Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Editor’s Note: The full-text of this document (forty-five pages) is available on the RUSA Web site. The introduction and the table of contents are reprinted in RUSQ vol. 45, issue 1, Fall 2006.
This is the first edition of a new online document developed by the RUSA CODES Materials Reviewing Committee in 2003-2004. Its primary purpose is to guide librarians who wish to become reviewers on the elements that make up a good review; in addition, it warns them about elements to avoid. Its secondary purpose is to help library selectors recognize elements that define a good review. Finally, it may serve the needs of authors and publishers by demonstrating how reviews in professional library trade journals are written. For all three audiences, it offers an overview into the reviewing process.
Reviews serve multiple purposes for library selectors, publishers, authors, students, and scholars. Library selectors use reviews to make informed decisions concerning the potential usefulness of an item for their clientele, to compare like items, to choose one item over another (or to choose not to purchase an item), and to justify the purchase and defend the appropriateness of an item for a library collection. Reviews in some publications (such as Library Journal ) are written for a library audience; the purpose of such reviews is not only to evaluate the quality of a specific item but also to assess how it may fit into an academic, public, school, or special library collection. Selectors may also use reviews for readers’ advisory and for program planning (such as book or film clubs). Publishers and authors may use reviews to promote sales, to improve existing products, and to develop future products. Scholars and students may use reviews to track and evaluate publishing trends as well as related cultural and social changes.
Reviewers should be qualified to judge the reliability and validity of facts presented in materials that they evaluate, to compare such materials to similar works, and to determine whether such materials provide a greater understanding of a specific subject. Consequently, reviewers should have a solid academic background and strong personal or professional interest in the subject of the materials examined. Fiction reviewers should have an extensive background or a keen interest in literature.
Reviewers need to schedule sufficient time and obtain appropriate equipment (such as a CD player for music recordings or a DVD player for films) to examine and write about materials. Reviewers must adhere to deadlines and inform the editor immediately if a deadline cannot be met. Some journals publish reviews of materials prior to their publication; such reviews normally require quick turn-around time (often two or three weeks). Prior to publication, some materials may lack graphics, indexes, or other elements and reviewers need to indicate what elements were unavailable for examination.
Reviewers should be sensitive to ethical issues regarding the practice of examining and evaluating materials. Reviewers should make every effort to provide an objective evaluation. Consequently, they should not review materials written by themselves, colleagues, or friends; they should also avoid reviewing materials if any financial stake is involved. A review should be submitted to only one publication.
Reviewers should be aware that each publication has its own guidelines, requirements, and audience for reviews. Editors of some publications request that potential contributors submit a sample review. It is unusual for reviewers to receive monetary compensation, but they are often permitted to keep materials they have reviewed.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Common Elements Found in Most Reviews
3. Reviewing of Books
3.1 Adult Fiction
3.2 Adult Nonfiction
3.3 Collections of essays, short fiction, and other multi-authored works
3.4 Reference Books
3.5 Academic Books
3.6 Children’s Books
3.7 Teen Books
3.8 Graphic Novels
3.9 Materials in Other Languages
4. Electronic Resources
4.1 General Considerations
4.2 Special Considerations for Various Electronic Formats
5. Audio Visual
5.1 General Considerations
5.2 DVD and VHS
5.3 Spoken Word
5.4 Musical Recordings
5.5 Scores
6. Finalizing the Review–Polishing
Appendix I Major Genres
Appendix II Example of a Bad and Good Review
Appendix III Bibliography
Developed by the Materials Reviewing Committee of the Collection Development and Evaluation Section (CODES). Approved by the Reference and User Services Association Board of Directors, January 2006.