Abstract
Book reviews constitute an important component in the communication ecology driving and sustaining historical scholarship. This examination frames the discussion of the book review as artifact of communication. Within the context of its perceived value, its significance to historians, and its position within this ecosystem, the book review is further contextualized within a discussion of subject specialization. Additionally, the intellectual and professional position the book review occupies in this ecology, is broached, and tempered by historians’ observations concerning its relative status, purpose, and necessity for the historical profession. Further observations are articulated by university press directors within the context of the influence that book reviews exert within this communication ecology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See Williams, Peter, et al. “The Role and Future of the Monograph in Arts and Humanities Research.” Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives 61 (2009): 67-82.
For challenging and insightful commentaries, concerns, etc., see Roy. S. Wolper,“A Grass-Blade”: On Academic Reviewing,” Scholarly Publishing 10 (1979): 325–29; James O. Hoge and James L. West III, “Academic Book Reviewing: Some Problems and Suggestions,” Scholarly Publishing 11 (1979): 35–41; John Budd, “Book Reviewing Practices of Journals in the Humanities,” Scholarly Publishing 13, no. 4 (1982): 363–71; John W. East, “The Scholarly Book Review in the Humanities: An Academic Cinderella?” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 43 (2011): 52–67. A recent commentary holds up the review for further supportive consideration, in John W. East, “The Scholarly Book Review in the Humanities: An Academic Cinderella?” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 43 (2011): 52–67. West maintains, “It was suggested in the introduction to this paper that scholarly book reviews have an image problem; however, that image problem seems to exist more in the minds of administrators than of scholars,” and, “Though administrators may be blind to the value of good book reviews, fortunately the scholarly peer group is of a different opinion, and publication of good reviews in high-quality journals will continue to add to a scholar’s prestige,” p.64.
Many reviewers for NYTBR and NYRB, in the field of history, whether disciplinary or multidisciplinary are academic historians, active and retired. Often their reviews are lengthy reviews of single works, or several books around a theme resulting in a review essay.
For historical evolution, see for history journals, Margaret Stieg Dalton, The Origin and Development of Scholarly Historical Periodicals (University: University of Alabama Press, 1986); for journals in general, see Brian Vickery, Scientific Communication in History (Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2000); Alex Csiszar, The Scientific Journal: Authorship and the Politics of Knowledge in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018).
For a fascinating entrée into this early period, see Thomas Munck, “Eighteenth-century Review Journals and the Internationalization of the European Book Market,” The International History Review 32 (2010): 415-435.
For such examples, see David A. Timko, 2001. A Study of the Book Reviewing Habits of the New York Times Book Review, 1950-2000. https://doi.org/10.17615/4kpr-9m36; Ylva Lindholm-Romantschuk, Scholarly Book Reviewing in the Social Sciences and Humanities: The Flow of ideas Within and Among Disciplines (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1998).
Data was retrieved from America: History & Life and Historical Abstracts; retrieved April 4, 2020.
According to a book review editor of a history journal, “In my assessment, scholarly book reviews remain a vital mode of publication. They provide book authors with the critical appraisals of their research that are required for tenure and promotion. They provide researchers, teachers, and students with brief, readily accessible previews of the books published in their fields of interest. They provide review authors--especially early career scholars--with an opportunity to hone their critical thinking and writing abilities and to develop their vitae of publications. They provide an occasion for authors and reviewers to introduce themselves to other experts in the field and thereby to develop useful networks of colleagues. In all of these ways, book reviews advance the missions of scholarly journals and the membership organizations that publish them. The book review remains a highly valuable service, and arguably, and underappreciated one. Our profession and discipline ought to do more to reward the writing of them.” Email May 5, 2020.
Review essays bring together under a common theme a number of books/monographs that treat a specific subject that have close intellectual affinity. They are longer than a single book review and situate the works within a contextualized discussion, further evaluating and framing their significance individually and in toto within the received body of scholarship.
