differentiate book review and article critique

• U.S. Locations
• UMGC Europe
• Learn Online
• Find Answers
• 855-655-8682
• Current Students

Online Guide to Writing and Research

Other frequently assigned papers, explore more of umgc.

• Online Guide to Writing

Reviews and Reaction Papers

Article and book reviews.

Some assignments may ask you to write a review of a book or journal article. Sometimes, students think a book report and a book review are the same. However, there are significant differences.

A  book report  summarizes the contents of the book, but a  book review  is a critical analysis of the book that describes, summarizes, and critiques the ideas in the book. A review is a means of going beyond the literal content of a source and is a tool for connecting ideas from a variety of academic sources. A review provides an objective analysis of ideas, support for opinions, and a way to evaluate your own opinions.

Why are book reviews beneficial to write?

Some instructors like to assign book reviews to help students broaden their view of the subject matter and to give students practice in critically evaluating ideas in the subject area. Instructors often require that students follow existing review formats modeled in the journals in their disciplines. 

If you are asked to use such formats, remember that citations for books and journal articles differ from discipline to discipline. Find out which style guide is appropriate for the discipline in which you are writing. (Refer to the discussion of style manuals in chapter 5 of this guide for more information.)

Reviews let you relate to authors and agree or disagree with their ideas. A review allows you to examine your understanding of a subject area in light of the ideas presented in the reviewed book and interact with the author and his or her ideas. Also, a book review helps your instructor evaluate your understanding of the subject matter and your ability to think competently in your discipline.

Here are some questions to keep in mind when you are writing a book review:

What exactly is the subject of the book? What are the author’s credentials to write about this subject? Is the title suggestive? Does the preface contain information about the author’s purpose?

What is the author’s thesis? Is it clearly stated, or do you have to dig it out of the facts and opinions? Does the author present the ideas in a balanced way? What are the author’s biases?

What organizational approach does the author use? Does the chosen organization support the author’s thesis effectively?

What conclusion or conclusions does the author draw? Does the conclusion agree with the thesis or stated purposes? How does the conclusion differ from or agree with your course textbook or other books you have read?

How has this book helped you understand the subject you are studying in the course? Would you recommend the book to your reader?

As you write your review, ask yourself these questions:

Have I represented the author and the ideas presented in the book in a fair and balanced way?

Does the ethical tone of my review prompt the reader to trust my judgment? (You may want to review the discussion on writing arguments in this chapter.)

Does my review reflect the interests of my readers and fulfill my reasons for writing the review?

Have I demonstrated my understanding of the content of the article or book I’m reviewing? Have I clearly addressed the major issues in the subject area?

Have I clearly stated my own biases as a reviewer?

Have I clearly expressed my position about how much or how little the author has contributed to my understanding of the subject in question? Have I recommended or not recommended the book to other prospective readers?

Have I checked my review for organizational, grammatical, and mechanical errors?

Key Takeaway

A book review or article review is a critical analysis of the material that describes, summarizes, and critiques the ideas presented. The purpose of a book or article review assignment is to broaden your knowledge base and understanding of a topic.

Mailing Address: 3501 University Blvd. East, Adelphi, MD 20783 This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License . © 2022 UMGC. All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity of information located at external sites.

Table of Contents: Online Guide to Writing

Chapter 1: College Writing

How Does College Writing Differ from Workplace Writing?

What Is College Writing?

Why So Much Emphasis on Writing?

Chapter 2: The Writing Process

Doing Exploratory Research

Getting from Notes to Your Draft

Introduction

Prewriting - Techniques to Get Started - Mining Your Intuition

Prewriting: Targeting Your Audience

Prewriting: Techniques to Get Started

Prewriting: Understanding Your Assignment

Rewriting: Being Your Own Critic

Rewriting: Creating a Revision Strategy

Rewriting: Getting Feedback

Rewriting: The Final Draft

Techniques to Get Started - Outlining

Techniques to Get Started - Using Systematic Techniques

Thesis Statement and Controlling Idea

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Freewriting

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Summarizing Your Ideas

Writing: Outlining What You Will Write

Chapter 3: Thinking Strategies

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone: Style Through Vocabulary and Diction

Critical Strategies and Writing

Critical Strategies and Writing: Analysis

Critical Strategies and Writing: Evaluation

Critical Strategies and Writing: Persuasion

Critical Strategies and Writing: Synthesis

Developing a Paper Using Strategies

Kinds of Assignments You Will Write

Patterns for Presenting Information

Patterns for Presenting Information: Critiques

Patterns for Presenting Information: Discussing Raw Data

Patterns for Presenting Information: General-to-Specific Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Problem-Cause-Solution Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Specific-to-General Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Summaries and Abstracts

Supporting with Research and Examples

Writing Essay Examinations

Writing Essay Examinations: Make Your Answer Relevant and Complete

Writing Essay Examinations: Organize Thinking Before Writing

Writing Essay Examinations: Read and Understand the Question

Chapter 4: The Research Process

Planning and Writing a Research Paper

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Ask a Research Question

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Cite Sources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Collect Evidence

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Decide Your Point of View, or Role, for Your Research

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Draw Conclusions

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Find a Topic and Get an Overview

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Manage Your Resources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Outline

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Survey the Literature

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Work Your Sources into Your Research Writing

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Human Resources

Research Resources: What Are Research Resources?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Electronic Resources

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Print Resources

Structuring the Research Paper: Formal Research Structure

Structuring the Research Paper: Informal Research Structure

The Nature of Research

The Research Assignment: How Should Research Sources Be Evaluated?

The Research Assignment: When Is Research Needed?

The Research Assignment: Why Perform Research?

Chapter 5: Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity

Giving Credit to Sources

Giving Credit to Sources: Copyright Laws

Giving Credit to Sources: Documentation

Giving Credit to Sources: Style Guides

Integrating Sources

Practicing Academic Integrity

Practicing Academic Integrity: Keeping Accurate Records

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Paraphrasing Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Quoting Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Summarizing Your Sources

Types of Documentation

Types of Documentation: Bibliographies and Source Lists

Types of Documentation: Citing World Wide Web Sources

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - APA Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - CSE/CBE Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - Chicago Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - MLA Style

Types of Documentation: Note Citations

Chapter 6: Using Library Resources

Finding Library Resources

Chapter 7: Assessing Your Writing

How Is Writing Graded?

How Is Writing Graded?: A General Assessment Tool

The Draft Stage

The Draft Stage: The First Draft

The Draft Stage: The Revision Process and the Final Draft

The Draft Stage: Using Feedback

The Research Stage

Using Assessment to Improve Your Writing

Chapter 8: Other Frequently Assigned Papers

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Article and Book Reviews

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Reaction Papers

Writing Arguments

Writing Arguments: Adapting the Argument Structure

Writing Arguments: Purposes of Argument

Writing Arguments: References to Consult for Writing Arguments

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Anticipate Active Opposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Determine Your Organization

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Develop Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Introduce Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - State Your Thesis or Proposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Write Your Conclusion

Writing Arguments: Types of Argument

Appendix A: Books to Help Improve Your Writing

Dictionaries

General Style Manuals

Researching on the Internet

Special Style Manuals

Writing Handbooks

Appendix B: Collaborative Writing and Peer Reviewing

Collaborative Writing: Assignments to Accompany the Group Project

Collaborative Writing: Informal Progress Report

Collaborative Writing: Issues to Resolve

Collaborative Writing: Methodology

Collaborative Writing: Peer Evaluation

Collaborative Writing: Tasks of Collaborative Writing Group Members

Collaborative Writing: Writing Plan

General Introduction

Peer Reviewing

Appendix C: Developing an Improvement Plan

Working with Your Instructor’s Comments and Grades

Appendix D: Writing Plan and Project Schedule

Devising a Writing Project Plan and Schedule

Reviewing Your Plan with Others

By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about how we use cookies by reading our  Privacy Policy .

Critique vs. Review

What's the difference.

Critique and review are two distinct forms of evaluation, often used in the context of analyzing a piece of work or providing feedback. While both involve assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a subject, they differ in their approach and purpose. A critique typically delves deeper into the analysis, focusing on the underlying concepts, theories, and methodologies employed in the work. It aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation, highlighting both the positive aspects and areas for improvement. On the other hand, a review tends to be more concise and opinion-based, summarizing the main points and offering a subjective judgment of the work's quality. Reviews often cater to a broader audience, providing a general overview and recommendation.

Further Detail

Introduction.

When it comes to evaluating various forms of art, literature, or any creative work, two commonly used methods are critique and review. While both critique and review involve analyzing and providing feedback on a particular piece, they differ in their approach, purpose, and level of depth. In this article, we will explore the attributes of critique and review, highlighting their similarities and differences, and understanding how they contribute to the overall understanding and improvement of creative works.

Definition and Purpose

Critique and review are both forms of evaluation, but they serve different purposes. A critique is an in-depth analysis of a creative work, focusing on its strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness. It aims to provide constructive feedback to the creator, helping them understand the underlying elements and potential areas for improvement. On the other hand, a review is a more general assessment of a work, often intended for a wider audience. It aims to inform and guide potential consumers or audience members, giving them an overview of the work's quality, content, and relevance.

