Domenico Branca

Gabriella D’Agostino, Vincenzo Matera, eds, Storie dell’antropologia, Milano, UTET, 2022, pp. 635

Introduction

Gabriella d’agostino, vincenzo matera, eds, storie dell’antropologia, milano, utet, 2022, pp. 635. Recensione del libro 'Storie dell’antropologia' edito da D’Agostino e Matera (UTET, 2022). Approfondisci la storia e l'evoluzione della disciplina antropologica.

Abstract

Book review of Gabriella D’Agostino, Vincenzo Matera, eds, Storie dell’antropologia, Milano, UTET, 2022, pp. 635.

Review

The submission, titled with the bibliographic citation "Gabriella D’Agostino, Vincenzo Matera, eds, Storie dell’antropologia, Milano, UTET, 2022, pp. 635," and accompanied by the abstract "Book review of Gabriella D’Agostino, Vincenzo Matera, eds, Storie dell’antropologia, Milano, UTET, 2022, pp. 635," presents a unique challenge for a journal reviewer. The abstract clearly states the article's purpose: to review the specified volume. This directness, while informative about the article's *subject*, leaves much to be desired regarding its *content*. An effective abstract for a book review typically provides a concise summary of the book's main arguments, the reviewer's critical assessment, and perhaps the review's significance, none of which are present here. Evaluating this submission as a publishable journal article is severely hampered by the absence of the actual review text. As an expert, I am tasked with assessing the scholarly contribution, the depth of analysis, the critical engagement with the source material, and the overall clarity of argumentation. With only a title that is a book citation and an abstract that merely declares the article's genre, it is impossible to gauge the quality of the reviewer's insights, their grasp of "Storie dell’antropologia," the methodology applied in their critique, or the balance between summary and original commentary. Consequently, any judgment on the intellectual merit or utility of the review itself cannot be rendered. In its current form, comprising solely a bibliographic title and a purely descriptive abstract, this submission falls significantly short of the expectations for a complete and publishable journal article. While it correctly identifies the target of the review, it provides no information about the review's content, critical stance, or main takeaways. To be considered for publication, this submission would necessitate the full manuscript of the book review, an abstract that encapsulates the review's arguments and contribution, and ideally, a more informative title that hints at the reviewer's perspective or specific focus. Without these fundamental components, a meaningful peer review and subsequent decision on publication are impossible.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.