Webinar for HAI members - Human-Animal InteractionHuman-Animal Interaction

Guidelines: Book Reviews

Professional Book Review

Writing a book review is an important service, of an importance similar to that of peer reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication. A professional book review goes beyond simply summarizing the book’s content. Rather, it is a critical peer evaluation that can affect the way in which colleagues regard the book, influence others’ decisions to read the book, and therefore, ultimately, help determine its contribution to the field.

Recommended word length
Approximately 1000 words (not including references).

Review Elements

Provide full bibliographic details of the book. This should include: author, title, edition, publisher, place of publication, and year of publication.
Prepare a brief description of the contents of the book. This description may include:
- The subject of the book and general body of psychological knowledge to which it belongs;
- The thesis of the book (i.e., author(s)’ beliefs, philosophy, or propositions);
- The intended audience;
- The author(s) purpose in writing the book;
- A brief definition of the book’s scope (i.e., does it provide a comprehensive overview or a detailed analysis of the subject matter?);
- A brief description of the structure of the book, including a reference to the author(s) writing style (e.g., formal or informal, professional or non-professional), and if there are several authors, the way in which the various contributions are integrated;
- A brief summary of the contents;
Include a brief description of the impact of the book:
- Describe the author(s)’ authority (i.e., what particular credentials and expertise do they have to write about the subject?);
- Does the author(s) display any particular point of view or biases?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the book?
- Is the subject matter of the book and author(s) writing style appropriate for the intended audience?
- Did the author(s) achieve their stated objectives?
- Does the book have any particular features (e.g., illustrations, references, subject index, case studies) and how effectively are these features used?
Does the book make a valuable and or unique contribution to the body of HAI knowledge? If in your judgment as reviewer it does, support your claim with evidence (e.g., examples from the book and or other suitable references). Similarly, evidence should be provided if in your assessment the book does not make a valuable contribution.
- Final assessment of the book.
- Do you recommend that your HAI colleagues buy this book? Would you buy this book?

Print or download “Guidelines: Book Reviews”

×

Guidelines: Review Articles

Review articles of good quality are frequently needed in the presence of the growing number of research papers as a way of helping to organize some aspect of the entire field, often focusing specifically on theory development or evaluation. A review article is expected to provide a summary and/or a synthesis of the findings of selected research contributions being published by other authors. The main purpose of a review article is to examine the current state of the relevant publications on a given topic and to initiate a discussion about the research methodologies and the findings related to the topic. Therefore, a review article should contain a comprehensive list of supporting references being thoroughly cited in the text.

The structure of a review article will differ from the structure of a regular paper due to the optional omission of some basic sections such as Methods, Results, or Discussion.

Review articles will be generally evaluated on:

The number and significance of the publications reviewed;
The extent to which the article can be used to support the development, or evaluation of a theoretical framework;
The knowledge and competence of the review author(s) with regard to the subject area under review, as evidenced by the acuity of the observations;
The objectivity of the review author(s) in assessing a cross-section of related publications or theories without bias as to selection or analysis;
The balance between tables or figures and narrative text used by the author(s) in presenting their summaries and observations;
The ability of the author(s) to draw connections/distinctions among the results being reported, and to present that information in the form of a coherent discussion; and
Any suggestions provided for future areas of research that flow from the papers reviewed.

Print or download “Guidelines: Review Articles”

×

Guidelines: Descriptive Investigations

The goal of descriptive investigation is to describe. It should provide factual, accurate and systematic descriptions of phenomena without attempting to infer causal relationships. It does not answer questions about the how, when, or why a particular phenomenon occurred. It should serve to provide a foundation for building new knowledge and theory (such studies should be directed at providing novel data on important and unknown phenomena, e.g., dynamics of affect, performance, or other behaviors; discovery and documentation of new, important, and meaningful phenomena); and provide rigorously conducted qualitative information on phenomena that are difficult to capture with quantitative methods.

Descriptive Investigations will be evaluated generally on:

The originality, clarity and importance of the research question
The appropriateness of the study design to the research question
The size and representativeness of the sample chosen
The robustness of the data collection process, including choice of instruments or tools
The rigor and transparency of the analysis (including the coherence of the theoretical framework)
The logic and coherence of the links made between findings
The researchers awareness of the possibility of error and the steps taken to minimize or the potential for error throughout the research process

Specific Reviewer Guidelines for Descriptive Investigations:

