Book Reviews: Should You Do Them?

Book reviews can be a tempting way to get a quick publication as well as a free book, and they can be a good way to keep up to date about literature relevant for your research. But they can also take a lot of time, and it's not clear that the benefits are worth the trouble. I'm currently writing a book review for Philosophical Quarterly, and I'm once again reminded about how much work that can be, so I've been thinking about whether it's worthwhile or not to do them. I've only done a couple of book reviews, but I've turned down several invitations. However, I also feel that I might lose an opportunity if I just flatly reject all invitations to review books. It's not clear to me that people read book reviews very often either -- I rarely do -- so that's another aspect that might influence your decision. Let's try a simple cost-benefit analysis.

Potential benefits:

• You often get a free book, at least unless your review is unsolicited.
• You get a certain publication fairly quickly.
• Someone might read your review and remember your name.
• The author of the book at least will probably hear about you and your review.
• You basically have to read a book from cover to cover, which will certainly make you more knowledgeable about the topic than most.

Potential disadvantages:

• It can take a lot of time, especially if the book is long or very technical.
• No one might actually read your review.
• The publication will probably not count for much, even if it's in a top journal.
• Instead of a review, you could perhaps use the time to write a short critical piece about the book and get a proper publication.

Any other benefits or disadvantages you can think of? I think it's quite clear that a book review in your CV is not going to get you a job. But is it equally clear that *not* having done any will not count against you? I'd be inclined to think so. Of course, if you can spare the time and the book is something that you would've bought or wanted to read anyway, then there's not much to lose -- except that you have a deadline. But if the book is not quite in your area, if the publisher isn't very good, if you've never heard of the author, or if the journal where your review would be published isn't great, then you're probably better off turning it down.

The way I see it, reviewing books is a type of "service to profession" similar to refereeing articles for journals. You certainly get some potential benefits though, compared to virtually none in the case of refereeing, but those benefits on their own may not be enough to justify the effort.

What do you think, is it worthwhile to write book reviews, and why?

Comments

[Marcus Arvan]

I've done one book review, and I felt like it was more trouble than it was worth. Though it's nice to have another line on the CV, it takes a *lot* of good time to write a good review -- and if the book's bad, both reading it and writing the review can be a chore. I guess one possible benefit is that you might make some sort of professional connection with the book's author. Then again, if you write a scathing review, that probably won't happen. ;)

[Kyle Whyte]

I'm the book review editor for a journal and a lot of the reviews are written by graduate students. I do give feedback, of course, on the various drafts of submitted reviews, and I've seen it be a useful exercise for graduate students. I also agree it can be a good networking opportunity, in general. Though, it doesn't have to be with the author. If you write a scathing review, then the networking is more likely with the group of scholars who agree with your scathing review. I have actually never published a book review myself, so I cannot say much beyond my experience as a book reviewer editor. Having not written one certainly has not affected me on the job market in any way that I could measure. I have heard, in the case of tenure, that some departments have rules for counting book reviews as 1/4 or some other fraction of an article, depending, of course, on the journal. Some folks have even told me that coming down to the wire on tenure they wrote a bunch of book reviews to get them up to "the number". Is this really true? I'd be curious if anyone on this list has heard of this practice before. Not that it should be recommended.

[Clayton]

I have written a handful of reviews now and have another handful that will be due soon. One of the benefits of writing these reviews is that it can force you to think through some material that is new to you. This often pays dividends. Writing a review of Michael Zimmerman's latest book on obligation taught me more than I could ever need to know about obligation and led me to do some work on moral responsibility I would not have done otherwise. Writing a review of Maria Alvarez's book on reasons for action taught me a great deal about reasons for action and has led me to do much more work on reasons for action and belief. If you are finishing your PhD or have just finished your PhD and have not yet managed to send out bits of your dissertation for review, reviewing a book might be more trouble than its worth. If, however, you have that behind you and are ready to branch out a bit, I think that they can be a really good idea. (Part of the trick, I think, is to get asked to review things that force you to broaden your horizons at a time when you have the time to do so.) I don't think you should write a review just because the review itself will improve your profile, fwiw. If you want to get to know the author, send them an email about their work. (As Marcus notes, the scathing review isn't going to win you any friends. Neither is the cloying review. You'll win more friends simply by dropping a note to someone who authored something you aren't reviewing to tell them that you like their work.) If you need a line on a CV, I'm not sure that a review will replace a paper.

[Tuomas Tahko]

Thanks for the input guys! I agree with all that. As Clayton notes, a book review is a good way to get to know new material too. The book I'm reviewing is on tropes, which, while familiar to me, is an area of metaphysics that I could certainly know better. Now I do! But it does take time, and sometimes I think I'm branching out a bit too much... Anyway, sounds like people are generally in agreement about the potential benefits and disadvantages.