Before doing that, the reviewer must be honest. Otherwise, the facts will be frauded.

My advice is don't do it. Books are out of date as soon as they are published and no-one reads them :)

Books are still read in some disciplines (such as my own, i.e. linguistics) and, in these disciplines, well-done book reviews are appreciated academic contributions.

I've written some reviews of academic books, done some research on the review genre in general (including reviews of consumer goods, restaurants, movies and the like) and worked on that genre with my students in a course of text linguistics and academic writing. Here's my advice. Some bits of it may apply to reviews of literary works as well, but for a series of reasongs literary criticism is generally quite different from academic book reviewing.

1. A reviewer is expected to have good firsthand knowledge about the reviewed object. So read the book carefully!

2. Your main task is to give your readers information about the book that allows them to decide if they will read it or not. These informations obligatorily include a summary of the book's content and a description of relevant formal/technical aspects of it (length, structure, style of writing, presence of images/appendices/alphabetical indexes etc.). But a series of further informations may be included, for example:

- Who is the author? N.B. Be very brief about that (the main focus is the book rather than the author).

- Which academic and/or societal debate is the context in which this book is published, and is it a relevant contribution to that debate, in this very moment? N.B. The book should have been published very recently.

- Which group of readers could profit from reading the book? N.B. in responding to that question, consider what the author and the publisher say about the envisaged reader group and evaluate that giving your own opinion.

3. A suitable structure for a book review is the following:

- Introduction: main topic of the book, context, author, reader group envisaged according to author/publisher, style of writing, technical description of the book.

- Summary (usually the longest part).

- A concluding evaluation: main merits and (possibly; this part is not obligatorily present!) critical points; your opinion on the book's contribution to the actual academic/societal debate and on the ideal reader group. N.B. In this part of the review, you have to position yourself very carefully because you are dialoguing with your fellow academics (the author, other scholars who are close to the authors or, at the contrary, altogether opposed to him/her, experienced and young researchers...). You need to be modest and polite.

4. An academic book review - at least one published in a journal, social media have different requirements - is one of the those academic genres in which the writer's person should not be in the foreground, even in the more evaluative/argumentative parts. Don't talk about yourself, prefer impersonal and intersubjective constructions. When talking about the reading experience, you might want to refer to a generic book reader instead of yourself.

I hope this was useful. In any case: good luck writing!

Johanna Miecznikowski Andrew Paul McKenzie Pegman Aied Al Alasmarai

Thanks so much!

What are the theses/research questions or knowledge the book is dealing with and how it is advancing all.Further have to see these critically with emphaisis on language,style and structure.

Hi

As per my opionion a book is a very econoimc product for a writer, while reviewing a book, the review must not hurt neither the writer nor the publisher, this is a very signle most aspect while reviewing a book.

Thankyou

S. Gunalan.

9566084521

Your duty as a reviewer is to be fair to all parties whilst being honest and transparent. I regularly review, not only books, but performance. Sometimes those reviews may offend the writer, publisher, performer or producer; that is the risk and benefit of opening work to review.

I sometimes review things that are simply not to my taste and I will always state this. If I levy other criticism, I always back it up with reasoning and any technical information where possible. "The author did not provide sufficient evidence to back up his claim" is objective and measurable but being subjective is also acceptable if clear "The author provided evidence to back up his claim but I remain unconvinced" or "The author provided ample evidence and detail to back up his claim but the book was aimed at a general audience who are unlikely to be able to comprehend the information as presented".

First ask yourself who the book is being aimed at and whether the tone and approach are thus suitable. Back up your claims with examples and include ones that are measurable where possible. Place the work in context.

After that, as long as you are aiming to be open and honest and rigorous in your approach (and you have sufficient knowledge and expertise to justify it and sufficient skill to be tactful and honest), the feelings of the author and publisher are their own affair.

In the long run, honest and knowledgable reviewers are valued far more highly than those with an eye to the next reviewing commission.