Abstract
Book reviews are practically unique in being public, “visible” manifestations of the peer review process. Two hundred reviews of 39 books on chemical topics were subjected to statistical context analysis. Dominance of attitudes, consensus among reviewers, correlation between the reviewers' evaluations and the subsequent citation rate of the reviewed book were analysed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
T. LINCOLN, The Book Review Business,Nature, 302 (1983) 757.
G. SARTON. Notes on the Reviewing of Learned Books,Science, 131 (1960) 1182–1187.
I. BRY, L. AFFLERBACH, Book Reviewing in the Science of Human Behaviour as a Contribution to Scholarship by the Scientific Community,Mental Health Book Review Index, 6 (1961) i.
G. BORCHERS, What We Expect of a Book Review,Quarterly J. Speech, 37 (1951) 81–86.
A. P. YOUNG, Scholarly Book Reviewing in America,Libri, 25 (3) (1975) 174–182.
W. G. SNIZEK, E. R. FUHRMAN, Some Factors Affecting the Evaluative Content of Book Reviews in Sociology,Amer. Sociologist, 14 (1979) 108–114.
N. D. GLENN, On the Misuse of Book Reviews,Contemp. Sociologist, 7 (1978) 254–255.
A. I. DALLOS, Book Reviews as Aids to Book Selection,J. Res. Commun. Stud., 2 (1979/1980) 189–192.
W. HIRSCH, A. M. KULLEY, R. T. EFRON, The Gatekeeping Process in Scientific Communication; Norms, Practices, and Content of Book Reviews in Professional Journals, Working Paper No. 83, Institute of the Study of Social Change, Purdue University, 1974.
D. J. CHAMPION, M. F. MORRIS, A Content Analysis of Book Reviews in the AJS, ASR and Social Forces,Amer. J. Sociology, 78 (1973) 1256–1265.
M. LANDAUER, Nonlinearity, Multistability and Fluctuations: Reviewing the Reviewers,Amer. J. Physics, 241 (1981) R107-R113.
Index to Book Reviews in the Sciences (IBRS), Volumes January–June and July–December 1981, Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, 1982.
Science Citation Index, Volumes 1981 and 1982, Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia 1982/1983.
G. U. YULE, M. G. KENDALL,An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics, 14th Edition, Hafner, New York 1950.
J. COHEN, A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales,Educ. Psychol. Measurement 20 (1960) 37–46.
J. COHEN, Weighted Kappa' Nominal Scale Agreement with Provision for Scaled Disagreement or Partial Credit,Psychol. Bull., 70 (4) (1968) 213–220.
R. H. ORR, J. KASSAB, Peer Group Judgements of Scientific Merit: Editorial Refereeing, Congress of the Intern. Federation for Documentation, Washington D. C., October 15, 1965.
E. O. SMIGEL, H. L. ROSS, Factors in the Editorial Decision,Amer. Sociologist, 5 (February 1970) 19–21.
S. COLE, J. R. COLE, G. A. SIMON, Chance and Consensus in Peer Review,Science, 214 (1981) 881–886.
H. ZUCKERMAN, R. K. MERTON, Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalisation, Structure and Functions of the Referee System,Minerva, 9 (1) (1971) 66–100.
S. COLE, L. RBIN, J. R. COLE, Peer Review and the Support of Science,Scientific American, 237 (4) (1977) 34–41.
D. P. PETERS, S. J. CECI, Peer-review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles Submitted Again,Behav. Brain Sciences, 5 (1982) 187–255.
M. D. GORDON, The Role of Referees in Scientific Communication, in: J. HARTLEY (Ed.),The Psychology of Written Communication, Kogan-Page, 1980.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schubert, A., Zsindely, S., Telcs, A. et al. Quantitative analysis of a visible tip of the peer review iceberg: Book reviews in chemistry. Scientometrics 6, 433–443 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02025830
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02025830