Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Disciplinary Fluidity: Academic Journals, Book Reviewing, Information and Knowledge Flow

  • Published:
Publishing Research Quarterly Aims and scope

Abstract

Book reviews are an indicator of information and knowledge flow. This study explores and discusses the importance of disciplinary cultures among academic disciplines and disciplinary influence. Utilizing book reviews in disciplinary publications in history for the years 2016–2020, from two canonical history databases, a bibliometric view emerging of a selection of subjects reviewed in journals not associated with the disciplinary subject of research. Examination of book reviews for the fluidity of knowledge in academic disciplines provides evidence of information and knowledge flow in publishing academic books. Data and discussion further frames and situates the growing hybridization of subjects of research and their disciplinary publishing. Book reviews, as a barometer and approach to examining this phenomenon, illustrates book reviewing vis-à-vis academic disciplinary journals that are receptive to other disciplinary objects of research, not generally associated with that discipline. As scholarly research continues to metamorphose, book reviewing assumes a receptive and broader intellectual and publishing ecology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Sovietology is an illustrative example of a domain of knowledge, which originated with the Cold War, only to become moribund and vanish from the academic sense once the Soviet Union collapsed.

  2. Some societal flagship journals place a concerted emphasis on book reviewing, e.g. especially American Historical Review, as well as Journal of American History.

  3. As digital humanities, geo-humanities, and GIS approaches flourish within the academy, more such cross-disciplinary book reviewing will take place.

  4. Per A.H.R. statement, expressing reviewing a wide range of scholarship: “Reviewing books and other historical material of professional interest—including films, public history sites and museums, collections of documents, websites, podcasts, and many genres of popular culture relevant to historians—is a primary responsibility of the AHR.” https://academic.oup.com/ahr/pages/reviews_guide. Retrieved 5/5/21; Per JAH statement: “The Journal of American History aims to be a journal of record that enables readers to keep abreast of what is produced in the field of American history. By making readers aware of new books and helping them identify and assess those useful to them, the editorial board and staff of the JAH hope to assure its role as a journal of record and to sustain historical scholarship. The Journal does not accept unsolicited book reviews.” https://jah.oah.org/submit/book-reviews/. Retrieved 5/5/21.

References

  1. Abbott A. Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Becher T. Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Stud High Educ. 1981;6:109–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown R. Reasons for publishing scholarly book reviews from a journal editor’s perspective. J Schol Publish. 2018;50(1):21–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Buchanan AL, Hérubel JPVM. Interdisciplinarity: the case of historical geography through citation analysis. Collect Build. 1994;14(1):15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell D. Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale model of omniscience. In: Sherif M, Sherif CW, editors. Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences. Chicago: Aldine; 1969. p. 328–48.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Champion DJ, Morris MF. A content analysis of book reviews in the AJS, ASR, and Social Forces. The Am Sociolog Rev. 1973;78(5):1256–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hérubel JPVM. Disciplinary permeability, academic specializations, and university presses. Publish Res Quart. 2020;36(1):17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hartley J. Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2006;57(9):1194–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hérubel Jean-Pierre VM. Situating clio’s influence in humanities and social science monographs: disciplinary affiliations and historical scholarship. J Sch Publ. 2009;41:56–66.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hérubel, Jean-Pierre V. M. "Interdisciplinary Characteristics of Historical Monographs and Intellectual Interactions at Work in Historical Scholarship: An Exploratory Discussion." In Estonian Research Council and COLLNET 9th International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics and 14th COLLNET Meeting Proceedings, Tartu, Estonia (August 15–17, 2013): pp. 240–252.

  11. Hérubel JP, Goedeken EA. University presses and emerging disciplinary confgurations and orientations: an exploration and discussion. Publish Res Quart. 2019;35(1):39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hérubel JP. The book review landscape in american history: specialization, segmentation, value, and history journals. Publish Res Quart. 2020;36(3):350–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lamont M. How professors think: inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Lindholm-Romantschuk Y. Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities: the flow of ideas within and among disciplines. Westport: Greenwood Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Perry S. Who do you think you are? Reading, authority, and book reviewing. J Sch Publ. 2018;50(1):12–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shapin S. “Discipline and bounding: the history and sociology of science as seen through the externalism-internalism debate. Hist Sci. 1992;30:333–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Stahl L. So what if it’s not the New York times why one university press seeks book reviews in scholarly journals. J Schol Publish. 2018;50(1):8–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stowe S. Thinking about reviews. J Am History. 1991;78(2):591–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zuccala A. Thed van Leeuwen, “Book reviews in humanities research evaluations.” J Am Soci Info Sci Tech. 2011;62:1979–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Libraries and School of Information Studies, HSSE, Purdue University, 504 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2058, USA

    Jean-Pierre V. M. Hérubel

Authors
  1. Jean-Pierre V. M. Hérubel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Pierre V. M. Hérubel.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hérubel, JP.V.M. Disciplinary Fluidity: Academic Journals, Book Reviewing, Information and Knowledge Flow. Pub Res Q 37, 407–419 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09824-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09824-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation