And "substantial" is just as relative as "useful," wouldn't you say?

At the risk of getting myself into further trouble, I'd like to use Steven's comments about not publishing lately as another rationale for why we don't need - and shouldn't have - to have every librarian blogging. My concern is that they might come to see, as Steven suggests he may be, that the blog is a potential new substitute - or alternative - for publishing in the mainstream library literature (trade or peer review). For one thing, that might cause a substantial drain on our profession's publication rates. Now some might say, given the considerable number of articles in professional journals that are repetitive or not truly read worthy (and I'm willing to admit that I've had a few published that could fall into this category), less publishing would be a good thing. But I'd encourage Steven to get back to publishing something substantial when he can. I don't blog, but I can see the attractiveness of it compared to traditional article writing. You can say whatever you want - no one is editing what you write (you're just subject to comments like this one). It's instant gratification - no waiting a few months for publication. You don't need to worry a whole lot about conforming to a journal's style - want to use lots of tech-jargon, hip phrases, inside references that only other bloggers will catch, other informalities, etc. - go right ahead. And as Steven points out, if you're interested in readership levels, a well-known blog will gather more interest than a dry, old library journal article. What struck me when I read this post though is that it seems to contain some of the same philosophy that we see in our college students that leaves us librarians frustrated about their research and information gathering behaviors. Rather than take the time to achieve something thoughtful and substantial, they prefer to go for the quick, sure thing (some call this satisficing). Roy Tennant referred to it, I think, as the "crisis of convenience." Will librarians go the way of the blog instead of the traditional publication because it's faster, easier, and provides that instant gratification we get from ATMs, instant messengers, and text messaging? I am definitely overstating the case here - I don't think any of us believes we'll soon see a shortage of articles being submitted to library journals - at least not the quality publications. However, writing a high quality, substantial article for publication does takes a lot of effort, time, and introspective thought. It requires choosing the right words, and organizing those thoughts carefully. In essence - it's hard come up with original ideas and to communicate them effectively. But I think it is a challenging process with its own rewards. Maybe my article won't get the same readership as a popular blog story, but the effort I make will definitely increase my personal knowledge of the topic - and the intellectual process involved in researching, writing, editing - all goes a long way towards keeping us sharp and mentally vital. It's hard work, but offers worthwhile rewards. I would ask the blog writers if today's blog post, while offering some instant good feelings, really makes a personal difference 6 months or a year from now. A truly well-written article that's good enough to get published in a top library journal - and that ultimately resonates with one's colleagues - can be a long - term lasting accomplishment. Yes, it is pretty rare that will actually happen, but if you stay on the sidelines it can't possibly happen.

So please excuse my rambling on this one - it's defintely not intended as a critique of Steven, his comments or all the blog writers out there. I'm just reflecting on Steven's comments about his own writing situation - and clearly even his short piece - has had some impact on me by motivating me to write this comment - and that is one way in which blogs are very effective - I rarely write letters in response to journal articles - as few librarians do these days. Most of our dialogues take place electronically and are stimulated by e-lists and blogs. Let's not forget though that we all have a lot to gain from the traditional publication vehicles. I hope I'll see more from Steven - and other bloggers - in those too. They've made worthwhile contributions in the past, and I'm sure they'll continue to do so.

Just to interject a couple of notes:

Some journals have had a shortage of high-quality articles for years. Information Technology and Libraries, LITA's refereed publication, has chronic problems with manuscript flow--and, hmm, technology-oriented librarians are the ones who should be writing articles for ITAL.

And I must admit that I've basically stopped writing formal articles at this point, but then I never did write much in the way of refereeable scholarship.

We need all sorts--but yes, I can see the extent to which weblogs could tend to replace formal articles. I know the temptation; that's one reason (of several) that I don't have a weblog.