Hi,

I started my PhD a couple of weeks ago. One of the lecturers in my research group sent round an email informing us of a journal (which I think has its editorial base here) which is looking for staff (postgraduates welcome) to write book summaries, and he has attached a 4 page document of books to choose from.

My initial reaction was "YES! I must do this" but being a new student and already feeling out of my depth I'm not so sure if I would be up to it.

What are other people's experiences of writing things like this?

Two problems: book summaries carry no prestige, i.e. they are not regarded as "proper" publications by your colleagues, hence doing little to improve your reputation. even the opposite.

Secondly, sounds like donkey work, nobody wants to do it, takes a long time, rewards are little. Given that you are a new PhD student you obviously don't know this and might get exploited for more donkey tasks in the future.

Do yourself a favour and focus on your PhD. There are too many distractions and side paths which lead into misery, only.

======= Date Modified 16 Oct 2008 19:15:36 =======
As a general advise, stay away from round emails, unless they have something to do with your PhD. I usually press delete before I even read them, hasn't done me any harm so far (Post-submission/Pre-Viva stage).

I somewhat agree with Jouri -book reviews don't really count for much. I have seen students do 3/4 book reviews and it just looks a bit desperate. However, doing a book review is a good way to ease yourself into the whole process of publishing and dealing with journal editors/copy-editors.

I have steered clear of book reviews because of the inherent critical nature i.e., you have to critique someone elses work and that person will usually be more experienced and qualified than yourself. You are left with the choice of putting your neck on the block and writing exactly what you feel about the book, or otherwise writinh some generic review, chapter-by-chapter.

I did two book reviews a couple of years ago, that I got through my respective supervisors. Both related directly to my PhD area and were books I would have had to read anyway. I was several years into my research by then, so was able to do critical reviews as I knew the area and could see the strengths and weaknesses of the work, to some extent. Critiquing someone else's work did make me a bit nervous though, particularly as they were for the major journals in my field and my supervisors are on the respective editorial boards, so I spent far too long on them, which took time away from my PhD.

I wouldn't do them unless it was specifically related to 'my' topic and I felt I had something academically valid to contribute to any review (as opposed to a summary). I think it does help to publicly locate you within a particular field to some extent, perhaps that's partly why supervisors give this type of work to their students, though it would obviously have to be followed up with more robust authored publications in the future. A trivial thing, but it's nice to get free copies of books, especially when they're ridiculously expensive hardbacks ;-)

I don't agree with this - though it might be different in different fields. Whilst I was doing my MA in my department, we had some sort of "introduction to academia" sections for those interested in going on to do PhD. Here book reviews were highlighted by senior lecturers and the head of department as a good way to start publishing. It gets your name out there, it helps make a contact with editors to whom you might submit articles in the future, it requires you to practice critical skills that are going to be important to your PhD and your future career in academia if you choose to pursue it. Long into their academic careers, senior people keep doing book reviews. The difference is they do them for increasingly prestigious journals, and they can be more forthright in giving their opinion. When you start out you are not going to get the chance to do a long review in the top journal in your field where you completely take apart the most exciting work to emerge in the last decade - leave that for post-PhD! Nor, however, should you settle for simply and blandly summarizing books you are not interested in, in journals that only five or six people will ever read. So, I think go for it. But assess first - (1) how important is this journal? (2) will I get a chance to read a book that is interesting and relevant to me? (3) will I get a free copy of said interesting and exciting book which normally costs £65 (the price of the last book I reviewed!) Don't spend longer on it than the answers to those questions indicate you should.
Finally, although opportunities to publish, even book reviews, don't grow on trees there will be other chances. If you decide to concentrate on getting your head round your PhD for now don't feel you have missed out forever.

I agree with the 'putting your head on the block' comment. It does get your name out there (if those 'oh great Academics on high' ever flick through them) but would you put them on your CV as a publication? Its not like they're peer-reviewed are they?

This DEPENDS.

Its easy to get to write a review u just write to a journal they are always pressed for reviewers and they send u the book.

There are other situations as well. Sometimes an academic *asks* you to review a particular book. Either theirs, or someone's they know. And for a specific journal. A specific book. In a particular area/topic. Thats a totally different situation.

Also, i dnt know what you mean by book summary. A 'review' is not meant to be a summary though many people do that.

I read a number of staff CVs during the RAE data collection period and noticed that it was common for academics in my area (arts and humanities) at different levels of their careers to include a specific section on their CVs for book reviews, along with other types of publications - self-authored articles in journals, books, conference papers, etc. I guess it demonstrates a specific knowledge of that field, in which they are deemed to be specialists, to some degree. Perhaps it varies across different disciplines?

As you probably realise there are many variations in this: generally asking to write a review and writing a review which is common, high academics writing for prestigious journals well into the third decade of their careers is another thing, and being asked to write a long review essay on a specific book by a specific academic is another issue....

so, take your call...