Approach and Perspective

When it comes to the approach and perspective, critique and review also differ. A critique typically takes a more objective and analytical stance, delving into the technical aspects, thematic elements, and artistic choices of the work. It often involves a deeper understanding of the medium and its conventions, allowing the critic to provide a comprehensive analysis. On the other hand, a review tends to be more subjective, focusing on the reviewer's personal opinion and experience with the work. While it may touch upon technical aspects, it primarily aims to convey the reviewer's overall impression and whether they would recommend it to others.

Depth and Detail

One of the key distinctions between critique and review lies in the depth and detail of the analysis. A critique goes beyond surface-level observations, diving into the nuances and intricacies of the work. It explores the underlying themes, symbolism, character development, and narrative structure, among other elements. A critique often requires a deeper engagement with the work, multiple readings or viewings, and a comprehensive understanding of the creator's intentions. On the other hand, a review provides a more concise and condensed overview, focusing on the overall impression and key aspects that may interest the target audience. It may touch upon the plot, characters, writing style, or visual aesthetics, but it does not delve into the same level of detail as a critique.

Target Audience

Another aspect that sets critique and review apart is their target audience. A critique is primarily aimed at the creator or artist, providing them with valuable insights and suggestions for improvement. It assumes a certain level of knowledge and understanding of the creative process, allowing the critic to offer a more specialized analysis. On the other hand, a review is intended for a broader audience, including potential consumers, readers, or viewers. It aims to guide their decision-making process, helping them determine whether the work aligns with their preferences and interests.

Publication and Format

The publication and format of critique and review also differ. Critiques are often found in academic journals, specialized publications, or dedicated platforms that focus on critical analysis. They tend to be longer, more detailed, and written by experts or individuals with a deep understanding of the subject matter. Reviews, on the other hand, are commonly found in newspapers, magazines, online platforms, or even personal blogs. They are generally shorter, more accessible, and written by individuals who may or may not have expertise in the field but can provide an opinion that resonates with a wider audience.

Impact and Influence

Both critique and review have the potential to impact the creator and the audience, albeit in different ways. A well-executed critique can provide valuable insights and suggestions for improvement, helping the creator refine their work and grow as an artist. It can challenge their assumptions, highlight blind spots, and encourage experimentation. On the other hand, a review can influence the audience's perception and decision-making process. A positive review may attract more consumers or audience members, while a negative review can deter potential consumers or lead to a reevaluation of the work's quality.

In conclusion, while critique and review share the common goal of evaluating creative works, they differ in their approach, purpose, depth, and target audience. Critique provides an in-depth analysis, focusing on the creator's growth and improvement, while review offers a more general assessment, guiding the audience's decision-making process. Both forms of evaluation play a crucial role in the creative ecosystem, contributing to the understanding, development, and appreciation of various art forms.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

Book Review VS. Book Critique: Unraveling the Differences

• Brandon Kingsman
• March 28, 2024

Introduction

Readers frequently come across the two unique types of analysis—book reviews and book critiques—in the broad literary environment.

Although they might initially appear to be comparable, these two literary analyses serve distinct functions and target a variety of audiences.

Understanding the distinctions between a book review and a book critique while looking for guidance or insights on a certain book can significantly advance our comprehension of literature and help us make informed decisions.

In the following paragraphs, we will go into the specifics of book reviews and critiques, examining their distinctive traits, objectives, and literary contributions.

I. What is a Book Review?

A book review is a succinct and critical summary of a book that is published primarily to help potential readers make book choices.

Without going too further into in-depth review or spoilers, it often gives a broad outline of the book’s storyline, protagonists and antagonists, writing technique, and overall impressions.

The reviewer frequently shares their personal viewpoint on the book, describing what they liked and didn’t like about it as well as whether they would suggest it to others.

1. Key Elements of a Book Review

a. Summary: A book review typically begins with a succinct overview of the major themes and plot features to give readers a sense of the book’s overall subject matter. Although it should avoid giving away important story details or spoilers, this synopsis is not thorough.

b. Evaluation: The reviewer goes into further detail about their evaluation of the book after giving an overview. The book’s good points and bad points, writing style, character growth, and overall effect on the reader are the main topics of this evaluation. The review is significantly influenced by the reviewer’s individual viewpoint.

c. Recommendation: The evaluation of the book ends with a suggestion for the intended audience. The reviewer indicates who could appreciate the book the most and whether it is worthwhile to read based on their assessment.

II. What is a Book Critique?

A comprehensive and comprehensive analysis of a book is what is covered in a book critique, on the opposite.

The book criticism is meant for a more academic or scholarly readership than a book review.

It requires an in-depth examination of the book’s many components, frequently including artistic concepts, background information, and interwoven connections.

1. Key Elements of a Book Critique

a. Analysis: An in-depth analysis of a book’s topics, protagonists and antagonists, method of writing, and significance constitutes a book critique. It examines the interactions between these components and how they affect the overall impact and meaning of the work.

b. Theoretical Framework: Book evaluations frequently use an analytical structure or concept of literature to assess the work. Structuralism, psychoanalysis, feminism, and postcolonial thinking are a few examples of these theories that might be mentioned.

c. Contextualization: You should consider the book’s greater historical, cultural, and literary background when writing a review. With the aid of this analysis, readers will be better able to comprehend the book’s value and place within the larger body of literature.

d. Comparison and References: In a book critique, the critic can contrast the book to other writings by the author or to books in the same genre that are similar to it. To support their analysis, they could also make allusions to other works of literature or historical occasions.

III. Audience and Purpose

The primary difference between a book review and a book critique lies in their audience and purpose.

1. Book Review Audience and Purpose

Book reviews are intended for a general audience, including casual readers who are seeking recommendations before deciding on their next read. The reviewer aims to provide a brief and accessible assessment of the book’s merits and drawbacks, helping potential readers make an informed decision.

2. Book Critique Audience and Purpose

Book critiques target a more specialized audience, including scholars, students, and individuals with a deeper interest in literature. Performing critical analysis and delving deeper into the book’s topics, symbols, and stylistic decisions are the goals of a book critique. It aims to advance academic discussion and deepen knowledge of the book’s relevance in the literary canon.

IV. Style and Tone

1. book review style and tone.

Reviews of books frequently take on a more casual, conversational tone, letting the reviewer’s tastes and individuality shine through. To express their viewpoint and establish a personal connection with the reader, they might employ first-person pronouns.

2. Book Critique Style and Tone

In contrast, book critiques are characterized by a formal and objective tone. They refrain from using personal pronouns in favor of emphasizing the presentation of an organized and fact-based analysis. The book’s literary merits and position within a larger literary context are highlighted.

V. Length and Structure

1. book review length and structure.

Book reviews are typically concise, ranging from 300 to 800 words. They follow a straightforward structure, starting with a brief introduction, followed by the summary, evaluation, and concluding with a recommendation.

2. Book Critique Length and Structure

Book critiques are more extensive, usually spanning from 1000 to 3000 words or more, depending on the depth of analysis. They involve a structured approach, beginning with an introduction that outlines the book’s context and the reviewer’s approach to analysis. The main body includes the analysis, theoretical framework, comparisons, and references. The critique concludes with a thoughtful summary of the reviewer’s insights.

VI. Conclusion

In summary, book reviews and book critiques serve distinct purposes and cater to different audiences. Book reviews offer a reader-friendly evaluation, assisting potential readers in their book choices. The ideas, literary style, and contextual relevance of a book are analyzed in-depth in book criticisms, on the other hand.

Both types of literary examinations are worthwhile in and of themselves since they add to our diverse understanding of literature. Readers may now differentiate between book critiques and book reviews and utilize this knowledge to enhance their reading experiences, whether they are looking for a short recommendation or a thorough comprehension of a book’s subtleties.

Happy reading!

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name  *

Email  *

 Yes, add me to your mailing list

Add Comment  *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post Comment

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

A book review is a thorough description, critical analysis, and/or evaluation of the quality, meaning, and significance of a book, often written in relation to prior research on the topic. Reviews generally range from 500-2000 words, but may be longer or shorter depends on several factors: the length and complexity of the book being reviewed, the overall purpose of the review, and whether the review examines two or more books that focus on the same topic. Professors assign book reviews as practice in carefully analyzing complex scholarly texts and to assess your ability to effectively synthesize research so that you reach an informed perspective about the topic being covered.

There are two general approaches to reviewing a book:

• Descriptive review: Presents the content and structure of a book as objectively as possible, describing essential information about a book's purpose and authority. This is done by stating the perceived aims and purposes of the study, often incorporating passages quoted from the text that highlight key elements of the work. Additionally, there may be some indication of the reading level and anticipated audience.
• Critical review: Describes and evaluates the book in relation to accepted literary and historical standards and supports this evaluation with evidence from the text and, in most cases, in contrast to and in comparison with the research of others. It should include a statement about what the author has tried to do, evaluates how well you believe the author has succeeded in meeting the objectives of the study, and presents evidence to support this assessment. For most course assignments, your professor will want you to write this type of review.

