Academic Book Review Rubric - Jennifer Neemann, Ph.D.

(9/1/2012) Novice Content (1 Points) Demonstrates less than expert level of knowledge; shallow depth, narrow breadth; clearly less than scientific understanding of content; displays lack of scholarship; might include multiple errors Competent (3 Points) Demonstrates less than expert level of knowledge; either shallow depth or narrow breadth; clearly less than scientific understanding of content; displays beginning scholarship; maybe 1 error (3 Points) 2 Weaknesses, NO Absence: Introduces book: includes early paragraph that states what book is about & puts it in context; includes info about the intended audience Proficient (4 Points) Demonstrates somewhat less than expert level of knowledge of content; covers breadth & depth with weakness; like sophisticated amateur scientist; displays reasonable scholarship Expert (5 Points) Demonstrates expert level of knowledge of content; covers both breadth & depth; indistinguishable from scientist in field (content only); displays awesome scholarship

Content: Book Introduction

(2 Points) 3 Weaknesses OR 1 Absence: Introduces book: includes early paragraph that states what book is about & puts it in context; includes info about the intended audience

(4 Points) 1 Weakness, NO Absence: Introduces book: includes early paragraph that states what book is about & puts it in context; includes info about the intended audience (4 Points) 1 Weakness, NO Absence: Outlines the content of the book by: giving a general view of its organization; stating the topic of each chapter/ section (4 Points) 1 Weakness, NO Absence: Highlights parts of the book by: selecting particular chapters or themes for evaluation; critiquing the argument of the book

(5 Points) All True: Introduces book: includes early paragraph that states what book is about & puts it in context; includes info about the intended audience

Critical Thinking: Outlines the Content of the Book

(2 Points) 3 Weaknesses OR 1 Absence: Outlines the content of the book by: giving a general view of its organization; stating the topic of each chapter/ section (2 Points) 3 Weaknesses OR 1 Absence: Highlights parts of the book by: selecting particular chapters or themes for evaluation; critiquing the argument of the book

(3 Points) 2 Weaknesses, NO Absence: Outlines the content of the book by: giving a general view of its organization; stating the topic of each chapter/ section (3 Points) 2 Weaknesses, NO Absence: Highlights parts of the book by: selecting particular chapters or themes for evaluation; critiquing the argument of the book

(5 Points) All True: Outlines the content of the book by: giving a general view of its organization; stating the topic of each chapter/ section

Critical Thinking: Highlights Parts of the Book

(5 Points) All True: Highlights parts of the book by: selecting particular chapters or themes for evaluation; critiquing the argument/ content of the book

Critical Thinking: Evaluates the book

(2 Points) 3 Weaknesses OR 2 Absences: Evaluates the book by: commenting on aspects of the content; indicating how it meets the readers needs; remarking on strengths & limitations; noting (if appropriate) re: how well the text is supported by tables/ diagrams/ illustrations/ academic references; remarking on its format, price, and value for money; making recommendations for purchase or otherwise

(3 Points) 2 Weaknesses OR 1 Absence: Evaluates the book by: commenting on aspects of the content; indicating how it meets the readers needs; remarking on strengths & limitations; noting (if appropriate) re: how well the text is supported by tables/ diagrams/ illustrations/ academic references; remarking on its format, price, and value for money; making recommendations for purchase or otherwise (3 Points) Writing informs, explains, or lectures, but not necessarily with authority (correct factual information); uses opinion with some supportive facts or makes points with little/no reasoning; fair organization; fair grammar, spelling, &/or punctuation; adequately written, not necessarily succinct; readable, but may not be entertaining; either not written in the first person or not written as though describing the book to a close friend

(4 Points) 1 Weakness, NO Absence: Evaluates the book by: commenting on aspects of the content; indicating how it meets the readers needs; remarking on strengths & limitations; noting (if appropriate) re: how well the text is supported by tables/ diagrams/ illustrations/ academic references; remarking on its format, price, and value for money; making recommendations for purchase or otherwise

(5 Points) All True: Evaluates the book by: commenting on aspects of the content; indicating how it meets the readers needs; remarking on strengths & limitations; noting (if appropriate) re: how well the text is supported by tables/ diagrams/ illustrations/ academic references; remarking on its format, price, and value for money; making recommendations for purchase or otherwise

Written Communication

(1 Points) Writing depends on opinion only or writing is emotional or has too much or inappropriate punctuation; few supportive facts or announces points with little or no reasoning; poor organization; poor grammar, spelling, &/or punctuation; not well written, not concise/ succinct, and not informative; readability & entertainability problematic; either not written in the first person &/or not written as though describing the book to a close friend

(4 Points) Writing describes with some authority; supports most information with facts; uses some reasoning; presents both sides of an argument to persuade; good organization; good grammar, spelling, & punctuation; adequately written, not as succinct, but is informative; readable, but may not be entertaining; either not written in the first person or not written as though describing the book in a letter to a close friend

(5 Points) Writing integrates with authority; supports all information with facts; uses reasoning throughout; presents both sides of an argument to persuade; organization of review is faultless; excellent grammar, spelling, punctuation makes seemingly dull topics interesting; well written, succinct; readable & entertaining; written in the first person as though describing the book in a letter to a close friend

