References
- Adams, M. (2007). In the profession: Re-viewing the academic book review. Journal of English Linguistics, 35(2), 202–205. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424207302347
- Ashley, L. R. (2002). The ethics of academic book reviewing. Journal of Information Ethics, 11(1), 37–51.
- Barad, K. (2014). Diffracting diffraction: Cutting together-apart. Parallax, 20(3), 168–187. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927623
- Boston, S. M., Cohn, J., McKittrick, M., & Snead, R. (2014). Current conversations on multimodal assignments and assessments: A collaborative review of four recent texts. Computers & Composition, 31, 67–78. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2013.12.006
- Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus (P. Collier, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
- Chenail, R. J. (2010). How to read and review a book like a qualitative researcher. The Qualitative Report, 15(6), 1635–1642. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol15/iss6/20.
- Chinnery, A. (2010). Reviews and rejoinders in Studies in Philosophy and Education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(5), 417–419. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-010-9192-9
- Cortada, J. W. (1998). Five ways to be a terrible book reviewer. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 30(1), 34–37.
- Deleuze, G. (1990). The logic of sense (M. Lester & C. Stivale, Trans.) New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
- Diani, G. (2009). Reporting and evaluation in English book review articles: A cross-disciplinary study. In K. Hyland, & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 87–104). London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244290_6.
- Di Leo, J. R. (2009). The fate of the book review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 40(2), 166–177. doi:https://doi.org/10.1353/scp.0.0037
- Donmoyer, R. (2011). Why writers should also be reviewers. In T. S. Rocco & T. G. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing & publishing (pp. 230–250). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- East, J. W. (2011). The scholarly book review in the humanities: An academic Cinderella? Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43(1), 52–67. doi:https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.43.1.52
- Fargo, H. M., Rowland, N. J., & Knapp, J. A. (2019). Scholarship as conversation: Using book reviews to think about scholarly communication. College & Research Libraries News, 80(1), 22–25. doi:https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.80.1.22
- Fernheimer, J. Q. (2009). A review of Rhetorical Refusals: Defying Audiences’ Expectations, by John Schilb. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 39(1), 99–102. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02773940802631398
- Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., & Purnell, P. J. (2014). The power of book reviews: A simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes. Scientometrics, 98(2), 841–852. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1176-4
- Hartley, J. (2010). The anatomy of a book review. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 40(4), 473–487. doi:https://doi.org/10.2190/TW.40.4.g
- Hartley, J. (2008). Book reviews. In J. Hartley (Ed.), Academic writing and publishing: A practical handbook (pp. 115–122). Abingdon; New York, NY: Routledge.
- Hartley, J. (2006). Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1194–1207. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20399
- Henige, D. (2001). Reviewing reviewing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 33(1), 23–36. doi:https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.33.1.23
- Herd, D., & Wilkins, P. (2015). Unpacking unflattening: A conversation. The Comics Grid: Journal of Comics Scholarship, 5(1). Retrieved from https://www.comicsgrid.com/articles/10.5334/cg.bi/. doi:https://doi.org/10.5334/cg.bi
- Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (2009). Introduction: Academic evaluation and review genres. In K. Hyland, & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 1–14). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244290_1.
- Jandrić, P., Devine, N., Jackson, L., Peters, M. A., Lăzăroiu, G., Mihăilă, R., … Benade, L. (2017). Collective writing: An inquiry into praxis. Knowledge Cultures, 5(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.22381/KC5120177.
- Langlitz, N., & Fitzgerald, D. (2019). Organized polemics. BioSocieties, 14(1), 143–153. doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-019-00146-8
- Latz, A. O., & Murray, J. L. (2012). A duoethnography on duoethnography: More than a book review. The Qualitative Report, 17(36). Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss36/3/.
- Laux, K. (2018). A book review journey through doing ethnography. The Qualitative Report, 23(2), 399–402. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss2/8.
- Lee, A. D., Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Nyquist, J. (2010). How to write a scholarly book review for publication in a peer-reviewed journal: A review of the literature. Journal of Chiropractic Education, 24(1), 57–69. doi:https://doi.org/10.7899/1042-5055-24.1.57
- Lee, E. (2010). Remixing Lessig (reviewing Lawrence Lessig, Remix [2008]). I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy, 6(1), 41–66. Retrieved from http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/fac_schol/356.
- Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y. (1998). Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities: The flow of ideas within and among disciplines. Westport, CN: Greenwood.
- McCarthy, S. (2015). Book art: A critical remix of The electric information age book: McLuhan/Agel/Fiore and the experimental paperback by Jeffrey T. Schnapp and Adam Michaels. Visible Language, 49(3), 179–202Retrieved from http://visiblelanguagejournal.com/issue/172/article/1242.
- McGrath, E. L., Metz, W. F., & Rutledge, J. B. (2005). H-Net book reviews: Enhancing scholarly communication with technology. College & Research Libraries, 66(1), 8–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.66.1.8
- Motta-Roth, D. (1995a). Rhetorical features and disciplinary cultures: A genre-based study of academic book reviews in linguistics, chemistry, and economics. (Unpublished doctoral thesis.) Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil. Retrieved from https://repositorio.ufsc.br/handle/123456789/157910.
