How to write a dissertation review. Review A person who writes reviews.

The word "review" (review, critical analysis and evaluation of a work of art or scientific work) has been fixed in literary language at the end of XVIII - early XIX century (from lat. recensio - examination, examination).
The review is genre literary critics, newspaper and magazine publications, but at the same time it is rightly considered a genre bibliography(it originated from the bibliographic description of the book). Usually, the review simultaneously provides a bibliographic description of the book, information about its content, composition, and issues raised in it. It characterizes small volume and brevity. There is also a critical analysis and evaluation of the book, its theme, ideological content, language and style, its significance in a number of other works of the writer, its role in the literary process and in society. All this brings the review closer to a critical article, but it is smaller in volume, as noted earlier. The reviewer deals primarily with novelties, about which practically no one has yet written, about which a definite opinion has not yet been formed. In the classics, the reviewer discovers, first of all, the possibility of its actual, cutting-edge reading. Any work must be considered in the context of modern life and modern literary process: evaluate it precisely as a new phenomenon. Such topicality is an indispensable sign of a review.
Conventionally, the following main types of reviews are distinguished:

• small critical or journalistic article(often of a polemical nature), in which the work in question is an occasion for discussing topical social or literary problems;
• essay; this is more of a lyrical reflection of the author of the review, inspired by the reading of the work, than its interpretation;
• extended annotation, which reveals the content of the work, the features of the composition, printing design, the skill of the illustrator and at the same time contains its assessment (often in the selection of material itself);
• auto review which expresses the author's view of his work.
• examination review(as I understand it, a review on a school exam) - a detailed annotation. Sample Plan reviews of a literary work. Bibliographic description of the work (author, title, publisher, year of issue) and a brief (in one or two sentences) retelling of its content. Immediate response to a work of literature (review-impression). Critical analysis or complex analysis of the text: the meaning of the title - analysis of its form and content - features of the composition - the author's skill in depicting characters - the individual style of the writer. Reasoned assessment of the work and personal reflections of the author of the review: the main idea of ​​the review is the relevance of the subject matter of the work. The review does not necessarily contain all of the above components, the main thing is that the review was interesting and literate.

A review that includes several works of art, united by thematic, plot, chronological or other features, becomes a review (review).

2. About differences R licenses about t about revocation.

Review should include:

1. Subject of analysis.
2. Relevance of the topic. (Remember that the relevance of the topic does not require evidence, is beyond doubt and should be quite obvious)
3. Statement of the main thesis. (It is necessary to point out the central issue of the work, the most noticeable idea of ​​creativity)
4. Summary work . (At this point, it is not necessary to retell storyline. It is necessary to give an overall assessment of the work. Tell what exactly the author showed skill and skill. What exactly is the merit of the author. What innovations did he introduce with his work. What exactly expanded the reader's understanding of the central problem)
5. Flaws, shortcomings. (It should be noted what exactly you have doubts about. What could you attribute to the shortcomings of the text. Do they reduce the level literary work these errors. Is it necessary to single out these shortcomings with wishes for the further development of the author's work. Or they are so critical that it is better for the author to drink poison)
6. conclusions. (Here you can indicate the originality or secondary nature of the idea. Draw conclusions regarding the new stages of the author's work)

The popularity of the review is due to the brevity of its form. The reader can get some kind of impression about the book, not feigned and enthusiastic, which the publisher's annotation gives him, but detached and subjective.

Review

Feedback only gives general characteristics works without detailed analysis, but contains practical advice. Feedback is the most common type of criticism that can be found on the Internet. The most important thing in a review is to highlight the main idea of ​​the text and write how this idea differs from all the others. so to speak in highlight the practical significance of the idea in modern realities.

3. H ow i t m ad?

Review principles. The impulse to create a review is always the need to express one's attitude to what one has read, this is an attempt to understand one's impressions caused by a work, but on the basis of elementary knowledge in literary theory, a detailed analysis of the work. The reader can say about the book he has read or the movie he has watched “like it or not” without evidence. And the reviewer must carefully substantiate his opinion with a deep and reasoned analysis. The quality of the analysis depends on the theoretical and professional background of the reviewer, his depth of understanding of the subject, and the ability to analyze objectively. Relationship between reviewer and author – creative dialogue with equal position of the sides. The author's "I" manifests itself openly in order to rationally, logically and emotionally influence the reader. Therefore, the reviewer uses language tools, combining the functions of naming and evaluation, book and colloquial words and designs. Criticism does not study literature, but judges it - in order to form a readership, public attitude to certain writers, to actively influence the course of the literary process.

