The author is probably not sufficiently neutral and the editor has only one book to send out - maybe the decision as to who the reviewer should be can be made by a committee rather than by one person, normally the book editor.

@ Mulubrhan, Having edited 25 volumes, I could say, it is not necessary for all the book reviews to pass through peer review. Most of the time, the book reviewers will be genuine in their comments and critiques. Of course, as in any peer reviews, a particular book reviewer could be biased towards reviewing a particular volume. This could be because it was written or edited by someone that he/she respect more or someone that he/she doesn't like. It goes both ways!

The fact of the matter is, when the volume is released, 'gratis copies' are submitted to many journals at the same time and you will end up reading many different views, comments, and critiques. Readers who go through these comments or who grab the copy of the volume and flip the pages would easily know the elements that are missing. This will put them in an embarrassing position, if he take too personal in criticizing a particular volume. Hypothetically, if one of the book reviewer call the volume as 'crown in the jewel'  while another call the very same volume 'this volume has serious issues'. What would you think? 

Secondly, it is possible both editor as well as the reviewer need not be an expert in the specific domain of the volume. They still end up reviewing it as many journal has specific review editor who handles almost all the volumes that are submitted. 

Finally, due to the constraints in the length, many reviewers would just comment on the content primarily and critique briefly. This is the usual case. If the journal doesn't impose restriction on the length of book review, then the critique can be substantial. 

It is always the case in any given specialty, there are multiple experts in the field. Any smart editorial assistant would do a quick web/pubmed search and identify and discuss with the editor-in-chief and negotiate with the reviewer for a particular volume. 

The authors cannot review their own volume as they would be biased. It will be akin to someone write a grant application and review and award the grant themselves. 

I hope you get my points.

The author should NOT be asked to review the book review. The point of a book review is to highlight the positive features of the book, but also call attention to failings.  Many authors would be too self-serving to review critical comments fairly.

Just like selecting a blind reviewer is the result of the reviewer's publication record and established expertise, selection of a book reviewer can be done by the editor the same way. 

If a book review meets the criteria of a journal article and is accepted as a full journal article it is usually peer reviewed. However, I fully agree with the above opinions that the authors should not be asked to peer review reviews of their work, be it a book or an article.

Short book reviews of one to two pages are usually not peer reviewed.

Thank you all for the interesting and informative answers. I brought this question because, at a journal I am working with,  we felt that some one might be unreasonably critical towards a book and the only way to ascertain that is by asking an expert. The only expert we have on this issue seems to be the author, but now I understand that it is not going to be a good idea to ask the authors to review their book reviews. Thank you for the insights. May be we should just depend on our own judgement. Reading about the subject matter might help a bit too. 

I can imagine situations where peer-reviewing of BR is suitable. Especially if the editor is not an expert. BR culd gain in quality and objectivity. I would not ask the author to peer-review. This is kin of a circular movement.  If he really wants to interfere, he could write a response to the BR. Normally I think he should not react to the review, when it is done in a professionnally correct way.

IN my opinion, it is necessary for a peer-review.

I believe, that the book reviews should pass a peer reviewing process. It will be a significant  quality control.

@ Feng, @ Irina - I think, you both got it wrong.

@ Irina - 'it will be a significant quality control'. What you exactly mean by this statement? 

What is the purpose of book review? Many journals publish book reviews to alert the readers about the latest advancement in their respective field, by means of publishing half a page to a page or two about the newly released volume.

People are called upon to review, and give their personal opinion and recommendation. Normally they are experts in the field. Some journals have 'book review editors'. The same person would review all the books. Some journal has the policy to invite others (they may or may not be in the editorial board of the journal). After going through the content, quality, and the information the reviewer gives comments 'as his personal opinion'.  

How can a 'personal opinion' be peer reviewed?

Hypothetically, you both wrote a book review. It comes to me for a peer review. What if I 'peer review' your 'book review' and start to suggest and request for a change in areas that you fine needs improvement, or you felt not adequately addressed. Let's say, I feel everything is good with the book. Then I request you both to amend my criticism and incorporate my suggestion?

