Sheldrake's books have received both positive and negative reviews, with some reviews being critical of the scientific content of his work and for containing research that was not subjected to the peer-review process, with some suggesting that his books were best "ignored".
Sheldrake's books have received both positive and negative reviews, with some reviews being extremely negative regarding the scientific content of his work. In 2009, Adam Rutherford, deputy editor of "Nature", criticised Sheldrake's books for containing research that was not subjected to the peer-review process expected for science, and suggested that his books were best "ignored".