Briefly, what you need to remember when writing a review:

Detailed retelling reduces value reviews: firstly, it will not be interesting to read the work itself; Secondly, one of the criteria for a weak review is rightly considered to be the substitution of the analysis and interpretation of the text by its retelling. Every book begins with a title, which you somehow interpret and guess in the process of reading. The title of a good work is always ambiguous, it is a kind of symbol, a metaphor. A lot for understanding and interpreting the text can be given by the analysis of the composition. Reflections on what compositional techniques (antithesis, ring construction, etc.) are used in the work will help the reviewer to penetrate the author's intention. What parts can the text be divided into? How are they located? It is important to evaluate the style, originality of the writer, analyze the images, artistic techniques that he uses in his work, and think about what his individual, unique style is, how this author differs from others. The reviewer analyzes the “how it is done” text. The review should be written as if no one in the examination committee is familiar with the work being reviewed. It is necessary to assume what questions this person can ask, and try to prepare answers to them in advance in the text.

About work analysis:

Content The work includes the following components:
1) subject matter- what social, historical aspects of life the work is devoted to.
2) issues- what relationships are covered in the work, on what sides of the character, what is the conflict between the characters.
3) the pathos of the work- the author's view of the displayed relationships of the characters (the author dramatizes, ironizes or glorifies the actions of the characters), hence the conclusion is made about the genre of the work.

art form usually includes the following components:
1) assessment of subject representation: a portrait, the actions of the characters, their experiences and speech, descriptions of the domestic environment, landscape, plot. As far as the author managed to make the characters and their problems believable, to reveal each of them, to delve into the problem.
2) composition: order, method and motivation, narratives and descriptions of the depicted life, author's reasoning, digressions, inserted episodes, framing. How well the author chose the tone of the narrative, what accents he placed (descriptions, dialogues, author's comments) in order to achieve the desired effect.
3) style: figurative and expressive details of the author's speech, that is, artistic techniques(metaphors, comparisons, rhetoric and others). Saturation is assessed author's speech, correspondence to the subject, problems and pathos.

4. P lan.

An approximate plan (school) to help write a review:
- Brief bibliographic information about the book.
- The meaning of the title of the book.
- Personal impressions from reading.
- Features of the plot and composition.
- The relevance of the issue.
- The language and style of the work.
- The skill of the author of the book in depicting the characters of the heroes.
- What is the main idea of ​​the review?

Sample Plan to write a review.
- Subject of analysis. (In the work of the author.., In the work under review...).
- Relevance of the topic. (The work is devoted to an actual topic .., The relevance of the topic is due to ...).
- Formulation of the main thesis.(The central issue of the work, where the author has achieved the most significant (noticeable, tangible ...) results, is ...).
- Brief summary of the work.
- Overall score.(Assessing the work as a whole.., Summarizing the results of individual chapters..., Thus, the work in question...).
- Disadvantages, shortcomings. (At the same time, the thesis that the noted shortcomings of the work do not reduce its high level is questionable, they can rather be considered wishes for the author's future work...).
- conclusions. (The work deserves a high (positive, positive, excellent) rating, and its author is undoubtedly worthy of the desired degree ..., The work meets all the requirements ..., and its author certainly has (certain, legitimate, deserved, unconditional, absolute) right...).
(Note me - "typical plan" - contains too heavy wording, sometimes unacceptable for writing a review in any periodical.)

It is necessary to clearly understand what topic the review is being written on.
If a review is written on a film or play based on a literary work, then you need to remember what you need to write, who is the author of the script, who directed the film or play, compare the director's intention with a literary work, note the acting, scenery, musical arrangement .

Some questions to help parse the review:
- What book is the reviewer considering, when did it come out, where?
- What conditional type can this review be attributed to?
- How does the author of the review give the book?
- How does he substantiate his assessment, how does he convince the reader?
- What methods of text analysis does the reviewer use?
- What problems does it raise in connection with reading a work of art?
- How does he talk about his impressions?
- What is the main idea of ​​the review?