Book Reviews. Writing Center. University of New Hampshire; Book Reviews: How to Write a Book Review. Writing and Style Guides. Libraries. Dalhousie University; Kindle, Peter A. "Teaching Students to Write Book Reviews." Contemporary Rural Social Work 7 (2015): 135-141; Erwin, R. W. “Reviewing Books for Scholarly Journals.” In Writing and Publishing for Academic Authors . Joseph M. Moxley and Todd Taylor. 2 nd edition. (Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield, 1997), pp. 83-90.

How to Approach Writing Your Review

NOTE:   Since most course assignments require that you write a critical rather than descriptive book review, the following information about preparing to write and developing the structure and style of reviews focuses on this approach.

I.  Common Features

While book reviews vary in tone, subject, and style, they share some common features. These include:

• A review gives the reader a concise summary of the content . This includes a description of the research topic and scope of analysis as well as an overview of the book's overall perspective, argument, and purpose.
• A review offers a critical assessment of the content in relation to other studies on the same topic . This involves documenting your reactions to the work under review--what strikes you as noteworthy or important, whether or not the arguments made by the author(s) were effective or persuasive, and how the work enhanced your understanding of the research problem under investigation.
• In addition to analyzing a book's strengths and weaknesses, a scholarly review often recommends whether or not readers would value the work for its authenticity and overall quality . This measure of quality includes both the author's ideas and arguments and covers practical issues, such as, readability and language, organization and layout, indexing, and, if needed, the use of non-textual elements .

To maintain your focus, always keep in mind that most assignments ask you to discuss a book's treatment of its topic, not the topic itself . Your key sentences should say, "This book shows...,” "The study demonstrates...," or “The author argues...," rather than "This happened...” or “This is the case....”

II.  Developing a Critical Assessment Strategy

There is no definitive methodological approach to writing a book review in the social sciences, although it is necessary that you think critically about the research problem under investigation before you begin to write. Therefore, writing a book review is a three-step process: 1) carefully taking notes as you read the text; 2) developing an argument about the value of the work under consideration; and, 3) clearly articulating that argument as you write an organized and well-supported assessment of the work.

A useful strategy in preparing to write a review is to list a set of questions that should be answered as you read the book [remember to note the page numbers so you can refer back to the text!]. The specific questions to ask yourself will depend upon the type of book you are reviewing. For example, a book that is presenting original research about a topic may require a different set of questions to ask yourself than a work where the author is offering a personal critique of an existing policy or issue.

Here are some sample questions that can help you think critically about the book:

• Thesis or Argument . What is the central thesis—or main argument—of the book? If the author wanted you to get one main idea from the book, what would it be? How does it compare or contrast to the world that you know or have experienced? What has the book accomplished? Is the argument clearly stated and does the research support this?
• Topic . What exactly is the subject or topic of the book? Is it clearly articulated? Does the author cover the subject adequately? Does the author cover all aspects of the subject in a balanced fashion? Can you detect any biases? What type of approach has the author adopted to explore the research problem [e.g., topical, analytical, chronological, descriptive]?
• Evidence . How does the author support their argument? What evidence does the author use to prove their point? Is the evidence based on an appropriate application of the method chosen to gather information? Do you find that evidence convincing? Why or why not? Does any of the author's information [or conclusions] conflict with other books you've read, courses you've taken, or just previous assumptions you had about the research problem?
• Structure . How does the author structure their argument? Does it follow a logical order of analysis? What are the parts that make up the whole? Does the argument make sense to you? Does it persuade you? Why or why not?
• Take-aways . How has this book helped you understand the research problem? Would you recommend the book to others? Why or why not?

Beyond the content of the book, you may also consider some information about the author and the general presentation of information. Question to ask may include:

• The Author: Who is the author? The nationality, political persuasion, education, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details about how a work takes shape. Does it matter, for example, that the author is affiliated with a particular organization? What difference would it make if the author participated in the events they wrote about? What other topics has the author written about? Does this work build on prior research or does it represent a new or unique area of research?
• The Presentation: What is the book's genre? Out of what discipline does it emerge? Does it conform to or depart from the conventions of its genre? These questions can provide a historical or other contextual standard upon which to base your evaluations. If you are reviewing the first book ever written on the subject, it will be important for your readers to know this. Keep in mind, though, that declarative statements about being the “first,” the "best," or the "only" book of its kind can be a risky unless you're absolutely certain because your professor [presumably] has a much better understanding of the overall research literature.

NOTE: Most critical book reviews examine a topic in relation to prior research. A good strategy for identifying this prior research is to examine sources the author(s) cited in the chapters introducing the research problem and, of course, any review of the literature. However, you should not assume that the author's references to prior research is authoritative or complete. If any works related to the topic have been excluded, your assessment of the book should note this . Be sure to consult with a librarian to ensure that any additional studies are located beyond what has been cited by the author(s).

Book Reviews. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Book Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Hartley, James. "Reading and Writing Book Reviews Across the Disciplines." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (July 2006): 1194–1207;   Motta-Roth, D. “Discourse Analysis and Academic Book Reviews: A Study of Text and Disciplinary Cultures.”  In Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes . Fortanet Gómez, Inmaculada  et  al., editors. (Castellò de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, 1998), pp. 29-45. Writing a Book Review. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing Book Reviews. Writing Tutorial Services, Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. Indiana University; Suárez, Lorena and Ana I. Moreno. “The Rhetorical Structure of Academic Journal Book Reviews: A Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Approach .” In Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, María del Carmen Pérez Llantada Auría, Ramón Plo Alastrué, and Claus Peter Neumann. Actas del V Congreso Internacional AELFE/Proceedings of the 5th International AELFE Conference . Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza, 2006.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Bibliographic Information

Bibliographic information refers to the essential elements of a work if you were to cite it in a paper [i.e., author, title, date of publication, etc.]. Provide the essential information about the book using the writing style [e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago] preferred by your professor or used by the discipline of your major . Depending on how your professor wants you to organize your review, the bibliographic information represents the heading of your review. In general, it would look like this:

[Complete title of book. Author or authors. Place of publication. Publisher. Date of publication. Number of pages before first chapter, often in Roman numerals. Total number of pages]. The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle over American History . By Jill Lepore. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010. xii, 207 pp.)

Reviewed by [your full name].

II.  Scope/Purpose/Content

Begin your review by telling the reader not only the overarching concern of the book in its entirety [the subject area] but also what the author's particular point of view is on that subject [the thesis statement]. If you cannot find an adequate statement in the author's own words or if you find that the thesis statement is not well-developed, then you will have to compose your own introductory thesis statement that does cover all the material. This statement should be no more than one paragraph and must be succinctly stated, accurate, and unbiased.

If you find it difficult to discern the overall aims and objectives of the book [and, be sure to point this out in your review if you determine that this is a deficiency], you may arrive at an understanding of the book's overall purpose by assessing the following:

• Scan the table of contents because it can help you understand how the book was organized and will aid in determining the author's main ideas and how they were developed [e.g., chronologically, topically, historically, etc.].
• Why did the author write on this subject rather than on some other subject?
• From what point of view is the work written?
• Was the author trying to give information, to explain something technical, or to convince the reader of a belief’s validity by dramatizing it in action?
• What is the general field or genre, and how does the book fit into it? If necessary, review related literature from other books and journal articles to familiarize yourself with the field.
• Who is the intended audience?
• What is the author's style? Is it formal or informal? You can evaluate the quality of the writing style by noting some of the following standards: coherence, clarity, originality, forcefulness, accurate use of technical words, conciseness, fullness of development, and fluidity [i.e., quality of the narrative flow].
• How did the book affect you? Were there any prior assumptions you had about the subject that were changed, abandoned, or reinforced after reading the book? How is the book related to your own personal beliefs or assumptions? What personal experiences have you had related to the subject that affirm or challenge underlying assumptions?
• How well has the book achieved the goal(s) set forth in the preface, introduction, and/or foreword?
• Would you recommend this book to others? Why or why not?

III.  Note the Method

Support your remarks with specific references to text and quotations that help to illustrate the literary method used to state the research problem, describe the research design, and analyze the findings. In general, authors tend to use the following literary methods, exclusively or in combination.

• Description : The author depicts scenes and events by giving specific details that appeal to the five senses, or to the reader’s imagination. The description presents background and setting. Its primary purpose is to help the reader realize, through as many details as possible, the way persons, places, and things are situated within the phenomenon being described.
• Narration : The author tells the story of a series of events, usually thematically or in chronological order. In general, the emphasis in scholarly books is on narration of the events. Narration tells what has happened and, in some cases, using this method to forecast what could happen in the future. Its primary purpose is to draw the reader into a story and create a contextual framework for understanding the research problem.
• Exposition : The author uses explanation and analysis to present a subject or to clarify an idea. Exposition presents the facts about a subject or an issue clearly and as impartially as possible. Its primary purpose is to describe and explain, to document for the historical record an event or phenomenon.
• Argument : The author uses techniques of persuasion to establish understanding of a particular truth, often in the form of addressing a research question, or to convince the reader of its falsity. The overall aim is to persuade the reader to believe something and perhaps to act on that belief. Argument takes sides on an issue and aims to convince the reader that the author's position is valid, logical, and/or reasonable.

