zlacker

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a review of a book that purports to make the case you're stating is not made here. That seems like a high bar for a review to me. Unless, do you mean you've read the book and the book fails to substantiate this claim?

>>ALittl+(OP)
Obviously a review can't give the argument in its full detail, but that doesn't mean this presentation is good.

Did the DSM-IV result in inaccurate diagnoses? Worse treatment? The review doesn't clearly state a single negative consequence. For that matter, reading the review, I can't even be sure if the book argues that the DSM-IV was bad, or if that's merely the review authors' opinion. I expect that kind of clarity from a review, and it's missing here.

Or again, on the point about the DSM-IV being a response to Rosenthal, what I'd like to read is something along the lines of "Cahalan's book presents detailed evidence that the DSM-IV was [influenced/prompted by/etc] the reaction to Rosenthal's experiment".

In defense of the reviewer: the worst issue might be a case where the title simply promises more than the article delivers. And the reviewer typically doesn't write their title, so it may be the editor who is to blame.