5. E tic P rules(not always observed, and even within the Internet, this has long been scored, especially on points No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, but I would pay close attention to the first three).

Anyone, reviewer must adhere to certain ethical rules.
1. The work of the reviewer requires great work and serious preparation: it is necessary to refresh your knowledge on the topic, to delve into the essence of the material presented, to pay attention to all aspects of the message.
2. In the course of reading, the reviewer should make brief remarks that will help to recall the details of the original text.
3. Check all numbers, dates, names given by the author.

4. The review should be businesslike, specific, friendly.
5. It is unethical to impose your tastes on the author of a peer-reviewed work.
6. The opinion of the reviewer should not depend on personal relationships.
7. The reviewer is not an auditor who has received the task to carry out a surprise check, and not a judge who passes a sentence. The review should express the position of its author. The authority of the reviewer is determined by his competence and goodwill. Therefore, categorical remarks (even if they are correct in essence), unwillingness to listen to the author are unacceptable.
8. After reading, the reviewer should talk with the author, briefly inform him of his review of the essay

According to materials:

A person's perception of any film or literary work is quite subjective. Each of us has our own opinion about the movie we watched or the book we read, but this does not mean at all that we are not interested in someone else's point of view.

On the contrary, reasoned and objective opinion other people are always in demand and readable. This explains the emergence of such a concept as "criticism", and one of its varieties - reviews. What is a review? What are its features and how is it spelled?

What does the word "review" mean?

Term "review" has Latin roots. The concept comes from the word recension(consideration) and has been actively used since the time when literary criticism appeared in the world.

In Russia, reviews began to be written in mid-eighteenth centuries. Their first author was Nikolai Karamzin, who preferred to write so-called monographic reviews. Among other famous reviewers we can mention Pushkin, Chukovsky, Belinsky, Dobrolyubov.

What is a review?

Review is a genre literary criticism and is a brief written analysis of the work, which contains an analysis of the criticized work and its assessment by a competent person.


The main task of the reviewer is to identify the merits and demerits of the criticized work and present an objective opinion to the readers. This does not mean that the critic is deprived of the opportunity to express his own position. He may well express his point of view, but it must be impartial and fair.

What are the reviews?

If earlier reviews were written only on, now there is a broad classification of them according to the object, subject (author), volume and number of works in one text.

Depending on the criticized object, reviews are compiled for films, books, performances and various types of products. The author can be an expert in a particular field, a direct consumer of the product, or a journalist who writes reviews on behalf of the creator.

By volume, grand and mini-reviews are distinguished. The first ones are a detailed text, which allows the most complete coverage of the topic under study. These reviews are usually written notable critics with great prestige in the eyes of the public. Mini reviews are short essay, allowing the author to convey his impressions of what he saw or read.


If we talk about the number of criticized works, then the works can be divided into monoreviews, which mention one material, and polyreviews, in which several works are analyzed in the form of their comparison with each other.

How is a review different from a review?

One of the main features of the review is a reflection of the existing reality, that is, an already written work is analyzed in the text. The review pursues approximately the same goals, but has some differences. If the review is an official analysis of the work with its objective expert assessment, then a review is a simple opinion that conveys a person’s personal feelings.

The key concept here is analysis. The review gives only a general description of the work and often contains emotional judgments, supplemented by advice on correcting any shortcomings. The review, on the other hand, includes analytics, while the author must, to the maximum extent possible, distance himself from his attitude towards the work being criticized.

How to write a review correctly?

To write a review correctly, first you need to draw up its plan, which includes a bibliographic description, a direct critical analysis of the work and a subsequent assessment.


In the review, it is necessary to consider the quality of the work done - the interestingness of the plot, the correspondence of the style (speech) of the author to the declared genre. The tone of the analysis throughout the criticism should be uniform. In the review, you can point out the author's grammatical errors, if any, and mention his previous achievements.

The reviewer's text cannot contain elements of slang, profanity, or be overloaded with secondary details.

For those who are lost at the word "review" and do not know how to write it.