IV.  Critically Evaluate the Contents

Critical comments should form the bulk of your book review . State whether or not you feel the author's treatment of the subject matter is appropriate for the intended audience. Ask yourself:

• Has the purpose of the book been achieved?
• What contributions does the book make to the field?
• Is the treatment of the subject matter objective or at least balanced in describing all sides of a debate?
• Are there facts and evidence that have been omitted?
• What kinds of data, if any, are used to support the author's thesis statement?
• Can the same data be interpreted to explain alternate outcomes?
• Is the writing style clear and effective?
• Does the book raise important or provocative issues or topics for discussion?
• Does the book bring attention to the need for further research?
• What has been left out?

Support your evaluation with evidence from the text and, when possible, state the book's quality in relation to other scholarly sources. If relevant, note of the book's format, such as, layout, binding, typography, etc. Are there tables, charts, maps, illustrations, text boxes, photographs, or other non-textual elements? Do they aid in understanding the text? Describing this is particularly important in books that contain a lot of non-textual elements.

NOTE:   It is important to carefully distinguish your views from those of the author so as not to confuse your reader. Be clear when you are describing an author's point of view versus expressing your own.

V.  Examine the Front Matter and Back Matter

Front matter refers to any content before the first chapter of the book. Back matter refers to any information included after the final chapter of the book . Front matter is most often numbered separately from the rest of the text in lower case Roman numerals [i.e. i - xi ]. Critical commentary about front or back matter is generally only necessary if you believe there is something that diminishes the overall quality of the work [e.g., the indexing is poor] or there is something that is particularly helpful in understanding the book's contents [e.g., foreword places the book in an important context].

Front matter that may be considered for evaluation when reviewing its overall quality:

• Table of contents -- is it clear? Is it detailed or general? Does it reflect the true contents of the book? Does it help in understanding a logical sequence of content?
• Author biography -- also found as back matter, the biography of author(s) can be useful in determining the authority of the writer and whether the book builds on prior research or represents new research. In scholarly reviews, noting the author's affiliation and prior publications can be a factor in helping the reader determine the overall validity of the work [i.e., are they associated with a research center devoted to studying the problem under investigation].
• Foreword -- the purpose of a foreword is to introduce the reader to the author and the content of the book, and to help establish credibility for both. A foreword may not contribute any additional information about the book's subject matter, but rather, serves as a means of validating the book's existence. In these cases, the foreword is often written by a leading scholar or expert who endorses the book's contributions to advancing research about the topic. Later editions of a book sometimes have a new foreword prepended [appearing before an older foreword, if there was one], which may be included to explain how the latest edition differs from previous editions. These are most often written by the author.
• Acknowledgements -- scholarly studies in the social sciences often take many years to write, so authors frequently acknowledge the help and support of others in getting their research published. This can be as innocuous as acknowledging the author's family or the publisher. However, an author may acknowledge prominent scholars or subject experts, staff at key research centers, people who curate important archival collections, or organizations that funded the research. In these particular cases, it may be worth noting these sources of support in your review, particularly if the funding organization is biased or its mission is to promote a particular agenda.
• Preface -- generally describes the genesis, purpose, limitations, and scope of the book and may include acknowledgments of indebtedness to people who have helped the author complete the study. Is the preface helpful in understanding the study? Does it provide an effective framework for understanding what's to follow?
• Chronology -- also may be found as back matter, a chronology is generally included to highlight key events related to the subject of the book. Do the entries contribute to the overall work? Is it detailed or very general?
• List of non-textual elements -- a book that contains numerous charts, photographs, maps, tables, etc. will often list these items after the table of contents in the order that they appear in the text. Is this useful?

Back matter that may be considered for evaluation when reviewing its overall quality:

• Afterword -- this is a short, reflective piece written by the author that takes the form of a concluding section, final commentary, or closing statement. It is worth mentioning in a review if it contributes information about the purpose of the book, gives a call to action, summarizes key recommendations or next steps, or asks the reader to consider key points made in the book.
• Appendix -- is the supplementary material in the appendix or appendices well organized? Do they relate to the contents or appear superfluous? Does it contain any essential information that would have been more appropriately integrated into the text?
• Index -- are there separate indexes for names and subjects or one integrated index. Is the indexing thorough and accurate? Are elements used, such as, bold or italic fonts to help identify specific places in the book? Does the index include "see also" references to direct you to related topics?
• Glossary of Terms -- are the definitions clearly written? Is the glossary comprehensive or are there key terms missing? Are any terms or concepts mentioned in the text not included that should have been?
• Endnotes -- examine any endnotes as you read from chapter to chapter. Do they provide important additional information? Do they clarify or extend points made in the body of the text? Should any notes have been better integrated into the text rather than separated? Do the same if the author uses footnotes.
• Bibliography/References/Further Readings -- review any bibliography, list of references to sources, and/or further readings the author may have included. What kinds of sources appear [e.g., primary or secondary, recent or old, scholarly or popular, etc.]? How does the author make use of them? Be sure to note important omissions of sources that you believe should have been utilized, including important digital resources or archival collections.

VI.  Summarize and Comment

State your general conclusions briefly and succinctly. Pay particular attention to the author's concluding chapter and/or afterword. Is the summary convincing? List the principal topics, and briefly summarize the author’s ideas about these topics, main points, and conclusions. If appropriate and to help clarify your overall evaluation, use specific references to text and quotations to support your statements. If your thesis has been well argued, the conclusion should follow naturally. It can include a final assessment or simply restate your thesis. Do not introduce new information in the conclusion. If you've compared the book to any other works or used other sources in writing the review, be sure to cite them at the end of your book review in the same writing style as your bibliographic heading of the book.

Book Reviews. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Book Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Gastel, Barbara. "Special Books Section: A Strategy for Reviewing Books for Journals." BioScience 41 (October 1991): 635-637; Hartley, James. "Reading and Writing Book Reviews Across the Disciplines." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (July 2006): 1194–1207; Lee, Alexander D., Bart N. Green, Claire D. Johnson, and Julie Nyquist. "How to Write a Scholarly Book Review for Publication in a Peer-reviewed Journal: A Review of the Literature." Journal of Chiropractic Education 24 (2010): 57-69; Nicolaisen, Jeppe. "The Scholarliness of Published Peer Reviews: A Bibliometric Study of Book Reviews in Selected Social Science Fields." Research Evaluation 11 (2002): 129-140;.Procter, Margaret. The Book Review or Article Critique. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Reading a Book to Review It. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Scarnecchia, David L. "Writing Book Reviews for the Journal Of Range Management and Rangelands." Rangeland Ecology and Management 57 (2004): 418-421; Simon, Linda. "The Pleasures of Book Reviewing." Journal of Scholarly Publishing 27 (1996): 240-241; Writing a Book Review. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing Book Reviews. Writing Tutorial Services, Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. Indiana University.

Writing Tip

Always Read the Foreword and/or the Preface

If they are included in the front matter, a good place for understanding a book's overall purpose, organization, contributions to further understanding of the research problem, and relationship to other studies is to read the preface and the foreword. The foreword may be written by someone other than the author or editor and can be a person who is famous or who has name recognition within the discipline. A foreword is often included to add credibility to the work.

The preface is usually an introductory essay written by the author or editor. It is intended to describe the book's overall purpose, arrangement, scope, and overall contributions to the literature. When reviewing the book, it can be useful to critically evaluate whether the goals set forth in the foreword and/or preface were actually achieved. At the very least, they can establish a foundation for understanding a study's scope and purpose as well as its significance in contributing new knowledge.

Distinguishing between a Foreword, a Preface, and an Introduction . Book Creation Learning Center. Greenleaf Book Group, 2019.

Locating Book Reviews

There are several databases the USC Libraries subscribes to that include the full-text or citations to book reviews. Short, descriptive reviews can also be found at book-related online sites such as Amazon , although it's not always obvious who has written them and may actually be created by the publisher. The following databases provide comprehensive access to scholarly, full-text book reviews:

• ProQuest [1983-present]
• Book Review Digest Retrospective [1905-1982]

Some Language for Evaluating Texts

It can be challenging to find the proper vocabulary from which to discuss and evaluate a book. Here is a list of some active verbs for referring to texts and ideas that you might find useful:

• account for
• demonstrate
• distinguish
• investigate

Examples of usage

• "The evidence indicates that..."
• "This work assesses the effect of..."
• "The author identifies three key reasons for..."
• "This book questions the view that..."
• "This work challenges assumptions about...."

Paquot, Magali. Academic Keyword List. Centre for English Corpus Linguistics. Université Catholique de Louvain.

• << Previous: Leading a Class Discussion
• Next: Multiple Book Review Essay >>
• Last Updated: May 7, 2024 9:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

Writing Critiques

Writing a critique involves more than pointing out mistakes. It involves conducting a systematic analysis of a scholarly article or book and then writing a fair and reasonable description of its strengths and weaknesses. Several scholarly journals have published guides for critiquing other people’s work in their academic area. Search for a  “manuscript reviewer guide” in your own discipline to guide your analysis of the content. Use this handout as an orientation to the audience and purpose of different types of critiques and to the linguistic strategies appropriate to all of them.