Do you see my point?

Above all, if it has to be peer reviewed by two people that one person feel worst and another one feel best - how will you 'modify' your book review? 

@ Seithikurippu R. Pandi-Perumal ·

I see your point and found it interesting,  but I still have problems with it. What if, in a very unlikely case, that a book reviewer is unreasonably critical of a book and recommends readers to avoid it or be careful in using information in the book? Should the editors just accept such a review with out questioning it? or should they look for additional opinion? I think it would be safer for an editor to look for a second opinion (which can actually mean a peer review of the first book review)

A book review editor sends the book out to a person considered to be an expert in the area and the person, should he or she have a conflict of interest (the book is by a rival or a family member or..................)turns down the offer. Book editors can, of course, make mistakes and send to the wrong person. And a reviewer may not declare a conflict. Those are the risks.

Once the review is written and submitted, the book review editor is not obliged to publish it. Many of my book reviews have been ignored, heavily edited, condensed etc. Sometimes, in the case of a controversial book, i have seen two reviews (with opposing views) published. Sometimes a controversial review is deliberately given prominence by the book editor in order to stir up discussion and help circulation. Authors who take offence at a review of their book (and this happens frequently enough in some fields) are free to write in to the editor and complain. Sometimes these complaints are published, but that is up to the journal. Some harshly reviewed authors take revenge by being very critical of the reviewer's next book every chance they get. Usually these kinds of rivalries help book sales.

@Mulubrhan. I understand your point. However, this is not an issue at all. Let me give an example. I have edited over 25 volumes. Hypothetically, the publishers submitted the volume to a journal office. One of the so called 'expert' will be called up on to write a book review. Let's assume, he or she doesn't like me because of academic rivalry.

Let's assume, a particular reviewer trashed my book and his/her book review eventually it get published in a journal. If it was done intentionally, should I be worrying about this? Probably not! This is why!

Publishers usually submit review copies many journal office simultaneously. They have a marketing team that will look to see which journal would be appropriate to submit the book. Assume that is a psychiatry book, it will be submitted to at least 10 different journal office. Some volume will go waste, as the review will not appear for many reasons. In our hypothetically scenario, one reviewer trashed my book as if it is worthless. Guess what? Other book reviews would praise how good it is and highlight the areas of improvement. If you're in that field, you read a conflicting reviews, that raise a flag. Something wrong here. You would want to get the book yourself and find out what is going on. If the later is correct, then that means it was a biased review. So, people wouldn't dare to do it! Because their academic reputation is on the line. It is a small world and this information goes like a wild fire about the reviewer. For no reason, he/she would damage his/her reputation because of a personal vendetta.

So why would someone worry about, if the book is really a good one? Well this is just one side of the story. 

What about if one actually released a volume that deserve real criticism by the experts? Would you dismiss a genuine criticism?

Any genuine criticism should be welcomed by an author. Because it helps to improve the future editions (if any). Remember one thing, the reviewers do spend time going through the materials once or twice. 

Surely mistakes can happen for various reason. However, my point of argument is you don't have to worry if you, in fact, delivered a great volume! I have never heard, wherein a low quality book received a great review and the book sale was sky rocketing!

On a final note, if a volume is submitted to a particular journal and if you have a conflict with some one (example, if you think your book will go to a particular reviewer as he is expert in the same field as yours, and you and him/her have prior issues), you could always send a note to the editor that your book should not be submitted to a particular person for a given reason. Normally it will workout well as well!

With all these issues and options surrounding book review, do people still think that the book review should be peer reviewed? I guess not!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2844272/

It will be better to find another expert to review, if not then authors themselves may be requested to go through the review. A biased review can kill even a good work

Hello! I would like to ask you how can you find a book for review? Is there any database that you choose from or you have to send CV to every journal that offers books for reviews in your field? I am asking for the management and marketing field. Thank you!