ead Steve Zimmerman's glowing review of the new book, "A Birder's Guide to Alaska" (in Sunday's 'Outdoors' section) with some interest, and decided that it would be a good addition to my collection of books on Alaska's natural history. I was shocked, however, to discover a note at the end of the review stating that Mr. Zimmerman was a contributor to the book. Since when is it appropriate or ethical for an author to review his own book? You may have perceived this article in some other way, but it was clearly a review, even if it was not labeled so. At the very least, you should have inserted a disclaimer at the beginning of the article stating Mr. Zimmerman's conflict of interest so the reader could appropriately judge the praise that followed. What's next? Should we expect reviews by Peter DuBois of upcoming Perseverance plays?