Types of critique

Article or book review assignment in an academic class.

Text: Article or book that has already been published Audience: Professors Purpose:

• to demonstrate your skills for close reading and analysis
• to show that you understand key concepts in your field
• to learn how to review a manuscript for your future professional work

Published book review

Text: Book that has already been published Audience: Disciplinary colleagues Purpose:

• to describe the book’s contents
• to summarize the book’s strengths and weaknesses
• to provide a reliable recommendation to read (or not read) the book

Manuscript review

Text: Manuscript that has been submitted but has not been published yet Audience: Journal editor and manuscript authors Purpose:

• to provide the editor with an evaluation of the manuscript
• to recommend to the editor that the article be published, revised, or rejected
• to provide the authors with constructive feedback and reasonable suggestions for revision

Language strategies for critiquing

For each type of critique, it’s important to state your praise, criticism, and suggestions politely, but with the appropriate level of strength. The following language structures should help you achieve this challenging task.

Offering Praise and Criticism

A strategy called “hedging” will help you express praise or criticism with varying levels of strength. It will also help you express varying levels of certainty in your own assertions. Grammatical structures used for hedging include:

Modal verbs Using modal verbs (could, can, may, might, etc.) allows you to soften an absolute statement. Compare:

This text is inappropriate for graduate students who are new to the field. This text may be inappropriate for graduate students who are new to the field.

Qualifying adjectives and adverbs Using qualifying adjectives and adverbs (possible, likely, possibly, somewhat, etc.) allows you to introduce a level of probability into your comments. Compare:

Readers will find the theoretical model difficult to understand. Some readers will find the theoretical model difficult to understand. Some readers will probably find the theoretical model somewhat difficult to understand completely.

Note: You can see from the last example that too many qualifiers makes the idea sound undesirably weak.

Tentative verbs Using tentative verbs (seems, indicates, suggests, etc.) also allows you to soften an absolute statement. Compare:

This omission shows that the authors are not aware of the current literature. This omission indicates that the authors are not aware of the current literature. This omission seems to suggest that the authors are not aware of the current literature.

Offering suggestions

Whether you are critiquing a published or unpublished text, you are expected to point out problems and suggest solutions. If you are critiquing an unpublished manuscript, the author can use your suggestions to revise. Your suggestions have the potential to become real actions. If you are critiquing a published text, the author cannot revise, so your suggestions are purely hypothetical. These two situations require slightly different grammar.

Unpublished manuscripts: “would be X if they did Y” Reviewers commonly point out weakness by pointing toward improvement. For instance, if the problem is “unclear methodology,” reviewers may write that “the methodology would be more clear if …” plus a suggestion. If the author can use the suggestions to revise, the grammar is “X would be better if the authors did Y” (would be + simple past suggestion).

The tables would be clearer if the authors highlighted the key results. The discussion would be more persuasive if the authors accounted for the discrepancies in the data.

Published manuscripts: “would have been X if they had done Y” If the authors cannot revise based on your suggestions, use the past unreal conditional form “X would have been better if the authors had done Y” (would have been + past perfect suggestion).

The tables would have been clearer if the authors had highlighted key results. The discussion would have been more persuasive if the authors had accounted for discrepancies in the data.

Note: For more information on conditional structures, see our Conditionals handout .

Make a Gift

How to Write Critical Reviews

When you are asked to write a critical review of a book or article, you will need to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. In other words, you will be examining another person’s thoughts on a topic from your point of view.

Your stand must go beyond your “gut reaction” to the work and be based on your knowledge (readings, lecture, experience) of the topic as well as on factors such as criteria stated in your assignment or discussed by you and your instructor.

Make your stand clear at the beginning of your review, in your evaluations of specific parts, and in your concluding commentary.

Remember that your goal should be to make a few key points about the book or article, not to discuss everything the author writes.

Understanding the Assignment

To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work–deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole.

Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain points and prevent you from merely summarizing what the author says. Assuming the role of an analytical reader will also help you to determine whether or not the author fulfills the stated purpose of the book or article and enhances your understanding or knowledge of a particular topic.

Be sure to read your assignment thoroughly before you read the article or book. Your instructor may have included specific guidelines for you to follow. Keeping these guidelines in mind as you read the article or book can really help you write your paper!

Also, note where the work connects with what you’ve studied in the course. You can make the most efficient use of your reading and notetaking time if you are an active reader; that is, keep relevant questions in mind and jot down page numbers as well as your responses to ideas that appear to be significant as you read.

Please note: The length of your introduction and overview, the number of points you choose to review, and the length of your conclusion should be proportionate to the page limit stated in your assignment and should reflect the complexity of the material being reviewed as well as the expectations of your reader.

Write the introduction

Below are a few guidelines to help you write the introduction to your critical review.

Introduce your review appropriately

Begin your review with an introduction appropriate to your assignment.

If your assignment asks you to review only one book and not to use outside sources, your introduction will focus on identifying the author, the title, the main topic or issue presented in the book, and the author’s purpose in writing the book.

If your assignment asks you to review the book as it relates to issues or themes discussed in the course, or to review two or more books on the same topic, your introduction must also encompass those expectations.

Explain relationships

For example, before you can review two books on a topic, you must explain to your reader in your introduction how they are related to one another.

Within this shared context (or under this “umbrella”) you can then review comparable aspects of both books, pointing out where the authors agree and differ.

In other words, the more complicated your assignment is, the more your introduction must accomplish.

Finally, the introduction to a book review is always the place for you to establish your position as the reviewer (your thesis about the author’s thesis).

As you write, consider the following questions:

• Is the book a memoir, a treatise, a collection of facts, an extended argument, etc.? Is the article a documentary, a write-up of primary research, a position paper, etc.?
• Who is the author? What does the preface or foreword tell you about the author’s purpose, background, and credentials? What is the author’s approach to the topic (as a journalist? a historian? a researcher?)?
• What is the main topic or problem addressed? How does the work relate to a discipline, to a profession, to a particular audience, or to other works on the topic?
• What is your critical evaluation of the work (your thesis)? Why have you taken that position? What criteria are you basing your position on?

Provide an overview

In your introduction, you will also want to provide an overview. An overview supplies your reader with certain general information not appropriate for including in the introduction but necessary to understanding the body of the review.

Generally, an overview describes your book’s division into chapters, sections, or points of discussion. An overview may also include background information about the topic, about your stand, or about the criteria you will use for evaluation.

The overview and the introduction work together to provide a comprehensive beginning for (a “springboard” into) your review.

• What are the author’s basic premises? What issues are raised, or what themes emerge? What situation (i.e., racism on college campuses) provides a basis for the author’s assertions?
• How informed is my reader? What background information is relevant to the entire book and should be placed here rather than in a body paragraph?

Write the body

The body is the center of your paper, where you draw out your main arguments. Below are some guidelines to help you write it.

Organize using a logical plan

Organize the body of your review according to a logical plan. Here are two options:

• First, summarize, in a series of paragraphs, those major points from the book that you plan to discuss; incorporating each major point into a topic sentence for a paragraph is an effective organizational strategy. Second, discuss and evaluate these points in a following group of paragraphs. (There are two dangers lurking in this pattern–you may allot too many paragraphs to summary and too few to evaluation, or you may re-summarize too many points from the book in your evaluation section.)
• Alternatively, you can summarize and evaluate the major points you have chosen from the book in a point-by-point schema. That means you will discuss and evaluate point one within the same paragraph (or in several if the point is significant and warrants extended discussion) before you summarize and evaluate point two, point three, etc., moving in a logical sequence from point to point to point. Here again, it is effective to use the topic sentence of each paragraph to identify the point from the book that you plan to summarize or evaluate.

Questions to keep in mind as you write

With either organizational pattern, consider the following questions:

• What are the author’s most important points? How do these relate to one another? (Make relationships clear by using transitions: “In contrast,” an equally strong argument,” “moreover,” “a final conclusion,” etc.).
• What types of evidence or information does the author present to support his or her points? Is this evidence convincing, controversial, factual, one-sided, etc.? (Consider the use of primary historical material, case studies, narratives, recent scientific findings, statistics.)
• Where does the author do a good job of conveying factual material as well as personal perspective? Where does the author fail to do so? If solutions to a problem are offered, are they believable, misguided, or promising?
• Which parts of the work (particular arguments, descriptions, chapters, etc.) are most effective and which parts are least effective? Why?
• Where (if at all) does the author convey personal prejudice, support illogical relationships, or present evidence out of its appropriate context?

Keep your opinions distinct and cite your sources

Remember, as you discuss the author’s major points, be sure to distinguish consistently between the author’s opinions and your own.

Keep the summary portions of your discussion concise, remembering that your task as a reviewer is to re-see the author’s work, not to re-tell it.

And, importantly, if you refer to ideas from other books and articles or from lecture and course materials, always document your sources, or else you might wander into the realm of plagiarism.

Include only that material which has relevance for your review and use direct quotations sparingly. The Writing Center has other handouts to help you paraphrase text and introduce quotations.

Write the conclusion

You will want to use the conclusion to state your overall critical evaluation.

