PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “BOOK REVIEWS”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1974

Current status of biomedical book reviewing: Part III. Duplication patterns in biomedical book reviewing.

This is the third part of a comprehensive, quantitative study of biomedical book reviewing. The data base of the total project was built from statistics of 3,347 reviews of 2,067 biomedical books appearing in all 1970 issues of fifty-four reviewing journals. This part of the study explores the duplication patterns in book reviewing among these media. It is found that 35.17% (727 books) of the 2,067 titles were reviewed more than once in 1970, these titles accounting for 2,007 of the total of 3,347 reviews. For the most part, reviews of the most frequently reviewed titles appeared in such journals as British Medical Journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, and New England Journal of Medicine. These five journals covered 93.53% of the 727 books reviewed more than once in 1970.

Biology↗
PubMed1974

Current status of biomedical book reviewing. II. Time lag in biomedical book reviewing.

This part of the study explores the effectiveness of the review media in terms of speed of reviewing, comprehensiveness of review treatment, and authority. The time lags for the fifty-four journals varied widely, the mean ranging from 5.8 months to forty-two months. The time lags for all 3,347 reviews varied even more widely, ranging from less than a month to 108 months after a book was off the press. The 3,347 reviews had a mean time lag of 10.43 months and a standard deviation of 6.63 months.

Book Reviews as Topic↗
PubMed1983

Medical book reviewing.

The large number of medical books published complicates selection by medical librarians. Book reviews are a potentially useful aid to selection. How available medical book reviews are to medical librarians, as well as how timely and accessible they are, were studied. Book reviews appearing in 1981 in a select group of medical journals were studied, and questionnaires sent to book publishers and the book review editors of the journals in the study.

Book Reviews as Topic↗
PubMed2003

Medical journals' conflicts of interest in the publication of book reviews.

The purpose of the study was to assess medical journals' conflicts of interest in the publication of book reviews. We examined book reviews published in 1999, 2000, and 2001 (N = 1,876) in five leading medical journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal (BMJ), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine. The main outcome measure was journal publication of reviews of books that had been published by the journal's own publisher, that had been edited or authored by a lead editor of the journal, or that posed another conflict of interest. We also surveyed the editors-in-chief of the five journals about their policies on these conflicts of interests. During the study period, four of the five journals published 30 book reviews presenting a conflict of interest: nineteen by the BMJ, five by the Annals, four by JAMA, and two by the Lancet. These reviews represent 5.8%, 2.7%, 0.7%, and 0.7%, respectively, of all book reviews published by the journals. These four journals, respectively, published reviews of 11.9%, 25.0%, 0.9%, and 1.0% of all medical books published by the journals' publishers. Only one of the 30 book reviews included a disclosure statement addressing the conflict of interest. None of the journals had a written policy pertaining to the conflicts of interest assessed in this study, although four reported having unwritten policies. We recommend that scientific journals and associations representing journal editors develop policies on conflicts of interest pertaining to book reviews.

Bibliometrics↗
PubMed1974

Current status of biomedical book reviewing: Part IV. Major American and British biomedical book publishers.

This is the fourth part of a comprehensive, quantitative study of biomedical book reviews. The data base of the total project was built from statistics of 3,347 reviews of 2,067 biomedical books taken from all 1970 issues of fifty-four reviewing journals. This part of the study identifies the major American and British biomedical book publishers in terms of their quantitative production of book titles reviewed, and determines the relationships among these publishers. It is found that Williams & Wilkins, Charles C Thomas, Academic Press, and Springer Verlag are the most productive biomedical book publishers in terms of books reviewed in 1970. These four publishers accounted for 32% of the 1,674 books available in the United States and reviewed in the reviewing media in 1970. Williams & Wilkins is especially significant by virtue of reprint activity. The present study also explores the price trend of biomedical books. It is found that the mean price for 1,077 books studied was $16.20 per volume, with a standard deviation of $9.42.

Biology↗
PubMed1997

Book reviewing: keeping the audience in mind.

Writing book reviews is an excellent way to start your publication experience and develop a relationship with a journal editor. Most nursing journals include book reviews, and some even select editorial board members from book reviewers who have demonstrated their ability to write concise, honest reviews and submit them on time. This author includes tips on writing a high-quality review by keeping the audience in mind.

Authorship↗
PubMed1986

Book reviews in medical journals.

In a study of book reviews published in four general medical journals over a six-month period, 480 reviews were analyzed. Twenty-five features that reviewers address when evaluating a text were identified, and the frequency of commentary for each feature was determined. The mean number of features addressed per review was 9.0. Reviews averaged 389 words, but review length did not correlate with the length or scope of the book, with the number of features addressed, nor with the reviewer's assessment of the text. Extraneous commentary by the reviewer occurred in 16% of the reviews. This editorializing appeared in lengthier reviews that addressed fewer features. Favorable reviews were far more common than unfavorable ones (88.5% vs. 11.5%). Consequently, for the fifty-five books reviewed in more than one journal, agreement regarding rating of the text was high (86%). Results of this study may provide useful guidelines for reviewers of medical texts.

Book Reviews as Topic↗
PubMed1974

Current status of biomedical book reviewing. I. Key biomedical reviewing journals with quantitative significance.

This is the first part of a comprehensive, quantitative study of biomedical book reviewing. The data base of the total project was built from statistics taken from all 1970 issues of biomedical journals held in the Science Library of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Of 285 so-called "life sciences" journals held by that library, fifty-four English journals (excluding Science and Nature) were found to contain bona fide book reviews (as contrasted with mere author-title lists) and were therefore selected for close study. The statistical results reveal that there were 3,347 reviews of 2,067 biomedical books in these fifty-four selected journals in 1970. Part I of the study identifies key biomedical reviewing journals of quantitative significance. The top ten journals, British Medical Journal, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Archives of Internal Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, Quarterly Review of Biology, Bioscience, Canadian Medical Association Journal,(*) and American Journal of the Medical Sciences, accounted for 63.03% of the total number of reviews in 1970.

Book Reviews as Topic↗
PubMed1967

An index to medical book reviews: a computer experiment.

The experimental production of an index to book reviews of medical publications is described. Details of compilation and preparation of data for processing by an IBM 1440 computer are outlined. Results of a survey testing the response to the index in its present form by medical libraries are presented.

Abstracting and Indexing↗