Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

In Defense of Robust Reviewing

In Defense of Robust Reviewing This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables. Abstract Editor's Response.— The above correspondence focuses on a major problem in the review of textbooks and monographs in dermatology. Ours is a small specialty. Often those best qualified to review a book are personal acquaintances or even close friends of its author(s). The reviewer's unwillingness to convert a friend to an enemy over an issue of no direct relevance to himself is certainly understandable.Indisputably, a book review should be more than an expanded table of contents, usually already available to the potential reader/buyer from promotional mailings. Ideally, a review should be a critical, impartial assessment from (a) someone widely read in the field, (b) someone with the perspective and the judgment to recognize both major accomplishments and failings, (c) someone with "name recognition," and (d) someone who will complete the task before the book is out of print. As the Archives has come to realize, such an individual is http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Dermatology American Medical Association

In Defense of Robust Reviewing

Archives of Dermatology , Volume 121 (6) – Jun 1, 1985

In Defense of Robust Reviewing

Abstract

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables. Abstract Editor's Response.— The above correspondence focuses on a major problem in the review of textbooks and monographs in dermatology. Ours is a small specialty. Often those best qualified to review a book are personal acquaintances or even close friends of its author(s). The reviewer's unwillingness to convert a friend to an enemy over an...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/in-defense-of-robust-reviewing-K65WXfGw05
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0003-987X
eISSN
1538-3652
DOI
10.1001/archderm.1985.01660060025003
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables. Abstract Editor's Response.— The above correspondence focuses on a major problem in the review of textbooks and monographs in dermatology. Ours is a small specialty. Often those best qualified to review a book are personal acquaintances or even close friends of its author(s). The reviewer's unwillingness to convert a friend to an enemy over an issue of no direct relevance to himself is certainly understandable.Indisputably, a book review should be more than an expanded table of contents, usually already available to the potential reader/buyer from promotional mailings. Ideally, a review should be a critical, impartial assessment from (a) someone widely read in the field, (b) someone with the perspective and the judgment to recognize both major accomplishments and failings, (c) someone with "name recognition," and (d) someone who will complete the task before the book is out of print. As the Archives has come to realize, such an individual is

Journal

Archives of DermatologyAmerican Medical Association

Published: Jun 1, 1985

There are no references for this article.