The performance of juvenile book review media

Abstract

An analysis of the performance of five major review periodicals showed that School Library Journal and Booklist were most likely to have reviewed both a large percentage of total juvenile publication and those books singled out by the 1972–1974 and 1978–1980 Notable Children's Books Committees; the New York Times Book Review was least likely to have done so. There was a decline in coverage of the selected titles by the Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books. Even so, Bulletin and Horn Book, as well as Booklist and SLJ, continued to do a good job of calling attention to better books. Recent reviews appeared closer to the publication date of the book in question, with the time lag reduced in all but the New York Times, where it increased. Booklist's record of little more than a month was relatively impressive, with all other periodicals taking over two months or more, on the average. Each periodical showed tremendous internal inconsistency in promptness, however. The longest reviews, on the average, were published in NYTBR, the shortest in Bulletin. Recent reviews in SLJ and Booklist were longer than those found for the earlier sample. All but Horn Book reviews reflected increased critical attention in general. The practice of referring to other books and authors continued on a limited but definite scale for 1978–1980 titles. Attempts to predict readership were somewhat more likely to appear in the more recent issues of Booklist and Bulletin than earlier. The use of volunteer reviewers by School Library Journal resulted in a multiplicity of reviewers (25 people). Horn Book and NYTBR utilized eight people each. Booklist and Bulletin relied on reviews prepared by fulltime staffers. Opinions on general quality of the books examined continued to be basically consistent.