|
Ok, I lied. I took an hour this evening to respond to Stephen Bell's comment about my recent post entitled, Why Wait?!.
I'll take this paragraph by paragraph:
"Having looked at Martha's blog post on Libraries & CMS, I think there can be some value to these posts getting information out to the community sooner, but if she leaves it here and never publishes it then it's not likely to reach a wider audience - and as Karen points out - may not improve from the comments and suggestions a good editor can provide."
Why won't Martha's post reach a wider audience? Is technology still so much in its infancy that less people will read it if it were in a trade or scholarly publication? There is no evidence (not any that I have come across although I haven't done any formal investigation) that more people read articles published in print publications than articles that are published exclusively on the web. Also, why would an editor improve more on the article than the audience? The ability to comment on the article directly (as Bell did in this case) allows for more of a discussion about the topic. In my opinion, we can only grow from conversations (be they online or off). Online forums, like the comments section on any weblog post, allows for all to engage in the discussion (plus its easier - try to get all 2,500 readers of this post in a room to talk about it)"
"While getting one's thoughts out there quickly may provide a quick rush of accomplishment, on the other end of process is that little thing we call permanency. Ok, so none of our stuff will matter much a century or two from now, but if it's on the weblog - how will LIS students doing some library research on this topic several years from now find Martha's item. When you consider that many bloggers just abandon their blogs at an astounding rate (a figure I saw recently was along the lines of over 100,000 a month - even though there are still millions of blogs), these sorts of writings are apt to eventually disappear or may become unfindable. The various blog search engines may help, but it's not the same as if Martha's piece was indexed in Library Literature or LISA."
I agree with Stephen about the permanency of weblogs. Most disappear after only a few posts. That doesn't mean, however, that Martha's article will disappear if, well, Martha disappears. Maybe there can be a database of articles that are posted on weblogs that are "worthy" (not sure how to define it) of keeping? That thought leads me to this one. Once vendors understand the power of weblogs (and especially RSS) in the publishing realm, who's to say that this content won't be indexed by Library Literature or other correlated indexing mechanism. The problem exists that those articles that are published in print publications are considered to be more 'legitimate' than those that publish only to the web. Shouldn't the legitimacy of the article be based on the person writing the article, not the form in which it is published? Case in point: Walt Crawford.
"Other sorts of articles involve research that cannot be simply distilled in a couple of hundred words - they need the longer format that a formal publishing provides. For an example, look at Hal Shill's indepth study of library buildings and how they serve users in the latest issue of College and Research Libraries. I couldn't imagine Hal doing justice to all of his findings in a blog piece - at best he could do a bit of shameless self-promotion to point readers to his more detailed article. I could say the same about an article I'll have published (don't know when) about the intersection of library databases, courseware, and e-reserves. It addresses some of the issues Martha raises in her piece, but my co-author and I go into far greater depth with anecdotes and discussion of the issues. We couldn't have done justice to it in a blog environment. However, since this is a Haworth journal (a bad reputation for publishing on a schedule) we'll have to wait. On the other hand, I like to know that I've got an article or two in the bag - and that I'll have something to add to my resume in the next year - even if I don't have a chance to write something formal later on. Yes, you can praise the virtue of publishing immediacy that blogs provide, but I also think there is something good about anticipation. I kind of like not knowing when my article is going to be published - and then all of sudden there it is."
Why can't a weblog post be published as a research article? Why do weblog posts have to be a few hundred words? Why can't they be more? We need to break down the barriers of what is normally considered to be a weblog post (if they were meant to be 100 words or less, the software would be written to prevent me from writing that 101st word). I totally disagree with Stephens "anticipation" theory (and I'll mention later how he contradicts himself there). If you had the choice to see your article published in the May 2004 issue of American Libraries or the next forthcoming issue, which would you choose? My guess is that the former will be more popular. We should reserve our anticipation for other life moments (an upcoming wedding day, a new baby), but not publishing content. In my opinion, content should be released as soon as it is ready, not held back because there wasn't enough room or they are saving it for a "special issue".
