Content area
Full Text
Karen S. Cook and John Hagan (Editors.). Annual Review of Sociology, Volume 29. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, 2003, 649 pages, $70.00 hardcover.
In a recent series of statements in the American Sociological Association's monthly publication Footnotes, several authors debated the merits of a ranking system of sociological journals/publications in terms of their "core" influence (see Allen, 2003; 2004; Koffler, 2004; Marsh, 2004). Given that the Annual Review of Sociology (hereafter ARS) has become the third most cited journal among peer sociological publications, a noteworthy part of this exchange hinged on questions regarding the relative influence of ARS, with the different parties agreeing on its significance to the discipline but disagreeing as to its merits as a "core" journal. The point to be made is that ARS is generally intended for a specific audience and is an annual series that "publishes analytical reviews of the current state of research and theory on a specific topic" (Alien, 2004). The Annual Review of Sociology, which does not publish original research (like all Annual Reviews, and as the name suggests), is a series whose articles are noted for their synthesis and integration of a broad range of primary research in order to provide a comprehensive and critical review of the current state of sociological knowledge on a specific topic. Articles in the Annual Review series broach numerous subject areas in a single volume thereby providing the reader with an in-depth view of a broad range of topics.
I am of the mind that academics and research-oriented readers of Personnel Psychology are likely to gain the most from articles in ARS, especially those essays directly relevant or peripheral to their fields of interest. The esoteric quality of many of the reviews are largely oriented towards academics or other specialists with specific interests, or emerging scholars who wish to acquire a basic understanding of the current sociological thinking underlying a specific topic. This is without doubt the primary audience of the annual review series. This is not to say that ARS, however, is a barren wasteland of information for others as individual readers with specific interests will surely find the reviews both informative and substantive. However, the broad range of topics is probably more than most readers might find useful....