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.