Abstract
The survey for 1954 is again extremely late. A differential of five years is much too large for any survey or abstract book. The volume is somewhat smaller than its predecessors and also has more contributing editors, so that future editions should really be published sooner after the year surveyed has been completed. The major criticism of the survey is the length of each of the so-called abstracts. Too much detail is included, and much of it is unnecessary for the reader to get the gist of the paper. The analytic papers themselves are so filled with details, and often extraneous discussions, that one would expect from a survey a contrary succinctness and brevity. In the second place, the survey contains repetitive material. Articles are abstracted and books are mentioned in several sections by different members of the editorial staff. This repetitiveness is not helpful, even though there may
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