You have already discussed the major points the author makes, examined how the author supports arguments, and evaluated the quality or effectiveness of specific aspects of the book or article.

Now you must make an evaluation of the work as a whole, determining such things as whether or not the author achieves the stated or implied purpose and if the work makes a significant contribution to an existing body of knowledge.

Consider the following questions:

• Is the work appropriately subjective or objective according to the author’s purpose?
• How well does the work maintain its stated or implied focus? Does the author present extraneous material? Does the author exclude or ignore relevant information?
• How well has the author achieved the overall purpose of the book or article? What contribution does the work make to an existing body of knowledge or to a specific group of readers? Can you justify the use of this work in a particular course?
• What is the most important final comment you wish to make about the book or article? Do you have any suggestions for the direction of future research in the area? What has reading this work done for you or demonstrated to you?

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Can Med Educ J
• v.12(3); 2021 Jun

Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews

Écrire, lire et revue critique, douglas archibald.

1 University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;

Maria Athina Martimianakis

2 University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Why reviews matter

What do all authors of the CMEJ have in common? For that matter what do all health professions education scholars have in common? We all engage with literature. When you have an idea or question the first thing you do is find out what has been published on the topic of interest. Literature reviews are foundational to any study. They describe what is known about given topic and lead us to identify a knowledge gap to study. All reviews require authors to be able accurately summarize, synthesize, interpret and even critique the research literature. 1 , 2 In fact, for this editorial we have had to review the literature on reviews . Knowledge and evidence are expanding in our field of health professions education at an ever increasing rate and so to help keep pace, well written reviews are essential. Though reviews may be difficult to write, they will always be read. In this editorial we survey the various forms review articles can take. As well we want to provide authors and reviewers at CMEJ with some guidance and resources to be able write and/or review a review article.

What are the types of reviews conducted in Health Professions Education?

Health professions education attracts scholars from across disciplines and professions. For this reason, there are numerous ways to conduct reviews and it is important to familiarize oneself with these different forms to be able to effectively situate your work and write a compelling rationale for choosing your review methodology. 1 , 2 To do this, authors must contend with an ever-increasing lexicon of review type articles. In 2009 Grant and colleagues conducted a typology of reviews to aid readers makes sense of the different review types, listing fourteen different ways of conducting reviews, not all of which are mutually exclusive. 3 Interestingly, in their typology they did not include narrative reviews which are often used by authors in health professions education. In Table 1 , we offer a short description of three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ.

Three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ

More recently, authors such as Greenhalgh 4 have drawn attention to the perceived hierarchy of systematic reviews over scoping and narrative reviews. Like Greenhalgh, 4 we argue that systematic reviews are not to be seen as the gold standard of all reviews. Instead, it is important to align the method of review to what the authors hope to achieve, and pursue the review rigorously, according to the tenets of the chosen review type. Sometimes it is helpful to read part of the literature on your topic before deciding on a methodology for organizing and assessing its usefulness. Importantly, whether you are conducting a review or reading reviews, appreciating the differences between different types of reviews can also help you weigh the author’s interpretation of their findings.

In the next section we summarize some general tips for conducting successful reviews.

How to write and review a review article

In 2016 David Cook wrote an editorial for Medical Education on tips for a great review article. 13 These tips are excellent suggestions for all types of articles you are considering to submit to the CMEJ. First, start with a clear question: focused or more general depending on the type of review you are conducting. Systematic reviews tend to address very focused questions often summarizing the evidence of your topic. Other types of reviews tend to have broader questions and are more exploratory in nature.

Following your question, choose an approach and plan your methods to match your question…just like you would for a research study. Fortunately, there are guidelines for many types of reviews. As Cook points out the most important consideration is to be sure that the methods you follow lead to a defensible answer to your review question. To help you prepare for a defensible answer there are many guides available. For systematic reviews consult PRISMA guidelines ; 13 for scoping reviews PRISMA-ScR ; 14 and SANRA 15 for narrative reviews. It is also important to explain to readers why you have chosen to conduct a review. You may be introducing a new way for addressing an old problem, drawing links across literatures, filling in gaps in our knowledge about a phenomenon or educational practice. Cook refers to this as setting the stage. Linking back to the literature is important. In systematic reviews for example, you must be clear in explaining how your review builds on existing literature and previous reviews. This is your opportunity to be critical. What are the gaps and limitations of previous reviews? So, how will your systematic review resolve the shortcomings of previous work? In other types of reviews, such as narrative reviews, its less about filling a specific knowledge gap, and more about generating new research topic areas, exposing blind spots in our thinking, or making creative new links across issues. Whatever, type of review paper you are working on, the next steps are ones that can be applied to any scholarly writing. Be clear and offer insight. What is your main message? A review is more than just listing studies or referencing literature on your topic. Lead your readers to a convincing message. Provide commentary and interpretation for the studies in your review that will help you to inform your conclusions. For systematic reviews, Cook’s final tip is most likely the most important– report completely. You need to explain all your methods and report enough detail that readers can verify the main findings of each study you review. The most common reasons CMEJ reviewers recommend to decline a review article is because authors do not follow these last tips. In these instances authors do not provide the readers with enough detail to substantiate their interpretations or the message is not clear. Our recommendation for writing a great review is to ensure you have followed the previous tips and to have colleagues read over your paper to ensure you have provided a clear, detailed description and interpretation.

Finally, we leave you with some resources to guide your review writing. 3 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 We look forward to seeing your future work. One thing is certain, a better appreciation of what different reviews provide to the field will contribute to more purposeful exploration of the literature and better manuscript writing in general.

In this issue we present many interesting and worthwhile papers, two of which are, in fact, reviews.

Major Contributions

A chance for reform: the environmental impact of travel for general surgery residency interviews by Fung et al. 18 estimated the CO 2 emissions associated with traveling for residency position interviews. Due to the high emissions levels (mean 1.82 tonnes per applicant), they called for the consideration of alternative options such as videoconference interviews.

Understanding community family medicine preceptors’ involvement in educational scholarship: perceptions, influencing factors and promising areas for action by Ward and team 19 identified barriers, enablers, and opportunities to grow educational scholarship at community-based teaching sites. They discovered a growing interest in educational scholarship among community-based family medicine preceptors and hope the identification of successful processes will be beneficial for other community-based Family Medicine preceptors.

Exploring the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education: an international cross-sectional study of medical learners by Allison Brown and team 20 studied the impact of COVID-19 on medical learners around the world. There were different concerns depending on the levels of training, such as residents’ concerns with career timeline compared to trainees’ concerns with the quality of learning. Overall, the learners negatively perceived the disruption at all levels and geographic regions.

The impact of local health professions education grants: is it worth the investment? by Susan Humphrey-Murto and co-authors 21 considered factors that lead to the publication of studies supported by local medical education grants. They identified several factors associated with publication success, including previous oral or poster presentations. They hope their results will be valuable for Canadian centres with local grant programs.

Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical learner wellness: a needs assessment for the development of learner wellness interventions by Stephana Cherak and team 22 studied learner-wellness in various training environments disrupted by the pandemic. They reported a negative impact on learner wellness at all stages of training. Their results can benefit the development of future wellness interventions.

Program directors’ reflections on national policy change in medical education: insights on decision-making, accreditation, and the CanMEDS framework by Dore, Bogie, et al. 23 invited program directors to reflect on the introduction of the CanMEDS framework into Canadian postgraduate medical education programs. Their survey revealed that while program directors (PDs) recognized the necessity of the accreditation process, they did not feel they had a voice when the change occurred. The authors concluded that collaborations with PDs would lead to more successful outcomes.

Experiential learning, collaboration and reflection: key ingredients in longitudinal faculty development by Laura Farrell and team 24 stressed several elements for effective longitudinal faculty development (LFD) initiatives. They found that participants benefited from a supportive and collaborative environment while trying to learn a new skill or concept.

Brief Reports

The effect of COVID-19 on medical students’ education and wellbeing: a cross-sectional survey by Stephanie Thibaudeau and team 25 assessed the impact of COVID-19 on medical students. They reported an overall perceived negative impact, including increased depressive symptoms, increased anxiety, and reduced quality of education.

In Do PGY-1 residents in Emergency Medicine have enough experiences in resuscitations and other clinical procedures to meet the requirements of a Competence by Design curriculum? Meshkat and co-authors 26 recorded the number of adult medical resuscitations and clinical procedures completed by PGY1 Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in Emergency Medicine residents to compare them to the Competence by Design requirements. Their study underscored the importance of monitoring collection against pre-set targets. They concluded that residency program curricula should be regularly reviewed to allow for adequate clinical experiences.

Rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults by Anita Cheng and team 27 studied whether rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults helped residents prepare for difficult conversations with parents expecting complications with their baby before birth. They found that while rehearsal simulation improved residents’ confidence and communication techniques, it did not prepare them for unexpected parent responses.

Review Papers and Meta-Analyses

Peer support programs in the fields of medicine and nursing: a systematic search and narrative review by Haykal and co-authors 28 described and evaluated peer support programs in the medical field published in the literature. They found numerous diverse programs and concluded that including a variety of delivery methods to meet the needs of all participants is a key aspect for future peer-support initiatives.

