Note to narcissistic reviewers: start a blog!

It is difficult to make a genuine contribution to philosophy. It is also not always easy to spot a genuine contribution to philosophy and be confident about the source of the contribution. Reviewers play an indispensable role in our shared evaluation of ongoing professional research. Unlike many other forms of  evaluation (tenure reviews, referee reports, bar-talk, Q&As, etc.), they are part of the public record. Reviews can also help maintain and articulate standards, and, perhaps, catch and prevent professional malfeasance. (This is not to deny the many other roles that reviews can play!) 

Reviews should be informative and fair by conveying the content of the book reviewed with particular focus on the contributions to the literature and the strength or weaknesses of the argument. (Obviously, the reviews that are most entertaining to read have a distinct point of view.) Some -- often senior males -- abuse reviews in order to share their views on some topic without being informative or fair. (Recall this post.) In such cases the book review becomes an excuse to share one's views to a philosophical audience without having to deal with pesky referees. (We have blogs for that!) For example,  Jeffrey A. Barrett uses his recent review to offer his take on the broader issues in the philosophy of quantum mechanics. He does so by a clever ploy: he praises the volume ("This is an uncommonly good collection of essays on the metaphysical foundations of quantum mechanics") and, especially, singles out for praise the "fifty-page introduction to the topic by co-editor Alyssa Ney." Yet, he offers no evidence that he has grappled with the other chapters. (He seems to have read Valia Allori's chapter.) Rather, we get a kind of 'meta' reflection not irrelevant to the volume, but also not quite engaged. This is a great shame because given his expertise, I would have been very curious about what Barrett has to say about the chapters under review; it's an exciting field, and it would have been very welcome to hear how an acknowledged expert evaluates the various pros/cons of the proposals on the table.  

One might think that reviewing an edited volume forces the revier into a choice that excuses Barrett's decision. Given the existence of space-constraints and the legitimate desire to avoid merely offering summary one might think that Barrett was just sensible in offering what he (and evidently the editors at NDPR [my favorite morning snack!]) took to be as interesting commentary on otherwise extremely technical material. Yet, just a few weeks ago, Richard Healey offered a model of how to review an edited volume (on a related topic). It is very informative and critical. (I cannot judge if it is fair to the volume under review.) Healey does not disguise his perspective, by the way; the review is (ultimately) even polemical

Obviously, there also will be judgments on which folk can disagree. I offer two examples. First, this review by Peter Godfrey-Smith primarily uses the review to advocate an alternative vision from the book under review. He does so, however, through extensive engagement with the reviewed book. Upon reading the review, I had a lingering sense that I probably did not learn enough about the possible strengths and innovations, if any, of Davies' book. So, I suspect the review is probably not informative enough. Second, a review by Gilbert Harman of a book by Adam Morton offers summary with extensive quotes (although oddly without page-references) and only praise.  Now I adore Morton's work, but no-criticism-at-all strikes me as excessive and ultimately not useful. Yet, facebook discussion revealed to me that others find this (lack of narcissism and criticism) refreshing.