- Motta-Roth, D. (1995b). Book reviews and disciplinary discourses: Defining a genre. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, March 26–April 1, Long Beach, California. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED404858.
- Murris, K. (2017). Review essay: Propositions for posthuman teaching and research: A diffractive re-view of three books. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.14426/cristal.v5i1.115.
- Nicolaisen, J. (2002). The scholarliness of published peer reviews: A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation, 11(3), 129–140. doi:https://doi.org/10.3152/147154402781776808
- North, S. M. (1992). On book reviews in rhetoric and composition. Rhetoric Review, 10(2), 348–363. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07350199209388977
- Obeng-Odoom, F. (2014). Why write book reviews? The Australian Universities’ Review, 56(1), 78–82. Retrieved from http://www.nteu.org.au/library/view/id/4859.
- Oinas, P., & Leppälä, S. (2013). Views on book reviews. Regional Studies, 47(10), 1785–1789. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.856530
- Orteza y Miranda, E. (1996). On book reviewing. The Journal of Educational Thought, 30(2), 191–202.
- Pinker, S. (2015). Response to the book review symposium: Steven Pinker, The better angels of our nature. Sociology, 49(4), NP3–NP8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038514556797
- Rankin, J. (2010). An autobiographical book review of Trauma and human existence: Autobiographical, psychoanalytic, and philosophical reflections, by Robert D. Stolorow. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 15(4), 376–380. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2010.491738
- Ray, L., Lea, J., & Bhatt, C. (2013). Book review symposium: Steven Pinker, The better angels of our nature: A history of violence and humanity. Sociology, 47(6), 1224–1232. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038513513855
- Rhodes, C. (2005). Book review: The Sage handbook of organizational discourse [with Diss-ing discourse? A response, by the authors]. Organization Studies, 26(5), 793–799. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605051825
- Roncevic, M. (2019). Is quality, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder? The elusive art of book reviewing and its impact on reading, discovery, and sales. Retrieved February 5, 2020 from https://www.noshelfrequired.com/is-quality-like-beauty-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder-the-elusive-art-of-book-reviewing-and-its-influence-on-reading-discovery-and-sales/.
- Roper, D. (1978). Reviewing before the Edinburgh, 1788–1802. Newark, NJ: University of Delaware Press.
- Rowland, N. J., Knapp, J. A., & Fargo, H. (2020). The collaborative book review as an opportunity for undergraduate research skill development. Higher Education Research & Development. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1680614
- Rowland, N. J., Knapp, J. A., & Fargo, H. (2019). Learning “scholarship as conversation” by writing book reviews. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, 2(3), 20–27. Retrieved from https://www.cur.org/download.aspx?id=4001. doi:https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/2/3/6
- Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz-Ariza, M. Á., & Pabón, M. (2010). How’s who? Protagonists’ identification in scholarly book reviews (1890–2008). Lidil, 41, 59–78. doi:https://doi.org/10.4000/lidil.3009
- Samuels, L., & McGann, J. (1999). Deformance and interpretation. New Literary History, 30(1), 25–56. doi:https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.1999.0010
- Sehgal, M. (2014). Diffractive propositions: Reading Alfred North Whitehead with Donna Haraway and Karen Barad. Parallax, 20(3), 188–201. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927625
- Sholtz, J. (2016). Dramatization as life practice: Counteractualisation, event and death. Deleuze Studies, 10(1), 50–69. doi:https://doi.org/10.3366/dls.2016.0211
- Spink, A., Robins, D., & Schamber, L. (1998). Use of scholarly book reviews: Implications for electronic publishing and scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 364–374. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(19980401)49:4<364::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-3
- Springgay, S., Irwin, R. L., Leggo, C., & Gouzouasis, Eds. (2008). Being with a/r/tography. Rotterdam: Sense.
- Stowe, S. (1991). Thinking about reviews. The Journal of American History, 78(2), 591–595. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2079535
- Suárez, L., & Moreno, A. (2008). The rhetorical structure of academic book review of literature: An English–Spanish cross-linguistic approach. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric. Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 147–167). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169.10sua.
- Suárez, L., & Moreno, A. (2006). The rhetorical structure of academic journal book reviews: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary approach. In C. Pérez-Llantada, R. Pló, & P. Neumann (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International AELFE Conference (pp. 191–196). Zaragoza: University of Zaragoza Press.
- Samer, R., & Carlson, L.A. (2013). Beyond the cyborg collective book review. ADA: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, (3).. Retrieved from https://adanewmedia.org/2013/11/issue3-sameretal/. doi:https://doi.org/10.5399/uo/ada.2018.13.3
- Tobin, R. (2003). The commensality of book reviewing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 35(1), 47–51. doi:https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.35.1.47
- Tulley, C., & Blair, K. (2009). Remediating the book review: Toward collaboration and multimodality across the English curriculum. Pedagogy, 9(3), 441–469. doi:https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-2009-005
- Wiley, M. (1993). How to read a book: Reflections on the ethics of book reviewing. Journal of Advanced Composition, 13(2), 477–492.
- Zuccala, A., & van Leeuwen, T. (2011). Book reviews in humanities research evaluations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(10), 1979–1991. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21588
- Zylinska, J. (1999). Book review/interview: A bit(e) of the other: An interview with Sue Golding. Parallax, 5(4), 145–155. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/135346499249542