Review- this is a review of a certain work (book, game, film), designed to make an impression of it with the target audience. it small text(standard volume 1800-3600 characters, one or two A4 pages), containing an overview, analysis and analysis of the work.

Attention: in our competition, the minimum amount of reviews 2000 characters with spaces.

The review consists of:

2. A brief introduction that sets the tone and outlines the subject of the conversation.

3. Main text

We designate the genre by form (novel, story, play ...) and by content (fantasy, fantasy, alternative history ...). We describe the main storyline (but without spoilers!), list the main characters, places of action, key moments of the book. We are trying to understand and convey to the readers the main ideas of the work (not necessarily, but not bad). When working, you can use several approaches: observation from the outside, non-judgmental analysis, critical analysis, polemics with the author.

Criteria for evaluation

It is not necessary to analyze all points.

1. General impression of the book- whole, fragmented, powerful, weak, pleasant, pitiful.

2. Plot- how logically it is reduced, are there any moments that do not work for him, do the lines sag?

3. Narration- dynamic, unhurried, protracted, driven, torn. To what extent does the dynamics of the narrative correspond to the genre and the tasks set in the book? Is the author trying to "steer the plot", bending the logic of events in order to please the plan?

4. Heroes- how detailed and reliable are they described, is their psychology natural enough, could they act in this way in given circumstances? Are these characters sympathetic to the reader, do they cause empathy or disgust?

5. Language and style- in general and in the context of the task.

6. Reliability in general and in detail. Are the laws of nature and science violated in the book, were such uniforms worn at the indicated time, did they speak French in the salons, does the text of the prayer sound correct?

7. Fantastic assumption- what exactly is it, how competently is it designed and how necessary? Is it possible to remove princesses with dragons or starships with plasma guns from there without damage to the book?

8. Psychology of relationships- do the characters have internal motivations for actions and are there enough of them, do they behave differently or rigidly follow standard reactions, do you feel the hard hand of the author-puppeteer behind the backs of the puppet-heroes?

9. The main idea of ​​the text- How ethical, smart, original is she? What does the book teach the reader, what does it want to tell him?

11. Originality- how banal is the idea, where did the author borrow what, whom does he quote, parody, paraphrase? If the book seems to open new genre or direction - we will certainly mention this.

12. Mistakes and blunders- We catch fleas and present them to society. Of course, if we are sure that the author is mistaken, and does not deliberately distort events and realities.

13. public importance - all of a sudden, moments are indicated in the text that are useful, say, for patriotic education or national identity, complex ethical issues and choices are described.

14. Extra-literary virtues- for example, historical, ethnographic or social significance. A mediocrely written book may be interesting as a source of information, for example, about the life and customs of fighter pilots or court ladies of Catherine the Great.

15. Demand- whether the topic raised is relevant, whether it is interesting to society, what audience the book is intended for.

16. Your feelings- whether you liked it or not, what feelings and thoughts aroused, whether you wanted to buy it or leave it in your home library.

Rules of courtesy

We share our position objective criteria. A book can be objectively good, but boring for you personally, and vice versa - objectively flawed, but subjectively charming. If everyone around says that the book is brilliant - we are not obliged to agree, however, to object too. Even the most respected critic should not pretend to be the supreme judge, the prophet in the literary homeland and the ultimate truth. His opinion is his personal, honest opinion. No more, but no less.

Rule number one: don't get personal. Reviewing and criticizing the work, we do not criticize the author, and even more so we do not get into his personal life, religious and political views, bad habits, illnesses and weaknesses. If we don't have exact quote from an interview with the author, we can only assume and conjecture “what the author wanted to say”, “what the author meant”. We use elementary psychological technique- “I-position” or “he-position”, speaking on behalf of himself or an abstract reader: “I saw such and such a meaning in the text”, “the reader will find the author’s position provocative for this and that reason” - and the wolves are full , and the writer is not offended, and there is nothing to complain about.

Rule two: don't be rude. We do not call the author an idiot and mediocrity, and his grandiose opuses - graphomania and rubbish (even if this is true).

Rule three: avoid value judgments.“Good” or “bad”, “strong” or “weak”, and especially “talented” or “talentless” are often subjective concepts. We emphasize controversial and unsuccessful, in our opinion, moments, clearing up dubious details and plot twists, giving the reader the right to draw his own conclusions, and the author to enjoy a sweetened pill.

