TER Guidelines for First-Time Reviewers


First-time TER reviewers may find the following guidelines helpful as they prepare articles for publication. Not all of the categories or elements will be applicable in every situation, but including as much evaluative and descriptive information as possible will result in relevant, useful reviews for TER readers. We also suggest that you examine a few excellent sample reviews that have appeared in past TER issues.


Include information about the subject expertise of the authors or editors, if possible. For anthologies and compilations, identify "key" writers (i.e. recognized or highly qualified persons) that are involved. If the number of contributors exceeds capacity to note each of them individually, comment on the group's overall qualification. Reviewers should also consider their own knowledge in a particular subject area, and should be informed enough about other resources available in the subject area to make comparative statements.


Describe and comment upon the resource's structure and organization. Is the work a technical guide or manual, introductory overview, or comprehensive treatise?

Coverage and Style

Discuss and evaluate the coherence, comprehensiveness, and breadth of the work. For what audience (e.g. professional, expert, novice) is the author writing? Is the author's writing style informal, formal? Do you find the approach interesting or innovative in any way?


Depending upon your evaluation of all the above elements, your review should end with an summary assessment of the resource and your personal recommendations for readers. How do you rate the resource's usefulness and timeliness? Would you recommend the resource to others wholeheartedly or with some reservations? Why?

Review Characteristics

TER is a professional service publication, and as such will maintain a reasonably formal tone. Citations to other material will be made according to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Reviews should be substantive and evaluative. All acronyms should be spelled out at first usage. Please try to include only one space, not two, between sentences. References to other related material are encouraged. The length of reviews will usually depend upon the type of item being reviewed. In general, reviews should be a minimum of 1,000 words. Some materials may warrant shorter or multi-item reviews.

Publication Procedures

Once you submit your review as ASCII text e-mail to the TER Editor (making sure to include the word "TER" in your subject line), you should receive confirmation shortly thereafter that your review has been received. Submitted reviews may not be accepted for publication and/or published in TER immediately, however. We reserve the right to edit any review for length and style, but will discuss any substantive changes with you. If you have any questions, please write to the TER editor.

Sample Reviews

REVIEW OF: Erik T. Ray. (2001). Learning XML. Sebastapol, CA: O'Reilly & Associates. By Brian K. Yost

REVIEW OF: Lisa Ann Petrides. (Ed.). Case Studies on Information Technology in Higher Education: Implications for Policy and Practice. (2000). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. By Aimée deChambeau

REVIEW OF: Michael T. Stephens. (2001). The Library Internet Trainer's Toolkit. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers. By Kwan-Yau Lam


About TER