INTERNET REVIEWS

Guidelines for Reviews

The review should be objective and succinct, providing information and recommendations. The word count for each review should be approximately 400 words.

The review should, as much as possible, cover a single resource, and not a collection of resources. For example, a review could cover one resource on a particular web site, but should not try to review the entire site. An exception to this can be made for a set of resources developed and maintained by a single site. Verification should be made that the site is live and ready for public consumption.

The review should contain the following elements:

TITLE/NAME OF THE RESOURCE

ACCESS INFORMATION:
Provide complete information on how to access the resource. For the most part, the URL should suffice. Also include information on any logins, terminal emulations, additional software, plug-ins or other system requirements.

AUTHOR/PRODUCER:
List the author and his or her credentials.

AUDIENCE:
Describe the intended audience of the source. Remember these reviews are for academic librarians; include what disciplines and level of student would find the resource useful.

REVIEW OF THE RESOURCE:
Describe the purpose or scope of the site. Identify its strengths and weaknesses. Again, the review is intended for an academic audience and it should address the usefulness of the resource in that setting. Additional areas of discussion for the review could be an assessment of the site's contribution to the field or a comparison with similar sites.

CURRENCY:
The reviewer should attempt to determine the currency of the site. Try to determine the age of the resource -- is it a new site or a well-established one? Also note if there are future plans for maintenance and development.

USABILITY:
The review should NOT be a discussion of how to use the resource. However, if there are any idiosyncrasies that bear mentioning, please do so. (For example, if the resource is searchable but the interface is difficult.) Also determine if there is any documentation or help available for using the resource.

Please include the following information with your review:

Reviewer Name:
Position:
Institution:
E-mail address:
Date of review:


Return to the Archives Home Page
Last Modified: 20 Sept 2000
samato@bowdoin.edu