Reviews of science books

I would like to get people's opinions on what constitutes a good review of a science book.

Obviously, there may be several sub-categories under that heading: popular science, text book, monograph, reference, etc. Each of these sub-categories could have different review standards.

Thanks!

Are you talking about reviews on LT, blog reviews or reviews in journals? I think there are different answers for each category.

Personally, I read popular science books, and the LT reviews I write or appreciate are more about the level of literacy displayed and the emotional impact, rather than the actual content (in scientific terms). However, While I might appreciate the writing style of Stephen J. Gould, I find that his science turns me off sufficiently that I haven't explored his books to any great degree, even given the general level of plaudits that they gather.

Noisy, I'm more interested in LT reviews. So, thanks for your suggestions regarding popular science books.

I'm still wondering about what people would expect from an LT review of a monograph or a text book. I know what reviews of such books like like in technical publications. But I'm not sure that a detailed list and crituque of all the topics covered, chapter by chapter, is the right thing to put on on LT.

I think the best advice when it comes to what to write in LT reviews is to write what you'd want to read. What would you want to know about a monograph or textbook that you haven't read but are looking at on LT?

I think a plausible compromise could be to provide a lay-person review first, followed by a detailed technical critique - that way both audiences could find something useful.

What's wrong with Gould's science?

5>

Wonderful Life was one of the first popular science books that I read. I really enjoyed the first half of the book, and then in the middle was a section promoting his theory of group selection. As a layman I could tell that there was something seriously wrong with that theory. I did a bunch more reading, and then read The Crucible of Creation. It became apparent that Gould was using the sketchy facts on the Burgess Shale available at the time of writing in order to shore up his own theory, rather than relying on the experts in the field. I will read more of his stuff in the future, but my bullshit detector will be on maximum alert.

Here's the view of a population geneticist.

I've tried to strike a different tone based on the level of the book. A couple examples include The Map that changed the world, Krakatoa, and beak of the finch. As an example of a technical reference book, I reviewed The eastern oyster. I'd appreciate constructive feedback, as I attempt to improve my book reviewing. Cheers!

> 7

I'd appreciate constructive feedback, as I attempt to improve my book reviewing.

You might be interested in the Reviews Reviewed group.

Thanks lilithcat, I just joined that group. There are so many these days, it's hard to keep track and find the ones that may be interesting! Cheers!

I have been reading 'ARMAGEDDON SCIENCE, the Science of Mass Destruction' (2010) and am unable to resist pointing out some minor errors in the text.
On page 26, the author states "the Large Hadron-Collider has been brought to it's full capacity." So far as I am told, the LHC has is still in the process of being tested at far less than it's full power, and may not do so for another year.
On page 28, the author states that rockets putting a satellite in to orbit are launched "against the spin of the Earth." In actuality, they are launched 'with' the spin of the Earth. Any spot on the Earth's Equator is moving eastward at approximately 1,000 miles an hour, thus any rocket launched eastward is already moving that fast around the Earth. If you think this is insignificant, think how much power is needed to accelerate a 200 ton rocket to 1,000 MPH.

So far as I am told, the LHC has is still in the process of being tested at far less than it's full power, and may not do so for another year.

You are correct that the LHC is not yet running at its design energy of 14 TeV center of mass energy. Last year it ran proton--proton collisions at 7 TeV and lead--lead collisions at 2.76 TeV, and it will continue at roughly the same energies this year. The LHC plans I heard most recently (which can change depending on conditions and developments, and may have changed already) scheduled a roughly year-long shutdown for 2012, with several years of 14 TeV running to begin in 2013.

From the latest CERN press release:
"Details of the 2011 LHC run and plans for 2012 will be set following a special workshop to be held in Chamonix from 24-28 January, while the first beams of 2011 are scheduled for mid-February."