Abstract Academic blogs are becoming increasingly frequent, visible and important in both disciplinary and ‘outreach’ communication, offering a space for scholars and interested publics to discuss and evaluate research. Like the more traditional book review, blog responses require writers to engage and assess the ideas presented in another, public, text, but bloggers face criticism from both lay and academic readers in ways that may be unfamiliar to them. In this paper we consider how far blog responses are an ‘academic review genre’ like the familiar book review, and compare how writers construct criticism in the two genres. Based on two corpora of 36 book reviews and 270 blog comments, we examine the frequency, form and focus of criticism exploring how the constraints and affordances of each genre contribute to very different evaluative contexts. We show that the medium has a significant impact on the strategies writers use and that blog comments both reflect the directness and informality of online communication while respecting some of the conventions of academic engagement. The results contribute to our understanding of how context influences rhetorical choices and may be valuable to those participating in both blogs and review genres.

中文翻译：

---

管理评估：两种学术评论类型的批评

摘要 学术博客在学科和“外展”交流中变得越来越频繁、可见和重要，为学者和感兴趣的公众提供了讨论和评估研究的空间。与更传统的书评一样，博客回复要求作者参与并评估另一个公开文本中提出的想法，但博客作者可能会以他们可能不熟悉的方式面临来自非专业和学术读者的批评。在本文中，我们考虑了博客回复在多大程度上是一种类似于熟悉的书评的“学术评论类型”，并比较了作者如何在这两种类型中构建批评。基于 36 篇书评和 270 篇博客评论的两个语料库，我们检查了批评的频率、形式和重点，探讨了每种类型的约束和可供性如何导致截然不同的评价环境。我们表明，媒体对作者使用的策略有重大影响，博客评论既反映了在线交流的直接性和非正式性，同时又尊重了一些学术参与的惯例。结果有助于我们理解语境如何影响修辞选择，并且可能对那些同时参与博客和评论类型的人有价值。