universidade federal de santa catarina pós-graduação em letras ...

79L and E point out that book reviewing depends on personal preference or talent:[L]Some people are better at producing work, while others are better at evaluatingor critiquing work, and some people can do both. Those who make theircontribution to the development of science in a more creative way seem to beregarded as more significant professionals, although the reviewers are not to beseen as unimportant.[E]There are some people who always write reviews in opposition to others thatnever write them. Some people are quite willing and do it a lot. Other people,never.Reviewers also seem to have ‘social’ reasons for reviewing books such asmaintaining good terms with other discipline members, as illustrated by C:[C]Usually there is no personal interest in publishing a review except for puttingyour own opinions out in the public sphere. (1) A special case is when you thinkhighly of somebody who has written a book and would like to review the bookin order to give it a good review because you are convinced it is a good book. (2)At the same time you do not want it to get a weak or inappropriate review, andby writing the review yourself you make sure that this important book isreviewed properly. Emphasizing the good points and giving the bad points anappropriate perspective. (3) There is finally the situation in which having a bookthat needs to be reviewed, one contacts a colleague, saying that she needs to getthat book reviewed and preferably by someone who really understands thesubject. As a personal favor to that person, the colleague may agree to do it.C’s statement can be seen as an illustration of existing social norms and powerrelations in chemistry that are exercised through book reviewing. A social norm of peer