Scholarly Book Review Sites

Scientific book reviews

The reviews put the book in the scientific discourse, compare it with other works in this field and analyse the methodology, interpretations and conclusions of the author. "...reviews of recent scientific work in the field of Classical Studies (including archaeology).

" Reviews of books show thoughtful commitment and contain inspiring insights into current publications that are of interest to our readers. Complimentary pages with reviews of academic and popular books. In the end, the true value of a scientific book review lies in its correct execution.

Forgive us for interrupting.

You are a powerful player who moves through this website with superhuman velocity. You have deactivated JavaScript in your webprowser. An external plug-in, such as Ghostery or NoScript, prevents JavaScript from executing. In order to apply for an activation, please fill in the following registration card and we will check it as soon as possible.

What is the difference between scientific book review and article review?

Nearly every wk I check out the Chemical and Engineering News for review. Quite often I am reading in magazines comments of already existing scholarly papers. There are some similarities between the two revisions, but they differ significantly in their purposes and styles. There are two aims to a scholarly or scholarly book review: to criticize the book for precision and stylishness and to let the readers know whether they want to or not.

Approximately half of the scientific book reviewers I come across are commendatory; the critic liked the book and has good things to say about the writer. For the remaining cases, the peer reviewers make exceptions to some parts of the author's argument, praise some, argue or dismiss others. However, a book review goes further to recommend to a prospective readership whether they should spend the extra hours on acquiring and studying the book in questions.

On the other hand, review articles are usually more focussed. He is disagreeing with the conclusion of an essay and presents a counter argument and a critique of the same. In one of my articles, the first tetra-coordinate syntheses of a tetra-square silicone compounds was claimed to be one of the aims of my research.

But the authors' proof was not a crystalline structural analysis, but a spatial group analysis, which in their opinion indicated the right balance for the new one. The next edition of the magazine published a review of the paper with the argument that a spatial group definition was of no use for the identification of molar symetry.

In addition to the review, the authors' reply was made public, claiming that instead of contradicting their arguments, the critic had given strong backing. However, this is the customary sample of a scientific review of an essay - a review of the initial essay, followed by an answer from the writers.

Laudatory articles ratings are posted from time to time, but they are seldom and in my view, serving little use. While a review may be a compliment to an writer, a review should fit the theme of the play.

Auch interessant

Mehr zum Thema