7/28/2019 How to Write a Good Review

1/3

How to write a good review?

The contributors to the Theologische Literaturzeitung are of course able to find an answer to this question by

themselves. In some cases, however, people might want to know whether their opinion agrees with that of the

editorial board of the ThLZ. In addition, people who publish their first review or students who have not yet

attempted the rather difficult task of reviewing may find the following advice interesting and helpful. During mytime as a student I appreciated a colloquium with the prosaic but very clear title New theological literature

which was offered permanently by Kurt Nowak and Martin Petzoldt. In every semester each student had to

present a more or less scholarly book in such a way, that its main theses could be discussed reasonably by the

entire group. Often this was not easy but many students probably learned more in this colloquium then in many a

compulsory lecture and this knowledge could not only be used to evaluate texts written by other people but

also to write own texts. Many of the things I learned in this colloquium returns in the following advice section.

I would like to remind our reviewers in the first place, that the Theologische Literaturzeitung is a journal for

the entire field of theology and religious studies. This means: The reviews must be written not only for two or

three colleagues-in-arms with in-depth knowledge on the subject matter although according to Christian

understanding this number of people is sufficient for worship - but also for the taxonomist, who should be able to

read the exegete's review of a subject with interest and should not have to give up in desperation because of

excessive discussions of date issues unintelligible for him due to his limited knowledge of the subject details.

Religious Philosophers on the other hand should not use every opportunity to create new terms if they want to be

read also by exegetes or practical theologians. Historians, however, may refer to the genuine theological

consequences of the reviewed five to eight hundred-page volume a couple of times, as long as they understand

that dogmatic and moral theologians also need space for living. Considering, that in the best off all possible

worlds also students should be able to read and understand the ThLZ, the reviewing task is always similar to

squaring the circle. This is what our reviewers should try to achieve. The following guidelines provide a little

help:

Monographs:

1) Short introductory information should be given about unknown authors but, to avoid embarrassing situations,

really only about unknown authors. For example, in the case of dissertations and graduation theses it is often

useful to mention the supervisor and the field of study, but lone warriors may also be acknowledged as such. The

religious denomination of the author is not always, but sometimes of interest.

2) In order to facilitate better understanding of an authors theses it can be useful to describe the book within its

contexts. Which position does it hold within the range of other works of the author, if there are such, and how

can it be classified in the context of similar scientific, ecclesiastic or ecumenical discourses of past and present

times?

3) After a general classification of the work the review should outline the position of the author in the overall

discourse on the subject matter and list the authors central issue(s).

4) After this the authors methodical approach may be discussed: What is his aim which way does the author use

to achieve this aim and of which basic decisions or assumptions does this way consist? Here a description of the

works contents and construction is necessary for this purpose the table of contents can be used, although it

should not be described in extenso or merely recapitulated. The works description should a lso not consist of a

7/28/2019 How to Write a Good Review

2/3

string of quotes. The author may be quoted from time to time, but the main argument should not be repeated in

the form of a half-column quote or, to make matters worse, in a foreign language.

5) In case the work provides a good amount of interesting digressions, self-contained reviews of other authors or

thematic disquisitions that one would not expect to find under the works title, the review should point them out.

6) In the end of the review the works results, findings, and producti ve theses should be acknowledged and canbe transformed into own approaches, whereby the reviewer should not abstain from further inquiries or, if

necessary, objective critical remarks. Good reviews require the courage to evaluate, of course not in a know-it-all

fashion. Well-founded comments signed with the name of the commentators are an essential element of scholary

discourse. For this reason we try to avoid reviews repeating a books content as well as polemic judgements that

cannot be verified in the book reviewed.

7) Last but not least short information about the stilistic quality of a book, its formal layout and appendices as

well as scholarly accurateness (correctness or amount of mistakes, quality of annotations or indices) can prove

valuable for the reader. Reviewers should, however, abstain from long lists of mistakes; in case an error review

seems necessary, the reviewer can point this out by noting that a list of corrections is available on demand.

Anthologies, textbooks, editions and encyclopedias provide special challenges. For these kinds of publications

many things said in the monograph section apply as well, but there are also other things that must be considered:

1) When reviewing anthologies, it must be checked, whether all articles deal with the same topic and, if yes,

whether the topic was dealt with consistently. Due to limitations of space it is not advisable to list all articles of

an anthology in a review - except for special casesinstead, the most helpful articles may be emphasized.

2) Textbooks naturally have to be considered from the perspective of their intended recipients. The trivial issue

of length does not only play a role in the review of exegetical commentaries. How many pages can the average

education-hungry reader cope with? Another important issue with textbooks is their didactical approach. Is there

a didactical method and is it helpful? Or does a book consist mainly of didactic considerations, without a proper

presentation of content?

3) Reviewing editions requires especially in times of limited research funds special responsibility and

quality. The first task here is to outline the guidelines of the edition and check, how strictly they were observed

within the edition. In addition, the classification of the edition in the context of the current scientific debate is

very important.

4) It is almost always impossible to write a fair review of big encyclopedias, even if the reviewer graciously

considers the different approaches of the various authors and the usually long time period between the writing of

the first contributions and the publication of the book. Nevertheless the basic concept and its realization is

important for the evaluation of an encyclopedia, as well as the proportions of the different subject fields, the

marking of terms that will often be searched for, and the quality of the definitions.

It is of course easy to write more, but maybe this is already too much. Not every advice has to be observed for

every book and our reviewers will know, which hints are useful in their special cases.

I would nevertheless like to point out one last thing. Different disciplines may have their own terminology and

conventions and do not have to live up to highest literary standards. However, also technical discourse language

should use a good style in order to make sure that its contents are well understood. In the ThLZ sentences may

7/28/2019 How to Write a Good Review

3/3

be long, but they must be intelligible and structured up to the end. This is not only required by our responsibility

for the German language, but also especially because of our broad international readership. And like our

readership, also the range of books covered by the ThLZ is also very international, which quite understandably

leads to the widely used practice of including quotes of any language into German sentences. This is common

practice and cannot be avoided, but should be considered with special attention, since the share of correctgrammatical constructions in such cases lies far below 100 per cent.

If this contribution managed to motivate our long-standing reviewers and convince hesitating would-be

colleagues, it has fulfilled its task.

Dr. Annette Weidhas