Comments on: I’m REALLY not the Annoyed Librarian (nor am I annoyed)

By: Petter

Petter — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:28:50 +0000

Well spoken! And no, Meredith Farkas is not the AL, I promise…
http://knowbodies.blogspot.com/2008/11/long-live-anonymous-annoyed-librarian.html

By: Meredith Farkas

Meredith Farkas — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:45:45 +0000

That’s very smart to do and I wish more librarians would ensure that they get similar terms when they get an article published. I have that sort of agreement with American Libraries and have just been incredibly lazy about posting my old columns to my blog. Your comment reminded me that it’s something I should probably get to soon.

By: Babara Fister

Babara Fister — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:56:00 +0000

I make sure the publication agreement when I choose a journal allows posting them to the web, which improves discoverability. But in the universe of librarians, only a fraction will be interested in any one article because there are so many different things to be interested in and only so much time.

But then I write fiction, too, which is also not the best way to be read by a lot of people, unless you’re Stephen King.

By: Meredith Farkas

Meredith Farkas — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:36:44 +0000

No problem. It was a snarky post, but I certainly didn’t mean that every article in every peer-reviewed journal was crap. But you have to admit, if you want to write something that will get read by a lot of people, peer-reviewed journals are probably not the best bet.

By: Babara Fister

Babara Fister — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:03:04 +0000

Sorry if I wrote hastily and crabbily. But “I actually want my work to be read” and “completely irrelevant to me” must have flipped some crabby-switch. Also I possibly hadn’t had enough coffee.

By: Meredith Farkas

Meredith Farkas — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:39:29 +0000

Barbara, I don’t think what I wrote is any worse than dismissing what someone wrote as “silly” (especially when you’ve misrepresented what I wrote). I never said that peer reviewed journals are crap — what I said is that so many of the journals publish research studies that were primarily written for the purpose of getting tenure and it’s pretty obvious when that is the case when they aren’t written in a way that could inform practice and/or help others. There are some great articles in peer-reviewed journals that have really influenced me, but not enough, and if the journals don’t have a strong commitment to publishing quality studies that might actually inform practice, then they are pretty irrelevant to me. I never said that all people who write for peer-reviewed journals do it solely to get tenure, but plenty do. I never said peer-reviewed journals were bad because they weren’t written the way I write; I said they were bad because they publish too much junk.

By: Babara Fister

Babara Fister — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:32:01 +0000

I’m not familiar with this journal, but many Haworth press journals are not peer reviewed. They like to publish thematic issues so they can also sell them as edited volumes. They also like to publish lots and lots, which means quality control is not always a major consideration. Judging “peer review” on the basis of Haworth’s practices is not fair to peer review. After all, this is the publisher that declined to publish an issue of the Journal of Homesexuality because some right wing homophobes sent them a dozen e-mails or so. (They finally published it, after a fracas, but without an article on the ancient Greeks because it was so vile and filthy. Peer review? I think not.)

I’ve had tenure for over a decade and I still publish from time to time in peer reviewed journals. It seems a little silly to dismiss peer reviewed journals as crap because it’s not the kind of writing you like to do and imply that the only motive of those who write for them is self-interest.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:16:33 +0000

I agree that it makes a mockery of peer review in *this journal*. I’m not we can extrapolate beyond that.

I’m also a bit wary of generalizing about the state of peer-reviwed LIS journals. Sure, there are some bad and/or useless studies, but there are also a lot of valuable studies, too. Some journals publish more dross than others, too.

Maybe we need to start talking about raising the bar for quality in our profession.

By: K.G. Schneider

K.G. Schneider — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:39:33 +0000

Yes, I am so not mired in academia, and it is good.

I agree on the journal losing cred this way. It really makes a mockery of “peer review,” particularly if this got pushed past the editorial board without their knowledge and approval.

By: Meredith Farkas

Meredith Farkas — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:53:49 +0000

Great point, Lisa. It was extremely irresponsible of the editors to do something that could easily damage the reputation of the journal for all the people who’ve published in it or will publish in it. From what I’ve heard, folks on the editorial board weren’t even made aware of it until they saw the issue themselves. That’s just crazy.

Karen, glad to hear I’m not the only one “over it.” I’d NEVER even considered that you could be the Annoyed Librarian — it seems to me that the person is much more mired in academia (and not a tiny academic library like I am) than you are.