Rule Four: we share the author and the work. From the moment a text becomes a book, it begins to live its own life, acquire its own myths and interpretations. Often, readers find in it not at all what the author wanted to invest.

Do not forget that the authors will evaluate the reviewers.

Good luck to everyone in writing reviews and win!

Received the shortest review of my work French writer Victor Hugo: his request to the publishing house with a text of one question mark received an equally concise answer - one exclamation point.

When you like everything in a book unnecessary words not required. When it contains controversial points, common truths or something new and frightening, you need something more than a “wand with a dot”. It's about reviews, ladies and gentlemen!

Definition

A book review is a critical analysis and evaluation of a work written in a scientific, artistic, journalistic style in order to form an opinion about it among the target audience.

You can parse a book to:

• it is better to learn what you read yourself;
• publish a review on the blog and attract additional traffic;
• show expertise → attract the attention of publishers → start reviewing on a commercial basis.

When we write a review, we form final opinion about the book and create a primary idea in other people. Are we doing it right?

Criteria for a correct review

1. Complete information about the author of the book, title, subject, year of publication, key points storytelling.
2. Analysis of the book with a focus on a specific target audience.
3. Analytical approach: everything good and bad that is in the work is investigated and substantiated.
4. Enough information to form an opinion about the book.
5. The average volume of a review is from 1,000 to 3,000 characters. If more is already critical article, if less – reader's review.
6. Analysis of a recently published book: the reviewer does it with clean slate rather than being influenced by other people's opinions.
7. Mention of previous works and regalia of the author, without subservience or bias.
8. Prevention of transitions to the person, insults, calls for various types strife.
9. No errors in the review.

Varieties

Reviews can be classified:

• by object - music, films, theatrical performances, in our case - non-fiction books;
• by subject, i.e. the author of the review - an expert, an ordinary reader or a person to whom the author paid for a positive response;
• on a quantitative basis, i.e., the number and volume of peer-reviewed works.

Book reviews can be divided into:

• detailed professional analysis;
• short reviews-articles written by readers;
• an essay with a dominant personal opinion about the book and attitude towards the author;
• autoreviews, when the author speaks about his work;
• book reviews.

I gave only one of the examples of classification - the most capacious, in my opinion.

We are done with the necessary theory. Now…

Getting ready for review

Now there will be truly "captain's" advice:

Everything seems to be obvious, but it's not! After a cursory examination of the content, reading the abbreviated version (summary), they manage to write “reviews”, where there is nothing but the binary “good-bad”.

You need to read the book several times - first from the position of an ordinary reader, and then in order to make a critical analysis.

In the process, you can arm yourself with a pen with a notepad, paper bookmarks or stickers.

So, are you ready to start reviewing? Wait a bit and check yourself:

1. Do not read other reviews about the book, so as not to write other people's words.
2. Yes, your opinion may be very different from the opinion of the majority. Write, do not be afraid of "holivars" - a competent review will only be a plus.
3. Remember the rule: the more negative opinion you have about the book, the more arguments you need to give in its favor. The review in this case will be more voluminous.
4. Use equal proportions of logic and emotion.
5. Do not experience mental (and sometimes animal physical) fear of the author - if you bought a book and did not download it from a torrent tracker, then you have the right to speak out with reason.

Rushing into battle? I'll stop you again, sorry!

Plan your review

Nobody bothers to make your own plan, but you can use the typical one:

1. Bibliographic description - title of the book, author, year of publication (if this is a reprint, indicate which one), publisher.
2. A short retelling of the content in one to three sentences.
3. Directly review (personal impressions).
4. Analytical part - analysis of the name, content, structure, practical examples etc.
5. Highlighting all the advantages and disadvantages of the book.
6. The final assessment and personal conclusions of the reviewer about the relevance and "professional suitability" of the book, recommendations to readers.

Excellent! Now we start...

Review Process

There is a saying: "Don't judge a book by its cover." I do not agree with her, because the physical data of the book directly affect the readability and first impression. And in this regard, I conditionally divide the review process into two parts, the first of which ...

Form review

She is good because:

• does not require reading a book;
• rather quickly compiled;
• more objective than content review.