Towards competency-based medical education in addictions psychiatry: a systematic review by Bahji et al. 6 identified addiction interventions to build competency for psychiatry residents and fellows. They found that current psychiatry entrustable professional activities need to be better identified and evaluated to ensure sustained competence in addictions.

Six ways to get a grip on leveraging the expertise of Instructional Design and Technology professionals by Chen and Kleinheksel 29 provided ways to improve technology implementation by clarifying the role that Instructional Design and Technology professionals can play in technology initiatives and technology-enhanced learning. They concluded that a strong collaboration is to the benefit of both the learners and their future patients.

In his article, Seven ways to get a grip on running a successful promotions process, 30 Simon Field provided guidelines for maximizing opportunities for successful promotion experiences. His seven tips included creating a rubric for both self-assessment of likeliness of success and adjudication by the committee.

Six ways to get a grip on your first health education leadership role by Stasiuk and Scott 31 provided tips for considering a health education leadership position. They advised readers to be intentional and methodical in accepting or rejecting positions.

Re-examining the value proposition for Competency-Based Medical Education by Dagnone and team 32 described the excitement and controversy surrounding the implementation of competency-based medical education (CBME) by Canadian postgraduate training programs. They proposed observing which elements of CBME had a positive impact on various outcomes.

You Should Try This

In their work, Interprofessional culinary education workshops at the University of Saskatchewan, Lieffers et al. 33 described the implementation of interprofessional culinary education workshops that were designed to provide health professions students with an experiential and cooperative learning experience while learning about important topics in nutrition. They reported an enthusiastic response and cooperation among students from different health professional programs.

In their article, Physiotherapist-led musculoskeletal education: an innovative approach to teach medical students musculoskeletal assessment techniques, Boulila and team 34 described the implementation of physiotherapist-led workshops, whether the workshops increased medical students’ musculoskeletal knowledge, and if they increased confidence in assessment techniques.

Instagram as a virtual art display for medical students by Karly Pippitt and team 35 used social media as a platform for showcasing artwork done by first-year medical students. They described this shift to online learning due to COVID-19. Using Instagram was cost-saving and widely accessible. They intend to continue with both online and in-person displays in the future.

Adapting clinical skills volunteer patient recruitment and retention during COVID-19 by Nazerali-Maitland et al. 36 proposed a SLIM-COVID framework as a solution to the problem of dwindling volunteer patients due to COVID-19. Their framework is intended to provide actionable solutions to recruit and engage volunteers in a challenging environment.

In Quick Response codes for virtual learner evaluation of teaching and attendance monitoring, Roxana Mo and co-authors 37 used Quick Response (QR) codes to monitor attendance and obtain evaluations for virtual teaching sessions. They found QR codes valuable for quick and simple feedback that could be used for many educational applications.

In Creation and implementation of the Ottawa Handbook of Emergency Medicine Kaitlin Endres and team 38 described the creation of a handbook they made as an academic resource for medical students as they shift to clerkship. It includes relevant content encountered in Emergency Medicine. While they intended it for medical students, they also see its value for nurses, paramedics, and other medical professionals.

Commentary and Opinions

The alarming situation of medical student mental health by D’Eon and team 39 appealed to medical education leaders to respond to the high numbers of mental health concerns among medical students. They urged leaders to address the underlying problems, such as the excessive demands of the curriculum.

In the shadows: medical student clinical observerships and career exploration in the face of COVID-19 by Law and co-authors 40 offered potential solutions to replace in-person shadowing that has been disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They hope the alternatives such as virtual shadowing will close the gap in learning caused by the pandemic.

Letters to the Editor

Canadian Federation of Medical Students' response to “ The alarming situation of medical student mental health” King et al. 41 on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Medical Students (CFMS) responded to the commentary by D’Eon and team 39 on medical students' mental health. King called upon the medical education community to join the CFMS in its commitment to improving medical student wellbeing.

Re: “Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology” 42 was written by Kirubarajan in response to the article by Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology by Black and team. 43 Kirubarajan applauded the development of the podcast to meet a need in medical education, and suggested potential future topics such as interventions to prevent learner burnout.

Response to “First year medical student experiences with a clinical skills seminar emphasizing sexual and gender minority population complexity” by Kumar and Hassan 44 acknowledged the previously published article by Biro et al. 45 that explored limitations in medical training for the LGBTQ2S community. However, Kumar and Hassen advocated for further progress and reform for medical training to address the health requirements for sexual and gender minorities.

In her letter, Journey to the unknown: road closed!, 46 Rosemary Pawliuk responded to the article, Journey into the unknown: considering the international medical graduate perspective on the road to Canadian residency during the COVID-19 pandemic, by Gutman et al. 47 Pawliuk agreed that international medical students (IMGs) do not have adequate formal representation when it comes to residency training decisions. Therefore, Pawliuk challenged health organizations to make changes to give a voice in decision-making to the organizations representing IMGs.

In Connections, 48 Sara Guzman created a digital painting to portray her approach to learning. Her image of a hand touching a neuron showed her desire to physically see and touch an active neuron in order to further understand the brain and its connections.

ENGLISH: Research Guide | Book Reviews vs. Literary Criticism

• Get Started
• Book Reviews vs. Literary Criticism
• Find Books & Media
• Creative Writing

Your Librarian

In This Section

In this section, you'll find:.

• Information on book reviews and where to find them
• Information on literary criticism  and where to find it

Book Reviews

Book reviews describe and analyze the contents of a book, and often make a recommendation about whether or not to read or purchase the book. Reviews vary in length from single paragraphs to full-length essays (remember writing book reports in middle school?).

Reviews of nonfiction books analyze the topics and/or arguments of the book. Reviewers judge the effectiveness of the authors' support for their arguments and assertions. An author should have some form of authority - they should have a credible reason for writing on the subject. Thus, a book review should cover the authors' credentials. Typically, book reviews compare the book to similar books on the subject. Pay attention to what reviewers consider to be important omissions and any potential biases.

Book Reviews - Fiction & Popular Works

Full-text book reviews from 1965-present, mostly for general fiction and non-fiction, the humanities, and the social sciences. Search for the book title (not the review title).

• The New York Review of Books Literary magazine with essays and reviews (of theater and more, not just books).

Book Reviews - Nonfiction & Scholarly Works

• H-Net Reviews The largest online professional reviewing archive, with approximately 46,000 free reviews of scholarly books.

Literary Criticism

Literary criticism is the term given to studies that define, classify, analyze, interpret, and evaluate works of literature. There are many types of literary criticism:

• Moral Criticism, Dramatic Construction (~360 BC-present)
• Formalism, New Criticism, Neo-Aristotelian Criticism (1930s-present)
• Psychoanalytic Criticism, Jungian Criticism(1930s-present)
• Marxist Criticism (1930s-present)
• Reader-Response Criticism (1960s-present)
• Structuralism/Semiotics (1920s-present)
• Post-Structuralism/Deconstruction (1966-present)
• New Historicism/Cultural Studies (1980s-present)
• Post-Colonial Criticism (1990s-present)
• Feminist Criticism (1960s-present)
• Gender/Queer Studies (1970s-present)
• Critical Race Theory (1970s-present)

Literary criticism may examine a particular literary work or it may look at an author's writings as a whole. 

Literary Criticism in Academic Journals

• << Previous: Find Articles
• Next: Find Books & Media >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 11:29 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uj.edu/english

• Undergraduate courses
• Postgraduate courses
• Foundation courses
• Apprenticeships
• Part-time and short courses
• Apply undergraduate
• Apply postgraduate

Search for a course

Search by course name, subject, and more

• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• (suspended) - Available in Clearing Not available in Clearing location-sign UCAS

Fees and funding

• Tuition fees
• Scholarships
• Funding your studies
• Student finance
• Cost of living support

Why study at Kent

Student life.

• Careers and employability
• Student support and wellbeing
• Our locations
• Placements and internships
• Year abroad
• Student stories
• Schools and colleges
• International
• International students
• Your country
• Applicant FAQs
• International scholarships
• University of Kent International College
• Campus Tours
• Applicant Events
• Postgraduate events
• Maps and directions
• Research strengths
• Research centres
• Research impact

Research institutes

• Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology
• Institute of Cyber Security for Society
• Institute of Cultural and Creative Industries
• Institute of Health, Social Care and Wellbeing

Research students

• Graduate and Researcher College
• Research degrees
• Find a supervisor
• How to apply

Popular searches

• Visits and Open Days
• Jobs and vacancies
• Accommodation
• Student guide
• Library and IT
• Partner with us
• Student Guide
• Student Help
• Health & wellbeing
• Student voice
• Living at Kent
• Careers & volunteering
• Diversity at Kent
• Finance & funding
• Life after graduation

Literature reviews

Critically reviewing books and articles.

The following guide has been created for you by the  Student Learning Advisory Service . For more detailed guidance and to speak to one of our advisers, please book an  appointment  or join one of our  workshops . Alternatively, have a look at our  SkillBuilder  skills videos.   

The purpose of a review

Descriptive : to inform the reader about the contents of the text, including the scope and nature of the topics covered, its main conclusions, and the evidence, examples, theories and methodologies it used to support of them.

