My Philosophy as a Book Reviews Editor
So, I recently had (for another context) to articulate my basic philosophy of being a book reviews editor, so thought I'd shared that here.
Basically, my view of what a good book review entails appears in Fafnir's book review guidelines. Long story short, this is what I expect:
The reviewer should assess the book’s strengths and weaknesses. . . . If a book has more strengths than weaknesses, or vice versa, please let that be reflected in your structure. We consider it a standard convention of the review genre, however, that even highly laudatory reviews contain some critique, even if a minor one; likewise, even highly negative reviews should contain some elements of praise.
In terms of unwritten policies, I return all submissions -- with comments -- to the reviewers within 24 hours. Besides expediting the total publication process, this is a form of practicing compassion for contingent labor and the busy workloads of all our reviewers.
About 80% of our reviews require a second revision, sometimes more. As another unwritten policy, I consider it part of my service to the profession that, as an editor, I help teach reviewers about the conventions of the review genre. A good portion of Fafnir's reviewers are either grad students or early career academics, and the reviewing skill is typically not taught in graduate school. Even then, a surprising number of more senior scholars benefit from a good editing. I used to be hesitant about offering suggestions to the more experienced folk, but I've gotten good at finessing things. The reviews are generally much better for it, and our reviewers are usually a joy to work with.
When it comes to working with reviewers, I won't ever "drop" a reviewer except under the most extraordinary circumstances (such as the reviewer who plagarized my own review of the same book). As long as an author's willing to continue working on their review, I'm willing to be there every step of the way. They will end up with a publishable review by the end of the process.,
Another of my expectations is clear academic prose. Besides being simply good writing, this encourages accessibility for Fafnir's diverse international audience, many of whom know English as a secondary or tertiary language. To ensure fairness, reviews are published in the order in which they're received, except in cases where a reviewer is grievously tardy. There, those reviews might jump the queue, but only as a courtesy to the book's author and publisher.
Overall, around 90% of books sent out for review get reviewed eventually. One thing I'll do (although I hate doing it) is "hound" a reviewer with ever-so-polite reminders of their voluntarily accepted obligation. "The author is really counting on reviews like this for their tenure file;" etc. Letting a reviewer drop, I feel, is a grave disservice to the book's author and book's publisher. As long as I get the review eventually, I won't fuss about how long it took. Although I still consider it somewhat personally shocking that so few academics actually meet their deadlines, there's not much point in grousing about it.
About the items I find for review
Generally, I select books from hot topic subjects -- most recently, SF and disability, Indian SF, and Afrofuturism. However, since we don't have space limits, I won't actually refuse a book offered for review unless it comes from some bottom-of-the-barrel place like Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Since our readership is international, I've look for (and found) academic books from publishers in India, Germany, Switzerland, as well as Anglo-American ones, although obviously the latter predominates. Personally, I think it would be nice to get more reviews in the non-English languages Fafnir services, but I've never been quite sure how to manage that. It would also be nice to get more dissertation reviews. That's on the "future projects" list; unfortunately, it's not a genre (or opportunity) that Anglo-American scholars are familiar with.
Finally, I do try to achieve a diverse reviewer pool -- I've often succeeded in finding several international reviewers, anyway. Otherwise, I'll try to find a good book for anyone interested in reviewing for the journal.
About 80% of our reviews require a second revision, sometimes more. As another unwritten policy, I consider it part of my service to the profession that, as an editor, I help teach reviewers about the conventions of the review genre. A good portion of Fafnir's reviewers are either grad students or early career academics, and the reviewing skill is typically not taught in graduate school. Even then, a surprising number of more senior scholars benefit from a good editing. I used to be hesitant about offering suggestions to the more experienced folk, but I've gotten good at finessing things. The reviews are generally much better for it, and our reviewers are usually a joy to work with.
When it comes to working with reviewers, I won't ever "drop" a reviewer except under the most extraordinary circumstances (such as the reviewer who plagarized my own review of the same book). As long as an author's willing to continue working on their review, I'm willing to be there every step of the way. They will end up with a publishable review by the end of the process.,
Another of my expectations is clear academic prose. Besides being simply good writing, this encourages accessibility for Fafnir's diverse international audience, many of whom know English as a secondary or tertiary language. To ensure fairness, reviews are published in the order in which they're received, except in cases where a reviewer is grievously tardy. There, those reviews might jump the queue, but only as a courtesy to the book's author and publisher.
Overall, around 90% of books sent out for review get reviewed eventually. One thing I'll do (although I hate doing it) is "hound" a reviewer with ever-so-polite reminders of their voluntarily accepted obligation. "The author is really counting on reviews like this for their tenure file;" etc. Letting a reviewer drop, I feel, is a grave disservice to the book's author and book's publisher. As long as I get the review eventually, I won't fuss about how long it took. Although I still consider it somewhat personally shocking that so few academics actually meet their deadlines, there's not much point in grousing about it.
About the items I find for review
Generally, I select books from hot topic subjects -- most recently, SF and disability, Indian SF, and Afrofuturism. However, since we don't have space limits, I won't actually refuse a book offered for review unless it comes from some bottom-of-the-barrel place like Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Since our readership is international, I've look for (and found) academic books from publishers in India, Germany, Switzerland, as well as Anglo-American ones, although obviously the latter predominates. Personally, I think it would be nice to get more reviews in the non-English languages Fafnir services, but I've never been quite sure how to manage that. It would also be nice to get more dissertation reviews. That's on the "future projects" list; unfortunately, it's not a genre (or opportunity) that Anglo-American scholars are familiar with.
Finally, I do try to achieve a diverse reviewer pool -- I've often succeeded in finding several international reviewers, anyway. Otherwise, I'll try to find a good book for anyone interested in reviewing for the journal.
Additionally, just as a sidenote, I also handle a good portion of the conference reports. For these, I expect them to be written accessibly, with a Creative Non-Fiction style -- no dry, bare-bones academic summaries.
So, that's it. Pretty much the entire editorial personality I've developed in 4+ years of being a books reviews editor for Fafnir.
Comments
Post a Comment