It's bad because:

• time must pass to give an assessment according to some criteria;
• still not devoid of subjectivity, because there is another saying about "taste and color ...".

When reviewing gadgets, they always insert images into texts. I have selected and photographed a few "experimental" books from my home library to show which parts of the form can be reviewed.

Book format

"Pocket book" - a pocket book - an excellent solution for travelers on long and short distances. At home it is better to read in a standard format:

The format of the book greatly affects the perception. Choose only the one that is convenient not for the price, but for ergonomics.

Book Orientation

Yes, in our tolerant world, it is different for books - book or landscape:

The width of 213 millimeters makes this book untransportable in most bags. "For home reading only", friends! It also sticks out a lot from the bookshelf in a standing position. It may need to be stored lying down.

Dimensions and weight of the book

Look at these "baby books":

With dimensions of 236x163x36 mm, Porter's work weighs 916 g. Poundstone's book with dimensions of 240x161x31 mm pulls "only" 648 g. " Competitive advantage(715 pages) in paperback fits in the hand and feels noticeably heavier than Is It Expensive or Cheap? hardcover (432 pages). Both will be difficult to read in public transport.

Cover design

Now there will be a contemplation of the beautiful:

Well, what can I say: the publishing house "MIF" is thoroughly working on appearance your books!

Cover color

Which book on the shelf did you notice first?

The color of the cover is also a marketing ploy to attract the attention of buyers in a bookstore. Or guests rapaciously studying your home library. By the way, I was the first to notice the "acid" covers of Dmitry Kot's books "Selling Texts" and Timur Aslanov's "Copywriting. simple recipes selling texts. Publishing house "Peter" did a good job!

dust jacket

Oh my favorite! Now there will be a case on the effect of good packaging.

Once I bought a book by Mikhail Akhmanov “Literary Talent. How to write a bestseller. Who does not know: Mikhail is a venerable science fiction writer, author of " Big Encyclopedia diabetic." After some time, I saw his own work “How to Write Books” on “Ozone” and also bought it. Let's look at the illustration:

I didn’t see anything surprising in the fact that the same author published two books on writing. For example, Jürgen Wolf has a "School of Literary Excellence" and a "Literary Master Class" ...

And then I took off the dust jacket:

Book with dust jacket removed ISBN 978-5-699-82148-8. The other has 978-5-699-70076-9. The volume is the same - 384 pages. Cool, yeah? To the question of packaging marketing and publisher's marketing policy for your future review.

Soft or hard cover

Both paperbacks were kept only at home at room temperature. On orange, I was even afraid to breathe. As you can see, the oilcloth layer began to move away from the paper one:

Now for the hardcover. It gives the book stability on the shelf and protects the pages from mechanical damage. But who would have saved the cover itself from damage and thermal effects! A slight tear in the spine, a change in humidity, and it splits into fifty shades of grey:

Font size

I was lucky - one hundred percent vision, I can read even from a matchbox. However, there are people who need capital letters in the text. Compare:

You can object to me - they say, the dimensions of the books are different. I will answer you: when you hold them in your hands, you understand how healthy the letters are in the “Way of Solution”, how they inflate the volume and amount of paper spent on printing and the final cost of the book.

Let's be objective - Alexander Ivin has "letters-babies", but also a small book. It is convenient to carry in transport, but in not the brightest lighting it is difficult to read.

Illustrations

Remember how we flipped through the pages in childhood hoping to see the pictures?.. And there is one continuous text! In non-fiction books, I also want to find a visual component. And when it is colored - generally a delight:

Paper quality

Previously, books were printed on gray newsprint - it is nondescript and fragile to the touch. Snow-white coated paper against its background wins:

On coated paper, fingerprints are clearly visible, like apples in the snow - pink on white. Or black.

book personalization

Know-how of MIF publishing house and its competitive advantage:

I confess that I do not like to write in books, even with a pencil. But if I let you read any of the "myth" books, I will quickly fill in the fields "This book belongs" and "Contacts of the owner."

Bookmark

She is a lyase. It greatly simplifies the life of the reader and eliminates the need to put calendars, candy wrappers and pieces of foil between the pages:

See how much you can say about a book without reading it! Naturally, here you need to study the paper version, not the electronic one.