Critical : to pass judgement on the quality, meaning and significance of the book or article, including how well it has achieved its aims, and what it adds to our understanding of the topic.

A quality review will recognise both the strengths and weaknesses of a piece of writing, presenting your objective opinion of it in a confident, informative and balanced way. Finally, it will be written using phraseology and style appropriate to this particular form of writing (examples from published academic book reviews are presented throughout this guide for reference).    

Choosing material to review

Normally, it is easier to write a critical review of a book or article that puts forward an argument, thereby offering a good opportunity to critically evaluate the reasoning and evidence used to support it. Edited volumes ((consisting of chapters or articles written by different authors) can present many different, even contradictory, evaluations of the same topic – presenting a more complicated challenge for the reviewer. Therefore, choose material that lends itself to your task.

The following checklist will help you ask the right questions as you read the text. It also provides an example of the kind of academic language you might use to introduce each aspect of your review.

Questions a critical book or article review should address

What is the main topic.

This should be obvious from the title and the introduction.

Who is the author?

What qualifications and experience does the author possess that allows them to write meaningfully about the topic?

‘Due to her role in… the author is in a unique position to describe…’

How is the text structured in relation to the topics, themes, issues and examples discussed?

For a book refer to the table of contents, chapter titles and chapter introductions. If analysing a chapter from an edited text, check the editor’s introduction. Think about how the separate sections build into the text as a whole.

‘The book consists of nine chapters each of which addresses…

‘This article deals with two key themes relating to…’

What is the stated purpose of the book or article?

Usually, this is stated on the back cover of a book (but beware of publisher hyperbole), or in the abstract/summary at the beginning of a journal article.

‘ The author’s aim is to examine…’

‘This is an original and accessible guide to…'

What is the main argument? 

Sometimes this is clearly stated, and sometimes more difficult to identify; remember that not all texts are argumentative.

‘The author’s main argument is that…’

‘The author calls into question many of the basic assumptions about…’

What evidence is used to support the author’s claims and analysis?

Do they use statistical data, examples and case studies, expert opinion and official documentation, all academically sourced and cited? How valid and reliable is this evidence in supporting the author’s analysis?

‘Throughout the article, case studies are used to…’

‘Drawing on North American and British archives, this book…’

What theoretical approach has the author used?

This is not always obvious from the text itself. Often, it will be necessary to conduct some additional research into the author to identify their background, or particular methodological, political or philosophical approach to the topic.

‘The author examines the nature of… from the perspective of…’

What are the strengths of the book or article?

Having taken the time to understand the text, where do you think its strengths lie? For example, what key questions does it answer? Does it offer insights into complex problems, if so what? Does it open up new ways of understanding the topic, if so how? Does it present new evidence, or clarify concepts that were previously obscure? Is the written style particularly engaging?

‘Throughout the text, the author translates technical information into…’

‘The book is clearly written in a compelling, engaging style that…’

What are its limitations?

You should critique a piece of writing within its own terms of reference – that is, against what it claims to do. But, if you are sufficiently familiar with the topic, you can also assess its limitations against existing knowledge.

‘The narrow focus unfortunately leads the author to overlook…’

‘The author is very quick to dismiss opposing opinions, and assumes that…’

What do you judge the overall value of the text to be? 

Having undertaken a balanced assessment of its strengths and weaknesses, what is your overall judgement of its usefulness to those interested in the topic, and in comparison to other scholarly publications in the same area of study?

‘The authors have made a significant contribution to our understanding of how…’

‘Overall, the article is an interesting… It offers an excellent… and is relevant to…’

‘The book is generally disappointing… it offers very little new …’

Structure of a critical review

A simple structure for a short review of a book or journal article (c. 500-1000 words) would be as follows: 

• An introduction
• A short summary of the text
• The strengths of the text
• The weaknesses of the text
• A conclusion summarising your overall assessment of the text

In longer critical reviews – comprising over 1000 words – each section, or aspect of the topic discussed in the text, would be described sequentially, incorporating a discussion of its strengths and weakness.

In longer critical reviews – comprising over 1000 words – each section, or aspect of the topic discussed in the text, would be described sequentially, incorporating a discussion of its strengths and weakness. 

How Scholarly Book Review Differs from an Article Review

Almost every week I read scholarly book reviews in Chemical and Engineering News. Fairly often in journals I read reviews of scientific articles previously published. Both reviews have some common element but differ considerably in their purpose and style.

Academic Book Reviews

A scholarly or academic book review has two goals: to critique the book for accuracy and style and to inform the reader as to whether he might want to read the book or not. About half the scholarly book reviews I come across are laudatory; the reviewer loved the book and has good things to say about the author. Perhaps he was a little long winded or simplistic in style but there was nothing wrong with his arguments or the completeness. In the remainder of the cases the reviewer takes exception to some parts of the author’s arguments, praising some, quibbling or dismissing others. All this is part of the critical process. But a book review goes further to advise a potential reader as to whether he should invest the time in obtaining and reading the book in question. Perhaps it is a valuable but highly technical work which will only be of interest to specialists in the field. Or it may be a simplified account of a complex problem intended for the general population and not for the researcher in the field. None of this might be apparent from the title and is valuable information.

Article Reviews

In contrast, article reviews are typically more focused. They are intended to set the record straight. The author disagrees with the conclusions of an article and presents a counterargument and a criticism of the original paper. I well remember one of these from my grad school days. One article came out claiming the first synthesis of a tetracoordinate square planar silicon compound, one of the goals of my research. However, the authors’ evidence was not a crystal structure determination but a space group determination that they argued indicated the correct symmetry for the novel structure. In the next issue of the journal a review of the article appeared arguing that a space group determination was useless for determining molecular symmetry. Published alongside the review was the authors’ response which maintained that the reviewer, instead of countering their argument, had furnished powerful support in favor of it. I forget their reasoning on this point. But this is the usual pattern of a scholarly review of an article —a critique of the original article, followed by a response from the authors. Point, counterpoint.

Laudatory article reviews are occasionally published but they are rare and in my opinion, serve little purpose. Although a review article might put in a complimentary word for an author, an article review should stick to the subject of the piece.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Improving Your Chances of Publication in International Peer-reviewed Journals

Types of literature reviews Tips for writing review articles Role of meta-analysis Reporting guidelines

Introduction to Review Articles: Writing Systematic and Narrative Reviews

综述文章简介：如何撰写系统综述与叙述性综述文章

学术出版中综述文章的概述和意义 不同类型文献综述的比较分析 写好系统综述与叙述性综述的技巧 整合分析（meta-analysis）的作用

了解国际SCI期刊对综述论文作者的要求

综述论文的种类-系统综述与叙述性综述 PRISMA 检核表及流程图 综述论文的组成 为您的综述选择合适的期刊以发表

How to Author a Review Article

Systematic and Non-Systematic Reviews PRISMA Flowcharts and Checklists Parts of a Review Article Drafting a…

What Is a Systematic Review in Research?

Systematic Review: Structure and Process

How to Write a Scientific Review Article

New Physics Framework by Dan S. Correnti: A Book Review

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

Home » Language » English Language » Literature » Difference Between Critique and Review

Difference Between Critique and Review

Main difference – critique vs review.

Although the two terms critique and review are often used interchangeably, there is a subtle difference between critique and review. The main difference between critique and review is the writer; critiques are written by experts in the relevant field whereas reviews are written by people who are interested in that particular field. Therefore, critiques are considered to be more reliable than reviews.

What is a Critique

A critique is a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory or work. A critique is usually written by a critic. A critic is an expert in a particular field, so he can comment on a particular theory or work in depth. Therefore, a critique is more reliable than a review.

A critique can look at separate components of a work as well as the overall impression of the work. A critique can be very technical since the critic has expert knowledge in the field.  It can contain information like techniques, trends in the field, etc. Sometimes, a person who doesn’t have any knowledge in that particular field may find it difficult to understand the critique properly.

What is  a Review

A review describes, analyses and evaluates a work. A review may give you the main information about a piece of work. For example, if the review is about a play, it’ll describe who created the play, who were the actors, where was the play performed, what genre is it, what is the theme of the play, etc. The reviewer will also comment on the quality of the work, overall impression, and his personal opinions. But he will not go into a deep, technical analysis.

This is mainly because a reviewer is a person who has an interest in the certain topic and had the freedom of voicing out his or her thoughts. He is not usually an expert in that particular field. For example, a book review or a film review can be written by anyone. But the review will help others to determine the quality of the said work. So, a review is mainly consumer-oriented.

Critique is written by a critic.

Review is written by a reviewer.

Knowledge of the Field

Critic is an expert in a particular field.

Reviewer is a person who has an interest in a particular topic.

Critique may contain in-depth analysis of the separate components of the work or theory.

Review may contain general information, overall impression, and personal opinion.

Reliability

Critiques can be more reliable than reviews.

Reviews may not be reliable as critiques.

Critique may analyze a work technically, scientifically or academically.

Review is more consumer-oriented.

Ease of Access

Critique may not be read and understood by everyone.

About the Author: Hasa

Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.

​You May Also Like These