Is this manuscript appropriate for HAIB ? Explain.
Is the title clear, accurate and unambiguous?
Evaluate the abstract. Does it offer a clear, but brief, overview of the study including the research problem, sample, methodology, finding(s) and recommendations?
Evaluate the introduction. Does it provide an appropriate background setting and foundation for the study? Was appropriate literature presented or are important elements/studies omitted? Does it flow logically and lead the reader directly to the study presented? Are all the terms, theories and concepts mentioned in the study dearly defined?
Evaluate the Method Section. Is the research design clearly identified? Are all appropriate APA subsections included? Has the data gathering instrument been described? Is the instrument appropriate? How was it developed? Were reliability and validity testing undertaken and the results discussed? Was a pilot study undertaken? Does the data collection method fit with the definition of “Descriptive Investigations?” If the sample size is small, do the authors explain why more participants were not included? Does this study provide new and innovative information that could serve as the basis for future quantitative study? Has the target population been clearly identified? Was the method of selection of participants appropriate? Are the inclusion/exclusion criteria dearly identified?
Evaluate the Results. Were appropriate descriptive statistical methods used? Are the results clearly stated and in APA style? How many of the sample participated? Do you consider the findings to be meaningful and important information that future researchers could benefit from?
Evaluate the Discussion. Did the author(s) appropriately evaluate their results and was that evaluation reasonable and supported by the data? Are the findings linked back to the literature review? If a hypothesis was identified was it supported? Did the authors make any causal inferences from their descriptive study? Were the strengths and limitations of the study including generalizability discussed? Was a recommendation for further research made?
Evaluate References, Tables, Figures, and Appendices. Are they appropriate and/or necessary? Do the references cited match those actually used in the text? Specifically, comment on the visual aspects, organization, and appearance, of any figures or tables included.
In your opinion, was every precaution taken to insure the health and safety of all participants (both human and animal)? Was approval sought from an IRB and/or IACUC? Did participants provide informed consent to participate in the study?
Evaluate the writing style of the paper. Is the report well written – concise, and grammatically correct? Is it well organized and free of jargon?
Evaluate the potential contribution of the paper to the field of HAI.
Which of the following action decisions would you recommend regarding this paper?
- Accept.
- Accept with minor revisions
- Possibly accept, contingent upon major revisions.
- Reject.

Please feel free to include any additional comments at the end of your review. If there are concerns that you would like to voice only to the co-editors of HAIB , please add a section labeled “For Editors Only” at the end of your review.

Print or download “Guidelines: Descriptive Investigations”

×

Guidelines: Empirical Investigations

The scientific method is the foundation of empirical investigations, wherein one or more independent variables are manipulated and one or more dependent measures are recorded. The researcher uses random assignment whenever possible or appropriate as well as a variety of control techniques to reduce threats to internal validity while balancing the need to for external validity. At least one hypothesis, often derived from a theoretical framework, is tested by means of quantifiable evidence. Many researchers also add qualitative forms of evidence to their overall analysis and synthesis of findings to support or refute a theory or hypothesis.

Reviewer Guidelines

Is this manuscript appropriate for HAIB ? Explain. If it is not appropriate, can you suggest an alternate journal/publication to which the author should submit?
Evaluate the abstract. Is it appropriate in length and information content? Does it provide a clear, but brief, description of the paper?
Evaluate the introduction. Does it provide an appropriate background setting and foundation for the study? Was appropriate literature presented or are important elements/studies omitted? Does it flow logically and lead the reader directly to the study presented? If hypotheses are included, are they relevant, appropriate and logically derived?
Evaluate the Method Section. Are all appropriate APA subsections included? Were the subjects sufficient in number, and appropriate in type, to the question under consideration? Is the procedure and methodology appropriate? Do you see in flaws in the design or problems with reliability and/or validity?
Evaluate the Results. Were appropriate statistics used? Are the results clearly stated and in APA style?
Evaluate the Discussion. Did the author(s) appropriately evaluate their results and were their conclusions reasonable and supported by the data?
Evaluate References, Tables, Figures, and Appendices. Are they appropriate and/or necessary? Specifically, comment on the visual aspects, organization, and appearance, of any figures or tables included.
In your opinion, was every precaution taken to insure the health and safety of all participants (both human and animal)? Was approval sought from an IRB and/or IACUC? Did participants provide informed consent to participate in the study?
Evaluate the writing style of the paper.
Evaluate the potential contribution of the paper to the field of HAI.
Which of the following action decisions would you recommend regarding this paper?
- Accept.
- Accept with minor revisions.
- Possibly accept, contingent upon major revisions.
- Reject.

Please feel free to include any additional comments at the end of your review. If there are concerns that you would like to voice only to the co-editors of HAIB, please add a section labeled “For Editors Only” at the end of your review.

Print or download “Guidelines: Empirical Investigations”

×

Our next FREE online webinar for HAI members.