Reference Reviews
journal
Reference Reviews was a British academic journal published by Emerald Group Publishing which provided reviews of reference works with a target audience of librarians. It was established in 1987 by Nick Moore (Birmingham City University), aiming to provide "unbiased, comparative, and evaluative reviews" of reference materials, primarily British publications. Its first issue was published in March that year by Parker Moore Ltd. and edited by Nick Moore. The publication was acquired by the publisher Longman in 1988, and later by Emerald (then known as MCB University Press). Under its second editor Stuart James, the journal went from publishing four issues a year to eight issues a year and also began to be provided on the Internet. Its third editor, Tony Chalcraft, announced the end of the journal in its final issue in 2018.
Categories
The journal reviewed dictionaries and encyclopedias of either a generalist or specialist nature.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Reference Reviews” is journal. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Reviews and journal, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “journal” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 21, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q53964918. 1 of 2 selected statements include explicit references; 2 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1987, 1988 and 2018.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Reference Reviews”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Reference Reviews primary sources, Reference Reviews archive and Reviews research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Reference Reviews”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Reference Reviews” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.