What makes for a good book review?

[traductio]

Thanks for developing new guidance for book reviewers so they don't simply repeat the clichés that others have fallen into. Many reviewers probably think those are not clichés but academic standards.

I think that second part is the problem -- there are so many badly done reviews that they come to appear as the convention. Editing them feels a bit thankless!

I like when the reviewer has an opinion about the subject matter. That opinion should not be that the book is great or awful. It should ideally provide a related--but not identical--context for what the book argues (if it is that kind of book) or why the new scholarship matters.

I agree completely. I think a lot of people who have written reviews for the journal I serve think that "opinion" necessarily means "evaluation" necessarily means "right or wrong / good or bad." But the best are ones where the reviewer expresses their opinion through engagement with the material.

It might be necessary to provide specific examples of high- and low-value chapter summaries, or of recommended audiences. That will help future reviewers move beyond the safe, familiar but unhelpful.

Just yesterday I sent the editor-in-chief two sample reviews that I hope the journal will publish as models. Here's hoping they work.

[larryc]

An engaging, historiographically-informed summary (4-6 paragraphs) and a light critique of the ideas (2 paragraphs).

[sinenomine]

I also like to see a review discuss how useful the book is as a research tool -- notes, index, appendices, etc.

[traductio]

An engaging, historiographically-informed summary (4-6 paragraphs) and a light critique of the ideas (2 paragraphs).

Spoken like a true historian! (And I quite agree.)