For an instructive viewpoint, see “Modern reviewers insist that "good history" be compact, interpretive, and supported with the most recent findings of related disciplines,” and, “they are more attentive observers. In comparison with earlier colleagues, reviewers today perceive themselves more as critics of a book's thesis, method, research, balance, and style than as reporters of its content. And if they are more prone to discount the value of a book simply because its author did not meet their personal requisites of scholarship, they also are more willing to insist upon standards for excellence, and to expose with candor their own preferences and prejudices concerning the nature of "good history." As a consequence, modern review watchers are treated not only with a synopsis of contemporary research, but also a running commentary on the changing definitions of history.” Terry D. Bilhartz, “In 500 Words or Less: Academic Book Reviewing in American History.” The History Teacher 17 (August, 1984), 525-536, 231.
For an older, but still relevant observation for any journal, especially history, is "Editorial: On the Importance of Book Reviews," Comparative Education Review 23, no. 2 (Jun., 1979): 314-315; “Book reviews are a source of information to scholars, teachers, and librarians (who purchase a large proportion of scholarly books). Book reviews are a means of communicating and evaluating. They help to carry on a dialogue between authors and evaluators. They provide feedback and are an important corrective to ideas which may not be fully developed. They keep us "honest" in the sense that research is evaluated, ideas critiqued (or praised), and trends defined. Reviewers are often able to evaluate dispassionately a body of research in a way that the author cannot and that the general reader usually does not”.
Retrieved from America: History & Life; Historical Abstracts April 10, 2020.
Cursory de visu examination of a sample of non-American based history journals bears out the notion that book reviewing is less a communication practice.
A critical caveat is that pure philosophy of history, or historiography where primary sources may not need to be predicated upon archival materials. There are far less books written and reviewed that are purely historiographical. See Jean-Pierre V. M. Hérubel, “Subject Specialization and Subject Dispersion in Historical Scholarship: Qualitative Preliminary Explorations in Disciplinary Cultures.” COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management 5 (December 2011): 1–14.
A.H.R. “Reviewing books and other historical material of professional interest—including films, public history sites and museums, collections of documents, websites, podcasts, and many genres of popular culture relevant to historians—is a primary responsibility of the AHR. Regardless of the content under review, the AHR carefully selects reviewers, ensuring that they have already demonstrated sufficient expertise in the relevant field, and guarding carefully against potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers are expected to have earned a Ph.D. or its equivalent (such as a J.D. or Th.D.) or to have a record of appropriate scholarship. We also prefer a potential reviewer to have published a peer-reviewed article and to have published a review elsewhere, as well as to be at work on a major piece of historical scholarship of some form (this can include museum exhibits, websites, films, and other genres).” Retrieved April 27, 2020, https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/american-historical-review/book-review-guide. J.A.H. “The Journal of American History is always looking for qualified reviewers for books and articles. To be qualified, a reviewer should have either a PhD in American history or a related field, professional experience in the teaching or presentation of the history of America, or publications in the field. It is crucial that prospective reviewers indicate their areas of interest and publications on the reviewer data sheet since we use this information to identify reviewers who have expertise in the particular subject matter of the book or article being reviewed.” Retrieved April 27, 2020, https://jah.oah.org/submit/datasheet/.
See again, Margaret Stieg Dalton, The Origin and Development of Scholarly Historical Periodicals (University: University of Alabama Press, 1986).
See Jean-Pierre V. M. Hérubel, "Interdisciplinary Characteristics of Historical Monographs and Intellectual Interactions at Work in Historical Scholarship: An Exploratory Discussion." In Estonian Research Council and COLLNET 9th International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics and 14th COLLNET Meeting Proceedings, pp. 240-252.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hérubel, JP.V.M. The Book Review Landscape in American History: Specialization, Segmentation, Value, and History Journals. Pub Res Q 36, 350–364 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-020-09739-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-020-09739-9