from Medieval Academy News

Speculum book reviews: Goals, problems, solutions
by Richard K. Emmerson

The extensive book-review section published in each issue of Speculum has often been described as one of the most valuable features of the journal and one of the most important contributions the Medieval Academy makes to scholarship in medieval studies. The editors remain committed to publishing insightful reviews of as many books in medieval studies as possible in as timely a fashion as possible.

The Academy continues to devote a large portion of its resources and staff time to receiving, cataloguing, assigning, mailing, and tracking books for review and to editing and publishing reviews. Over the past few years we have received 700 to 750 books per year and have reviewed on average about 450 books per volume. Because most of Speculum’s twelve book review editors no longer reside in the Boston area, Mary-Jo Arn, Book Review Manager, prepares and mails to review editors regular reports—including extensive photocopies of a book’s table of contents, acknowledgements, and bibliography—which assist them in deciding how to treat and assign individual books.

Some books, usually translations or new editions of books previously reviewed, are catalogued and simply listed in the Books Received section that concludes each issue of Speculum. Some, usually collections of essays, may also receive a listing of contents that is published in the Brief Notices section. Other books are assigned full reviews, usually ranging in length from 600 to 1,200 words. Decisions as to whether and how to review books are made by the book review editors, who also propose the names of scholars to be invited to review books.

In selecting reviewers the editors look for knowledgeable medievalists who will write interesting, informative, and fair reviews. Although reviewers are given leeway in the way they approach books—there is no set format—we expect reviews to be balanced even if critical, to note positive as well as negative features. Occasionally authors of books under review and other Speculum readers may judge reviews to be mistaken, misleading, or unfair, and in those cases they may wish to write the editor about their concerns. Although Speculum does not publish letters, substantive comments may be included in Medieval Academy News, where authors of the reviews are given an opportunity to respond.

The editors have for some time been concerned by the often long delay in publishing book reviews, and the editorial staff is working hard to increase the number of books reviewed in each issue of Speculum in order to reduce the backlog. We are making good progress in this area, assigning and receiving reviews, for example, by e-mail, which can reduce response time from overseas scholars from weeks to hours. We are also, again on the advice of our book review editors, soliciting more books in under-represented scholarly areas from European publishers in order to increase the number of foreign-language books we review. We see this as a major service to our readers.

While focusing on ways to improve the book-review section, I was troubled to discover that many books assigned in the past have not been reviewed at all—that is, scholars had agreed to review a book but never produced a review for publication. In investigating a complaint from a member of the Academy whose first book was not reviewed by Speculum, I was distressed to learn that in the five-year period, 1994 to 1999, 174 books assigned for review were never reviewed, and in some of these cases the same scholar had agreed to review three or more books, received the books, but not written the reviews despite numerous reminders and promises.

This situation is a major problem for a scholarly journal such as Speculum, whose reviews are often considered the most important in the field. It hurts not only the authors of the books not reviewed but also the profession at large. On the one hand, the lack of a review of a first book by a young scholar just getting started on a career can have a very negative effect on promotion and tenure decisions; on the other hand, the failure to publish a review of a major book by an established scholar means that the book may lack the extensive critical appraisal that is crucial to the scholarly community and that it will be less widely known to medievalists.

At its annual meeting in Tempe, Arizona, this past March, the book review editors, members of the Editorial Board, and Speculum staff discussed these problems. As an immediate result, we sent out a special series of reminders to reviewers and have now established new and more sophisticated procedures to prevent such problems in the future. Made possible by our new unified database, these procedures will allow us to track books assigned for review, to send regular and more timely reminders of overdue reviews, and, if necessary, to request the return of books so that they can be assigned to other reviewers.

The system works as follows. When assigning books, we ask reviewers to submit their reviews, if at all possible, within four months. Although we understand that there are many reasons why a scholar may not be able to meet an agreed-upon deadline, we encourage a prompt submission by sending a first reminder of an overdue review five to six months from the date the book was shipped (with the exception of overseas reviewers, who are given more time because of the postal delay). Responses to such reminders often promise that reviews are soon forthcoming, but if indeed they are not submitted or new due dates are not agreed upon, we send second reminders two months later. At this point, recognizing that unforeseen circumstances may prevent someone from completing a review, we ask the reviewer to agree to a firm deadline or return the book so that it can be assigned to another reviewer. If we have not received the overdue review by the time of the final notice two months later, we send a letter requesting the immediate submission of the promised review, the return of the book, or the payment of a replacement fee.

The effect of this new system is to reduce the entire process, which formerly took two years, to ten months. This allows us to begin again to find a reviewer, rather than simply not reviewing a book because the extensive time elapsed has rendered the review less than useful. We expect all of these new procedures to help us increase the number of books we assign for review, to track assignments more effectively, and to publish reviews more quickly. I encourage anyone who has suggestions for other ways to improve this process to contact me (RKE@MedievalAcademy.org). In the meantime, all of us at the Medieval Academy thank the thousands of scholars who over the years have written reviews for Speculum and made the book-review section such a crucial contribution to medieval studies worldwide.