Content review

To give a worthy critical analysis, the reviewer must own the material at least at the same level as the author, and preferably at a higher one.

After studying several options for peer review, I identified common points:

1. In the work, you can choose one of the following strategies: a look from the outside, analysis without giving positive or negative ratings, critical analysis or open polemics with the author.
2. It is mandatory to indicate the author and the title of the work, bibliographic data. Check if this is new or reissue.
3. Do not allow a banal retelling of the book. You can make out the title, content, the way the book is structured, the author's style and craftsmanship, but do it competently and intriguingly.
4. Express your impression of the book, while justifying all the negative and positive points.
5. To note the relevance of the work and the degree of its hitting the target audience.
6. Point out stylistic, factual, grammatical errors made by the author. Check for their presence.

It seems that no book is immune from errors. Even in the wonderful (except for jokes) book by Maxim Ilyakhov and Lyudmila Sarycheva "Write, cut" annoying typos crept in:

To the question that there are no perfect services, editors and editing. And reviewers, of course.

1. Follow your own style: do not use jargon, colloquial statements and clericalism.
2. Make sentences more concise and easier depending on the length of the review. Do not allow ambiguous assessments.
3. Try to share your experience of studying other books on the topic and the real usefulness of the peer-reviewed one.
4. End the review with an appeal to future readers.

The last point can be said in more detail.

Ethics of peer review

1. Check all dates, facts, numbers, titles and names.
2. Maintain a businesslike and friendly tone of the message.
3. Do not impose your vision on the author.
4. Don't let your attitude towards the author influence your opinion of the book.
5. Before publishing a review, warn the creator of the work so that he prepares a reasoned answer.

Remember - you are not an inquisitor. Peremptory statements, expressed unwillingness to have a dialogue with the author, are not reviews.

So, you have made a critical analysis of the work. Do not rush to publish, first check yourself on ...

Review errors

1. Lack of sufficient knowledge on the topic of the work.

Review - brief analysis thesis, which reflects its relevance, features, advantages, disadvantages. The review evaluates your work. It is important that it be positive and, at the same time, objective. Members of the commission must believe that it was written by a person who has nothing in common with you or your supervisor.

Who writes a dissertation review?

Reviewed by reviewer.

Ideally, this should be a person who has a diploma in your specialty (or better, a scientific degree). He should not work in the same department as your supervisor.

How to find a reviewer?

Everything is simple. If you write thesis on the basis of a study that was carried out at an enterprise, a review can be made by the head of the organization. You can use the help of a senior manager or assistant (deputy) head. If you wrote a thesis based on someone else's scientific papers, research artwork, media or other sources of information to which free access is possible, it will be more difficult to find a reviewer. In this case, you can contact the representative of the company in which you had an internship during the training. In extreme cases, to your supervisor - a loyal teacher will definitely help with the search for a specialist.

Important!

As a rule, potential reviewers are not eager to read student papers and make detailed analysis. Do not rely on expanded and good review. At best, the reviewer will agree to leave his signature. And that is what is usually required.

You will have to write it yourself or provide it to a specialist. He will leave his signature and the problem will be solved.

It's easier said than done. Writing a dissertation review is a difficult task. Especially if you are doing it. On the one hand, who knows the advantages and disadvantages of a work better than its author? On the other hand, students usually do not write reviews, and this work is new to most graduates. And even an experienced author cannot always change the style of presentation so that the commission does not suspect a forgery.

But who are we kidding. Self-writing a review of a thesis is a common thing, and in many universities they do not pay attention to authorship. It doesn't matter who wrote it, it's more important who signed it.

How to write a review for a thesis?

The easiest and cheapest way is to write a review of the thesis yourself and bring it to the reviewer for evaluation. He will sign and, if necessary, assure in the personnel department. It is important that the review:

- was designed in a different style (however, this controversial issue);
— met the requirements for registration and had a clear structure;
- contained a full analysis of the thesis.

A review is not a review and not, and it is definitely not worth writing it in free form. We'll start with the form.

Making a review of the thesis

So, you need to write 1-2 pages of text in Times New Roman (14 pt) with one and a half line spacing. It will come out about 2000-3000 characters without spaces (you can check the Word statistics if you are interested in the volume).

