The session was chaired by Douglas Greenberg, President of the Chicago Historical Society, a member of the H-Net Executive Committee and AHA Council. All the panelists were individuals involved in the dissemination of book reviews in either electronic or print format.

1. Mark Kornbluh of Michigan State, coeditor of two lists in H-Net and Chair of H-Net's Executive Committee, gave an overview of the book review program on H-Net as it has evolved under his direction during the past year. He cited the following advantages of cyber-reviews:

   >greater speed (a few months, as opposed to a year to a year and a half for print journals): this means that the review influences personal and library sales earlier in the print run of a book, with potentially significant impact on its economic viability;

   >greater length (since cost and format place no limitations): reviewers can provide a fuller treatment of a book's content and a more nuanced, hence more balanced critique;

   >in their electronic format reviews are sortable and searchable; >publications in a variety of formats are being reviewed; >lists' varied memberships mean that books are examined from multiple perspectives, and have a broader impact: there may even be multiple reviews on H-Lists of the same book;

   >reviews can be interactive, with authors and subscribers invited to respond immediately.

   With enhanced support from Michigan State, H-Net now has the means to expand its reviewing. It has published three hundred reviews in the past three months.

H-Net reviews draw on the following strengths: Publishers are pleased by the rapidity of our reviewing. Our editors are professional scholars, and hold reviewers to the same standards. The distribution of the lists is tremendous: 36,000 subscribers in 61 countries; individual lists are increasingly international.

There are important issues for reviewers to consider. While the culture of the Internet differs from that of the print world, lists must uphold scholarly standards. Furthermore, interactive reviews place enormous demands on reviewers to respond rapidly and to participate in a constructive and civil dialogue. Electronic reviewing has great potential due to its international and egalitarian character; we must think hard about what we do.

2. Sandra Kathryn Mathews-Lamb of the University of New Mexico and H-Rural spoke about two issues already touched upon by Kornbluh: interactive reviews and the possibility of interdisciplinary exchange. She pointed out that despite their potential interact ive reviews can in fact be quite slow if the authors being drawn into the discussion are unfamiliar with the Internet. The variety of members in a list (people may be more likely to try a list outside their discipline than they would a journal) and the p ractice of cross-posting (a review commissioned by one list may be posted to other lists in H-Net as well) all contribute to contacts across disciplinary boundaries. Finally, she stated her determination to establish more credibility for online reviews. She urged that people not currently on the Internet also be exposed to them.

3. Christopher Tomlins of the American Bar Association and the Law and History Review was the first representative of the print media to speak. He reported that a debate about whether to place his journal's reviews online was heated, and it was eventually decided not to do so. Participants felt this could have been the death blow of the journal: the reviews are "the map of the profession", and the main reason why the journal sells. Online reviews give all print editors pause, he added.

Yet Tomlins finds online reviewing exciting. He not only envies it, but feels reasonably secure about the immediate future of print journals. Alongside all the advantages of online reviews, he insisted that intellectual exchange and debate also takes place in the print media. He also rejected the notion that online reviews are free, pointing out the role of NEH grant money in the expansion of H-Net. As for the question of length, he stated that concise and efficient expression is the product of length limits, rather than of their absence. He agreed with Kornbluh's statement that there must be a sense of editorial responsibility.

4. John B. Boles of Rice University and the Journal of Southern History spoke next. He emphasized the scale of his journal's reviewing operation, and the care that goes into it. He makes careful notes of reviewers' performance. In the course of a year, the journal publishes some 250 reviews, yet it declines to review most of the books that it receives. In assigning reviewers, he determines not only who will be the best reviewer, but the most appropriate one. He examines the book itself carefully: the " best" reviewer may be disqualified if he is thanked in the Preface, or quoted on the book's blurb. He was also skeptical about the merits of longer reviews, especially if length was determined by the reviewer rather than the editor. And as for speed: fast reviews are good news for a book's publisher and author, but very late ones (after the flurry of reviews and market interest have died down) can be a good thing, too!

5. The next panelist was Kate Torrey, the Director of the University of North Carolina Press. She asserted at the outset that publishers and authors are in agreement: the more reviews a book receives, the better; the Internet offers excellent opportunities for marketing, and as far as publishers are concerned reviews are a form of marketing. She pointed out that there are various online book review operations at present: Historical Reviews Online, America Online, the Economist. The UNC Press has itself contacted listservs from time to time to propose reviews, and arranged to send review copies. But she said H-Net is by far the largest online operation, and very professional. Also, she likes very much that they are attentive to their audiences, and send publishers "tearsheets" (printouts or e-mail) of their posted reviews.

Torrey agreed with Tomlins that longer is not necessarily better, stating that publishers would rather have short reviews. She regrets that some less professional media [unlike H-Net] assign reviews to non-experts and volunteers. If it were up to UNCP, it would like to see all book reviews carry not only the name of UNCP and the price, but the press' 800 number and website address. Torrey recalled that H-Net proposed an online forum on a women's history title, but the volume editors were very reluctan t to respond to reviews. UNCP for its part discourages authors from responding to reviews [Torrey did not explain why]. UNCP likes the speed of online reviews. Yet speed itself can discourage the possibility of dialogue: people don't respond because they themselves haven't read the book.

She concluded by pointing out that seeking good reviewers is a time-consuming task for UNCP, an additional marketing task. She invites all potential review media to request review copies from the press' website.

The longest comment from the audience came from Bill Bishel, Assistant Editor in charge of book reviews at the American Historical Review. [The outgoing Editor, David Ransel, had made some critical remarks about H-Net book reviews in an interview given earlier in the year]. Bishel stated at the outset that he did not see the question of reviews' format as a zero sum game, and that print journals were certainly not in danger in the short run. Regarding the issue of egalitarianism, Bishel insisted that th e AHR does try to get new authors into its reviewers' pool. Speed is a crucial concern for print journals, too. The AHR had gotten its turnaround time for reviews down to fourteen months [it is about a year less for H-Net lists], but six months of this was required for the physical production of the journal. The reasons for delay are often extraneous to the medium, namely with the reviewers. Bishel strongly agreed that the best reviewer is not necessarily the most appropriate one, and stated that the AHR keeps a very close track in its institutional files of reviewers' performance.

Greenberg raised the question for all the panelists: Given that all review outlets are competing for the same good reviewers, and print journals are currently considered more prestigious: what is the process by which electronic reviews will become more p restigious? Kornbluh reiterated the commitment to high standards in his answer. One of the print editors made the point that the biggest problem for all review editors is mediocrity: the trivial, boring review.

A librarian in the audience [this was not me!--jpn] made the suggestion that H-NET should give more attention to the value of their reviews for librarians: librarians use websites routinely, and rapid, ample book reviews can be even more valuable as a selection tool for academic librarians than the short reviews on Choice and Booklist. For this reason, he urged that ISBNs be included in citations, and suggested subject indexing of the reviews and the inclusion of references to the book's intended audience and suitability.

The session was well attended, and a good time was had by all.

|   James P. (a.k.a. Jim) Niessen               <lijpn@pegasus.acs.ttu.edu>   |
|   Coeditor, HABSBURG discussion list          Tel: (806) 742-2236           |
|   Library Liaison for History and Languages   Fax: (806) 742-0737           |
|   Texas Tech University Libraries             Lubbock, Texas 79409-0002     |