One thing I’ve spent quite a bit of time doing over the past year or so is technically reviewing books. As an author too, I’ve been on both sides of the process, so I thought I’d leave some thoughts in the form of tips for technical reviewers.
1. Be polite but firm
There’s nothing worse than a technical reviewer who is rude (I suppose this applies to people in life too), and it’s all too easy to come across as such when leaving text-based comments on someone else’s work. For me, I would guess this is for two primary reasons:
- Rude or unnecessarily provocative comments are likely to obscure the point you are trying to make with a blur of fury on the part of the author
- It lessens the respect of the author for the technical reviewer to the point that future comments may go unheeded, even if they are viable
I make a concerted effort to re-read any feedback I write during the review process to make sure it comes across as friendly and helpful, and to make sure that the point(s) you’re making are clear to the author.
2. Focus on technical content
Secondly, with the publishers I’ve reviewed/reviewing for, there is a general editor on the project. As such, it is your job not to correct spelling errors and grammatical mistakes, as annoying as they might be. Equally, if you feel the style of writing or mistakes within the chapter make the content unintelligible, so say (remember, polite but firm!).
A good example of this that comes to mind is from one book I was involved in as an author: I had used the word ‘minimises‘ rather than the American-ised ‘minimizes‘. Not in itself a problem – the general editor should pick this error up if it betrays the publisher’s style guidelines. A (presumably American) technical reviewer on this particular book, however, took it upon himself to add a comment to the document where the word occurred, to the effect of:
Is this even a word?
I have to admit, my first reaction was to laugh (surely no-one is that stupid?!), followed by questioning which gutter this reviewer was found in! As a technical reviewer, you’re engaged to review the technical content of the book, not to convert the words to American-English! Simple.
3. Focus on the intended readership of the book
As a technical reviewer, you’re likely to come across content that is technically accurate, but which isn’t described in a way which the target readership of the book will understand.
It’s your job to tell the author (or publisher) if you believe that the content of a chapter you are reviewing needs better – or deeper – explanation.
As an author, it can be quite easy to assume too much (or too little) of your readers, and it’s useful to know when you’ve done this!
4. Comment on the chapter overall
This last point is something that mystifies me when I receive a chapter that has been technically reviewed: the lack of a comment on the overall content of the chapter.
I usually leave an initial comment in a document I’m reviewing this give my overall impression of the content:
- Is everything that could be covered mentioned? Is anything obvious missing from the chapter?
- Is the content covered in enough detail, in the context of the likely readership?
- Could diagrams or illustrations be used to reinforce points made in the text?
- Does the chapter flow nicely with the remainder of the document (if appropriate)?
In summary
- Stay polite, but be firm: if content is not clear, it is your duty to the author, publisher and future readers of the book to
- As a rule, only comment on the technical comment of the book and avoid pointing out grammatical errors
- Remember the book’s audience: it makes sense to you, but would it make sense to a potential reader? This is particularly important for technical jargon and acronyms
- Comment on the chapter as a whole: let the author know if they’ve missed any content
I hope that was a useful 30 minutes or so of my time!