At the top center, write "REVIEW" (in capital letters).

For the final qualifying work of a student of the faculty ... of the specialty "..." Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich, performed on the topic: "...".

1. Introduction
2. Main part
3. Conclusion

Then we leave information about the reviewer. So we write:

Reviewer:

Doctor of Sciences (Chief Director of LLC “…”)

__________Petrov P.P.

Before the name, leave a place for the signature.

The content of the thesis review

There is nothing complicated with the design. The question is different - how to write the review of the thesis itself. Let's go through the points.

1. Introduction

Large introductions are not required. Very briefly, in one or two sentences, describe what exactly relevant work for the field of knowledge or field of activity to which the study is devoted. This can be seen in the introduction to the thesis itself.

2. Main body

Here is the actual analysis of the thesis. We start with:

a) general assessment - we tell whether the presentation is logical, whether the chapters are proportionate, whether there are conclusions in each chapter, whether there are enough applications and illustrations, whether the style is observed;

b) assessments of each chapter:

- in the first, we evaluate the presentation - style, structure, consistency, the actual wording;
- in the second, we note the quality and depth of the analysis of the collected materials, the consistency of the conclusions;
- in the third we analyze practical benefit research, we note how the conclusions and recommendations of the author helped in reality (you can write that the conclusions made by the author were tested in the company).

3. Conclusion

Here we make a general final assessment, briefly describing the advantages and disadvantages of the work. At the end we put an assessment (on a five-point scale). For example:

The final qualification work of Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich meets all the requirements, is admitted to the defense and deserves the grade "...".

You can rate yourself after objective analysis. If you feel that the work frankly does not even reach “good”, it is better not to put “excellent” in the review. On the other hand, modesty is not always beautiful, and even if there are small flaws in your work, give yourself "excellent". This will be another argument in favor of the real five.

The advantages and disadvantages should be discussed separately. When describing benefits, try to be specific. For example, instead of:

Qualifying work has a clear structure and is useful in this field of activity.

indicate that:

The paper presents detailed theoretical information, a well-conducted analysis, and clear recommendations are given:(here you can list which ones).

General phrases should be avoided in any case.

Be sure to list the shortcomings. Try to objectively approach the evaluation of the work, but being overly self-critical in this case is harmful. You can indicate some little things that will not seriously affect the assessment. For example:

There are not enough graphs in the work, there are stylistic errors, in the theoretical part there are not enough footnotes to the sources of information. However, these shortcomings do not have a significant impact on the quality of work and conclusions.

Style features of the review of the thesis

What to write about, you already know. Now - about how, in fact, to write a review of the thesis. What style should be followed, what should be avoided, what mistakes are unforgivable.

Let's go from the opposite.

Review should not to be:

1. Sustained in a colloquial, journalistic, official business style. God forbid you use your tongue fiction. Forget about metaphors and epithets. Your choice is scientific style. In fact, writing in it is not difficult if you have worked on your thesis on your own.
2. Not specific. We all know how to pour water. What are only the introductions to scientific work! But, as they say, what is allowed to Zeus is not allowed to the bull ... Eminent scientists are forgiven even biographical remarks. If it's in place. It is forgivable even for an inexperienced student. But the reviewer is not. Alas. Be specific and avoid generalities.
3. Too difficult to read. scientific style does not oblige you to build cumbersome half-page sentences, use participles and participle turnovers through the word, to crush terminology and muddy the waters in other ways.

If you are writing for someone specific (for example, the director of an enterprise), use the Stanislavsky method. Imagine yourself as a director, enter into his shoes, believe that he is you. And write the way he would write. Perhaps without scientific terminology. Possibly with splashes formal business style. Write the way he would write. But do not overdo it: defending a diploma is not an entrance exam to GITIS.

Should I order a dissertation review?

It does not matter at all whether you write the review yourself or delegate it to a student lancer. In this case, you definitely will not suffer from pangs of conscience. Moreover, someone else's view will be much more useful to you and more interesting than the commission.

To get a high-quality review, make sure the studentlancer is qualified and provide him with the thesis itself. Do not be afraid for the uniqueness of the work - professionals do not steal other people's research. Be afraid to get "water" instead of a review. And you will get it if you do not provide the text of the study itself.