Menu:
Interview: Reference Reviews North American Regional Editor Sarah Nesbeitt
ICT: Please talk a little bit about Reference Reviews, and about the types of reviews it includes.
SN: Reference Reviews (RR), as you can guess from the title, is a journal that reviews reference materials in both print and electronic formats. It is published eight times per year in print by Emerald (formerly MCB University Press), and it's also accessible electronically via the Emerald Library, a database that contains the full text of Emerald's suite of journals. Though the publisher is British, RR's audience is international. Several hundred reviews of approximately 500 words each are published in RR annually. The journal homepage is http://www.emeraldinsight.com/rr.htm.
ICT: Could you explain how you became North American regional editor for Reference Reviews?
SN: My involvement with Emerald began as a reviewer for an earlier journal, Electronic Resources Review (ERR). Back in 1998, I saw a call for reviewers posted on COLLIB-L. Norm Desmarais, ERR's editor, was looking for people to write reviews of electronic information products. I wrote a number of reviews for ERR between 1998 and 2000, and when Norm decided to step down as ERR editor, he asked me if I'd be interested in taking over. I served as ERR's editor between April and December 2000, at which point MCB decided to merge ERR with Reference Reviews. Since all of the librarians on my reviewing team happened to be from the US or Canada, when the two journals merged, I became the regional editor for North America. I also happen to handle only reviews of electronic products, but the Internet Editor reviews a few web sites (typically with a British emphasis) in each issue as well.
ICT: How do you coordinate and collaborate with the journal's other overseas editors?
SN: RR's primary editor coordinates the reviews of print materials; to them, he adds my contributions as well as the contributions and column of the Internet Editor, Rónán O'Beirne. Until recently, RR's editor was Stuart James of the University of Paisley, who also used to edit Library Review. Starting with next year's issues, Tony Chalcraft of York St. John College will take over this responsibility. I'm responsible for submitting at least 80 reviews of electronic products per year. This works out to about 10 per issue. To avoid duplication, I keep Stuart/Tony apprised of the products that are currently being reviewed on the North American side. All of our communication is done via e-mail, although I've spoken to Stuart on the phone several times, and we got to meet in person at IFLA last year.
ICT: What do you look for in a good resource reviewer? Are they required to be subject specialists in the area(s) they review?
SN: I look for librarians who have experience working with and evaluating electronic information products and who are familiar with the challenges they provide. Reviewers should have the ability to write clearly, concisely, and logically. Since I have deadlines to observe, reviewers should also be able to hand their reviews in on time. RR reviewers choose the products they'd like to review based on a list I provide to them, and although they aren't required to be subject experts, it's recommended that they be familiar with the topic of the site/product in question.
ICT: How do you find potential reviewers for the journal, and are you currently looking for additional contributors?
SN: So far I've been very successful in posting calls for reviewers on electronic discussion lists. I ask for people to send me an e- mail describing their experience with electronic resources as well as their subject interests. Although I'm not actively soliciting a large number of new reviewers, any librarian who's interested in being a contributor to RR is welcome to drop me an e-mail. Public and school librarians are particularly needed, although all types of librarians are welcome to inquire.
ICT: What do newer reviewers find most difficult about the reviewing process? What tips would you have for writing a useful review?
SN: What I've found is that new reviewers have quite a bit of experience describing and navigating web sites; knowledge in this area seems to be the norm. The challenge, though, is not to get caught up in evaluating the medium and forget to review the content as well. I like reviews that draw a balance between a site's navigability/design and its content, as well as between description and critique/analysis. It's not easy to do this in around 500 words, but it's certainly possible. Each review should follow a logical progression: an initial paragraph should introduce the site and its intended purpose, and the review should conclude with a recommendation. I have guidelines available for reviewers to consult. Another thing that new reviewers find difficult is writing a negative review, even if they feel that it's justified.
ICT: What advice would you have for reviewers who find themselves having to write a negative review?
SN: Although people get nervous at the thought of criticizing someone else's work in print, negative reviews do serve a useful purpose. It's helpful to keep your audience in mind when writing a review, and in the case of RR, the audience is your fellow professionals, typically reference and acquisitions librarians whose responsibility it is to decide what databases to select, or which web resources to make accessible. If there are aspects of a product that need improvement, reviewers have an obligation to mention them. However, all criticism should be constructive; reviewers should suggest ways in which the product could be improved. They should also mention alternative resources, in cases where a site/product cannot be recommended. Database publishers do take reviewers' comments seriously, and they take them into account when deciding how to develop their products further.
ICT: What advantages accrue to those who contribute to the profession as reviewers?
SN: Through reviewing, librarians can gain a greater understanding of the various ways there are to evaluate information resources, something that can be helpful on the job. Professional publications such as reviews can be very useful in promotion/tenure situations; they're also good to have on the resume when it comes to finding new employment. In addition, through reviewing, you can hone your writing skills. Short pieces are always more challenging to write than long ones, because they force you to make every word count. A number of RR reviewers have gone on to write lengthier pieces, such as WebWatch columns for Library Journal (which is how I got my start!) as well as full-length articles for other professional journals. Several also review regularly for CHOICE. Finally, you can get a good deal of personal satisfaction out of seeing your name in print!
ICT: Is there anything else you'd like to share about the reviewing process at Reference Reviews?
SN: For new reviewers, the first review or two can be a collaborative endeavor, as there may be some back-and-forth with questions and corrections as we turn an initial draft into a finished product. But I'm always willing to work with librarians interested in learning how the process works.
Sarah Nesbeitt is Assistant Professor of Library Services at Eastern Illinois University and the co-author of The Information Professional's Guide To Career Development Online (Information Today, 2002). She also serves as the American editor of the Historical Novels Review.