Follows Instructions with Confidence

(5 Points) Up to 2 Weak or 1 Absent: review is 500750 words; presented as public blog near contracted date; returned book to Dr. Neemann; AND/ OR MISSING 1-7: followed suggestions from instructions, e.g., THE REVIEW gives a balanced critical evaluation of the text; made people want to buy the book;& IS NOT pointless, uninformative, indecisive & boring; a mere listing of the contents; pretentious, unkind, careless; personally abusive about the authors credentials; written to cherish the reviewers ego; & INCLUDES ALL: authors/editors names; title; edition; publication date; publisher and place of publication; ISBN number; Format (hardback, paperback or soft cover); # of pages; Price

(7 Points) Either 1 Weak: review is 500-750 words; presented as public blog near contracted date; returned book to Dr. Neemann; AND/ OR MISSING 15: followed suggestions from instructions, e.g., THE REVIEW gives a balanced critical evaluation of the text; made people want to buy the book;& IS NOT pointless, uninformative, indecisive & boring; a mere listing of the contents; pretentious, unkind, careless; personally abusive about the authors credentials; written to cherish the reviewers ego; & INCLUDES ALL: authors/editors names; title; edition; publication date; publisher and place of publication; ISBN number; Format (hardback, paperback or soft cover); # of pages; Price

(9 Points) TRUE: review is 500750 words; presented as public blog near contracted date; returned book to Dr. Neemann; BUT MISSING 1-3: followed suggestions from instructions, e.g., THE REVIEW gives a balanced critical evaluation of the text; made people want to buy the book;& IS NOT pointless, uninformative, indecisive & boring; a mere listing of the contents; pretentious, unkind, careless; personally abusive about the authors credentials; written to cherish the reviewers ego; & INCLUDES ALL: authors/editors names; title; edition; publication date; publisher and place of publication; ISBN number; Format (hardback, paperback or soft cover); # of pages; Price

(10 Points) All True: review is 500-750 words; presented as public blog near contracted date; returned book to Dr. Neemann; followed suggestions from instructions, e.g., THE REVIEW gives a balanced critical evaluation of the text; made people want to buy the book;& IS NOT pointless, uninformative, indecisive & boring; a mere listing of the contents; pretentious, unkind, careless; personally abusive about the authors credentials; written to cherish the reviewers ego; & INCLUDES ALL: authors/editors names; title; edition; publication date; publisher and place of publication; ISBN number; Format (hardback, paperback or soft cover); # of pages; Price

The following is originally from Hartley (2206), and I built the rubric based on this and other information. Please feel free to use and change the rubric to match your own requirements. Jennifer Neemann, Ph.D. dr.jen@verizon.net Hartley, J. (2006). Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 11941207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20399

What academics look for I (James Hartley) have reported elsewhere the results that I found when I sent an electronic questionnaire on reading and writing book reviews to groups of academics in the arts, sciences and social sciences (Hartley, 2006). Approximately 50 people in each group replied. Almost two thirds of these respondents recalled reading a dreadful book review. Some of the things said about such reviews were that they were: * pointless, uninformative, indecisive and boring * a mere listing of the contents * pretentious, unkind, careless * personally abusive about the authors credentials * written to cherish the reviewers ego. Generally speaking, book reviews were not highly regarded if they simply outlined the content of a book in a chapter by chapter format. On the other hand, approximately 55% of the respondents recalled reading an outstanding book review. Here it was thought that such reviews: * gave a balanced critical evaluation of the text * made seemingly dull topics interesting * were well written, succinct, and informative * displayed awesome scholarship * made people want to buy the book. How then can authors write such "outstanding" book reviews? Respondents to my questionnaire were reluctant to say. Most argued that it depended on the book in question. One, however, wrote: I use a basic sort of recipe that touches on all the information that I think readers of book reviews need. Two stages appear to be needed here. First of all there is the preliminary reading and thinking about the book. Sometimes this is done before putting pen to paper, but some reviewers start making notes from the outset. At this stage then reviewers are concerned with selecting and thinking about information that will be relevant to the fourstage writing procedure outlined above. Sometimes this will involve a trip to the library or to particular websites to check up on the required information. Next comes the actual writing of the review. Here different writers have different preferences. The quotations given in the above panel provide but two examples. Whatever the procedures, it is important that a book review contains a number of key features. The checklist in section 4 might prove useful in this respect. In my experience, however, rather than just summarizing a text, better book reviewers spend more time critiquing it.

A potential checklist for book reviewers Make sure that your review contains: * An early paragraph saying what the book is about, and putting it in context * Information about the intended audience * A critique of the argument/content of the book * Remarks on the strengths and limitations of the book * A note on the format, length and price (or value for money) * A note (if appropriate) on how well the text is supported by tables/diagrams/illustrations * Any supporting academic references.

If the following details are not supplied for you, please make sure that your review contains: * Accurate details of the authors/editors names and initials * Title of the publication * Edition * Date of publication * Publisher and place of publication * ISBN number * Format (hardback, paperback or soft cover) * Number of pages * Price. Try to make your review readable and entertaining. Write it in the first person, as though you are describing the book in a letter to a close friend.