Book Reviews Published in Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research during 2002-2007: a Quantitative Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2011/v48i1/43929Keywords:
Book Review, Quantitative Analysis, Journal of Scientific and Industrial ResearchAbstract
Sixty seven book reviews published in Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research during 2002-2007 are quantitatively analysed in this study. The scrutiny of data revealed that 70% of the books reviewed were original works. Nearly 50% of the works were single authored. Documents reviewed comprised monographs (94%), yearbook, reviews and special issue of journal. About 60% of the books were published from New Delhi. 19 publishers were responsible for publishing 67 books. Response Books, a division of Sage publications alone had published 29 books coming to the top position. Price range of 44% Indian books were within Rs.251-500. Thirty one scientists belonging to 14 institutions were responsible for the review works. Pagination of books ranges from 100 to mote than 1000 pages. Books containing 201-300 pages accounted for 39%. Broad classification showed that books on applied sciences accounted for about 50%Downloads
References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_review (accessed on 21.6.2008).
Guha (B). Reviewing books. IASLIC Bulletin. Vol.40; 1995; p181-184.
Satarkar (S P), Kulkarni (J N); Waghmode (S S). Book reviews published in the Hindu: a study. ILA Bulletin. Vol. 39; 2003; p34-39.
Koley (Susanta); Sen (B K). A quantitative analysis of book reviews published in Current Science: 2002-2005. Current Science. Vol. 91(12); 2006; p1616-1620.
Downloads
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All the articles published in Journal of Information and Knowledge are held by the Publisher. Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science (SRELS), as a publisher requires its authors to transfer the copyright prior to publication. This will permit SRELS to reproduce, publish, distribute and archive the article in print and electronic form and also to defend against any improper use of the article.
Accepted 2013-12-27