The British Journal of Psychiatry, The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 17 Belgrave Square, London SWIX 8PG
Psychiatric Bulletin, The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 17 Belgrave Square, London SWIX 8PG
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
On every agenda of the Editorial Board meetings, Book Reviews appears as an item and occasions considerable comment and criticism, some pats on the back, but at the end of the day the Reviews Editors are left to pick up the pieces and try to do better.
Reviewers
Certain books are of obvious significance and we always choose a senior
reviewer with expertise in the area. But the majority of titles do not come
into this category and so decisions have to be made. The safe route is to use
a limited number of reviewers who are sound and reliable with deadlines, but
who tend to be predictable in what they will say. We feel that more excitement
is generated by including some new, usually junior, people known through their
research, writing or speaking at meetings. Obviously, this is a strategy with
risk: we have hits and we have misses. A related issue is our feeling that
being asked to do a book review is an honour much appreciated by psychiatrists
in training (it certainly was by us) and which, if they have interesting
things to say, gets them known to a wider audience.
Style
The simplistic comparison is between the journalistic and
interesting v. the academic and dull.
Extremes like this are only moderately helpful, but the best reviewers seem to
be able to combine these elements. What is often forgotten when the
Journal reviews are compared with book reviews in the broadsheet
newspapers is that they are written by practised professionals. Also the
hidden hand of the sub-editor may have entered.
Responsibility to authors
Anyone who has either written or edited a book knows the hours of work
involved. Reviewers should respect this. Not that reviews should not be
critical they should, but they should not be offensive. Authors expect
their work to be taken seriously.
Responsibility to readers
Here decisions as to the choice of book enter and our feeling is that all
sub-specialities should be represented and any book likely to interest a
significant percentage of that speciality should be reviewed. Where we are
uncertain we often ask known experts for advice: "Is this book worth a
review? If so, will you do it or suggest a reviewer to us?" In fact, we
have become more selective with time. We now receive about 35 books each
month, sending out about 15 for review and ordering perhaps three a month
extra. One dilemma is whether to review the occasional topical or fringe books
that are sent to the Journal. An example would be to reflect the
great interest, not restricted to lay persons, in alternative therapies. Do
interesting books with a general medical focus make enjoyable
Christmas or summer reading? Decisions like this involve us in subjective
choices and perhaps we should be more adventurous. Or should reviewing be more
tightly constrained by the principles of evidence-based medicine?
Length
Always a vexed issue. The quality of a review seldom relates to its length:
long reviews may bumble on, short reviews may be absolutely to the point.
Given space limitations, we feel a mix is the most appropriate together with
very brief pieces such as What's new in the third edition? and
Books received in the office.
Longer reviews are often the most rewarding for the reader. A sad reflection of the pressure under which National Health Service consultants and university academics work is that their attention is heavily taken up with their clinical work, research and committees; a long review, especially of a complex book, takes up more time than they are able to give.
The future
Breaking up text with illustrations is a new development. Perhaps we should
be reviewing videos, CD-ROMs and websites? Should reviews be published on the
internet, allowing for immediacy and stimulating discussion? What then the
role of editors?
Comments and ideas please.