Journal, 2 College Road, Singapore 169850. [email protected]
• PMID: 20938606

A book review is a form of academic writing that provides a succinct yet critical analysis evaluating the content, style, merit and significance of a book. The reader should gain insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the book, aided by input from the reviewer. The four stages of writing a book review are: introducing the book, outlining its contents, highlighting parts of the book by selecting particular chapters or themes, and giving a detailed evaluation.

• Book Reviews as Topic*
• Publications

Please contact the site administrator

Trump promotes Lee Greenwood's 'God Bless The USA Bible': What to know about the book and its long journey

• Former president Donald Trump encourages supporters to buy Lee Greenwood's "God Bless The USA Bible," a project inspired by Nashville country musician's hit song.
• Resurgent version of Greenwood's Bible project a modified version from original concept, a change that likely followed 2021 shake-up in publishers.

After years with few updates about Lee Greenwood’s controversial Bible, the project is again resurgent with a recent promotion by former President Donald Trump.

“All Americans need to have a Bible in their home and I have many. It’s my favorite book,” Trump said in a video posted to social media Tuesday, encouraging supporters to purchase the “God Bless The USA Bible.” “Religion is so important and so missing, but it’s going to come back.”

Greenwood — the Nashville area country musician whose hit song “God Bless the USA” inspired the Bible with a similar namesake — has long been allies with Trump and other prominent Republicans, many of whom are featured in promotional material for the “God Bless The USA Bible.” But that reputational clout in conservative circles hasn’t necessarily translated to business success in the past, largely due to a major change in the book’s publishing plan.

Here's what to know about the Bible project’s journey so far and why it’s significant it’s back in the conservative limelight.

An unordinary Bible, a fiery debate

The “God Bless The USA Bible” received heightened attention since the outset due to its overt political features.

The text includes the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Pledge of Allegiance, and the lyrics to the chorus to Greenwood’s “God Bless The USA.” Critics saw it as a symbol of Christian nationalism, a right-wing movement that believes the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation.

A petition emerged in 2021 calling Greenwood’s Bible “a toxic mix that will exacerbate the challenges to American evangelicalism.” From there, a broader conversation ensued about the standards by which publishers print Bibles.

Gatekeeping in Bible publishing

Greenwood’s early business partner on the project, a Hermitage-based marketing firm called Elite Source Pro, initially reached a manufacturing agreement with the Nashville-based HarperCollins Christian Publishing to print the “God Bless The USA Bible.”  

As part of that agreement, HarperCollins would publish the book but not sell or endorse it. But then HarperCollins reversed course , a major setback for Greenwood’s Bible.

The reversal by HarperCollins followed a decision by Zondervan — a publishing group under HarperCollins Christian Publishing and an official North American licensor for Bibles printed in the New International Version translation — to pass on the project. HarperCollins said the decision was unrelated to the petition or other public denunciations against Greenwood’s Bible.

The full backstory: Lee Greenwood's 'God Bless the USA Bible' finds new printer after HarperCollins Christian passes

A new translation and mystery publisher

The resurgent “God Bless The USA Bible” featured in Trump’s recent ad is an altered version of the original concept, a modification that likely followed the publishing shake-up.

Greenwood’s Bible is now printed in the King James Version, a different translation from the original pitch to HarperCollins.

Perhaps the biggest mystery is the new publisher. That manufacturer is producing a limited quantity of copies, leading to a delayed four-to-six weeks for a copy to ship.  

It’s also unclear which business partners are still involved in the project. Hugh Kirkman, who led Elite Service Pro, the firm that originally partnered with Greenwood for the project, responded to a request for comment by referring media inquiries to Greenwood’s publicist.

The publicist said Elite Source Pro is not a partner on the project and the Bible has always been printed in the King James Version.

"Several years ago, the Bible was going to be printed with the NIV translation, but something happened with the then licensor and the then potential publisher. As a result, this God Bless The USA Bible has always been printed with the King James Version translation," publicist Jeremy Westby said in a statement.

Westby did not have the name of the new licensee who is manufacturing the Bible.

Trump’s plug for the “God Bless The USA Bible” recycled language the former president is using to appeal to a conservative Christian base.

“Our founding fathers did a tremendous thing when they built America on Judeo-Christian values,” Trump said in his video on social media. “Now that foundation is under attack perhaps as never before.”

'Bring back our religion’: Trump vows to support Christians during Nashville speech

Liam Adams covers religion for The Tennessean. Reach him at [email protected] or on social media @liamsadams.