Library review guidelines
Peer reviews have a valuable role to play in supporting the selection and retention of quality holdings within the LIFE library as well as in encouraging discussion and debate at the highest level. LIFE Communications would like to thank prospective reviewers for offering their time and expertise in making such contributions. The guidelines below are intended to assist in the preparation of reviews and are provided for advisory purposes.
What should a review include?
Each review should be between 150 and 500 words in length. A primary function of the peer review is to ensure that resources published in the LIFE library are sound and relevant to its audience. In achieving this reviewers may consider including:
|
|
A summary component
What are the main ideas or themes expressed within the article? Are statements and arguments validated and supported? What is the significance to the target audience or sector? What do you know about the author’s background and credibility?
A critique or evaluation
How do the ideas presented in the article match or differ from existing research? Consider the appropriateness of the approach, analysis or methodology. Is the text predominantly editorial or academic / descriptive or analytical / generalised or specific? Consider the soundness of conclusions and interpretation. Are there any references worth following?
A reflective component
What observation or conclusions have you made? How did the article assist with your understanding of the topic? How useful or relevant was the article to your own area of expertise? Would you recommend it and why or why not?
|
Getting started
To write an informative review, identify the key concepts and write them succinctly in your own words. You may like the questions detailed in theses guidelines as prompts. You may wish to follow a process and structure as described here:
- Read through the article to be reviewed, making note of key points and reflections.
- Seek out related and referenced readings and skim each reading to gain an overview of the main issues and debates.
- Re-read the article in more detail, analysing the content further.
- Commence writing, possibly beginning with a short summary of the main ideas followed by a brief critique.
Conflict of interest
If a conflict of interest exists you may wish to consider the appropriateness of submitting a review. Consider the following as potential conflicts: authors with whom you have a financial, personal or professional relationship; the funding decisions for any research which may benefit you directly; a feeling that there may be a perception of conflict. If you choose to proceed, any conflict of interest must be disclosed within the review.