Writing an Academic Book Reviewscholarly book review
Academic book review is a rather diverse area as a book review can be anything between brief summaries of meetings in which the selected book is used as a stepping stone to a broadly based paper (Swales 2004). Academic periodicals have review writers who give guidance on how a review should look for a particular periodical.
Hyland (2004) found in a study of 160 critiques that there was a delicate line between review and laud. There was, however, a trend to commend more general features of the book, while the criticisms were focused on more particular things. In Hyland (2009), he also noted that there seemed to be more critical in the mellow fields (social and human sciences), while in the harsh fields (natural and technical sciences) the responses were dominant and significantly softer.
This review can be considered a specific case of the research paper. It can have different purposes and its size is generally less inflexible than the right research item. In addition, it is not unusual to find alternate genres such as review, review essays, articles, survey articles and state-of-the-art surveys.
Swahies ("2004") reports on research by Noguchi ("2001"). Analyzing twenty-five review papers that have been released by a high-ranking US scientific magazine, Noguchi found that four different kinds of papers have emerged: Swaales points out that in some cases a review contains items of two or more of the above mentioned sorts. They are more often than real research papers individually written in relation to other features of review papers, and they are often strongly cited.
Another hallmark of review papers from a publisher's point of view is that it is relatively rare for unasked scripts to be released from unannounced locations (Swales 2004). It seems that this is a kind of thing where more well-known scientists in a particular subject are being asked to do.