"And finally, you will have situations where you have a really good idea for an article - because it is nice to see yourself in print (though I wouldn't get all giddy about it like the blogger Steve pointed us to) - and if you want it to get published - some of the premier publications won't publish something that's already been released in another journal or format - like a weblog. So there are situations where you need to keep the content under wraps until it gets formally published. To my way of thinking, that's what conference presentations are for - to discuss those topics, ideas, etc. that are going to eventually get published - without having them appear formally in some printed or electronic format (that a publisher can point to)."
I'm going to take umbrage with his comment about not getting "giddy" about seeing yourself in print. If I want to get giddy, then gosh-darnit-to-heck, I'm going to get giddy. Writers work very hard on their pieces and if we are excited about having our work published, than so be it (This is where Bell contradicts himself. First he says that he likes getting surprised when he sees his name in print, then he tells us not get giddy about it). There, I took umbrage. Second, I'm not talking about publishing work on a weblog and then submitting it for publication elsewhere. I'm talking about publishing exclusively online. Last, keeping content under wraps sends chills down my spine. I can understand not releasing information (in the form of an article or essay) before it is completely formed (a different story), but once its solid, get it out there. That is why weblogs are so useful. These ideas can always be expanded upon in a conference presentation.
"So there are definitely writers whose comments and ideas I want to follow without waiting for them to publish something formally - but the vast majority of library bloggers don't fall into this category. I'd recommend that they invest the time needed to develop and write a high quality article because going through the effort and editing process could only help their analytical and writing abilities - which in the long run should help them improve the quality of their blogs. Are they will to sacrifice immediate gratification for quality end results? Sounds like the debate we have about our own end users."
In my opinion, there is only one process that helps a writer write more fluently. Reading. The more we read, the better our writing. Try not reading (for pleasure or professional development) for two weeks and then writing a short essay. Not that easy, right? There are parts of our brain that we feed by reading. If it starves, our writing skills suffer. Every great author (most recently Joyce Carol Oates in her latest memoir) has had similar views. As far as being analytical, that comes with time, not from a good editor (although a good one never hurts!!). I always tell attendees in my presentations that if they are serious about writing professionally, they should try to write everyday, to take 10 minutes out of their busy schedule and get some thoughts down on paper. And why not get those ideas out there...try using weblogs.
Posted by Steven at December 9, 2003 08:21 PM | TrackBackWell, given my name is being thrown around, I guess I'd better say a few words. This is more interesting than I'd hoped! One of my reasons for posting that 'article' was to see what would happen. I'm curious about weblogs and other phenomena that may impact scholarly communications. The traditional indexes that Stephen with a 'ph' mentions have long been only one of the types of sources an information literate scholar uses (though library information literacy programs tend to emphasize them). Another reason is that this kind of piece normally sits on a shelf in my office, read perhaps by the task group or administrator I might write it for. My primary audience is in my library, but why not share such a general summary with others? I've already heard from a few people saying thanks. I did consider whether to provide something more in-depth and publish it somewhere, but it really is the kind of thing that will date instantly and frankly I'm not going to have the time 4 months from now to update it, were it to go to press. Another thing -- I'm always put off by the intellectual property agreements posted on library journal websites, telling me I'll be handing over my rights. Something ironic in that, given that librarians advise academics to refuse to do that, in an effort to cure the 'crisis in scholarly publishing.' But moments ago I did send a completed article on an entirely different topic to a traditional journal. I've started the clock, and will let you know how the timing and response compares to this gratifying weblog exchange!
Posted by: Martha Whitehead on December 9, 2003 10:51 PMI won't take an hour to respond - just a few points. But first, that's Steven WITH a "v".
StevenC writes:
There is no evidence (not any that I have come across although I haven't done any formal investigation) that more people read articles published in print publications than articles that are published exclusively on the web
StevenB responds:
I think the vast majority of library professionals are not doing a good job of keeping up with professional literature in print or electronic format, but the sheer number of possible readers - given the circulation of the more well known library journals - tips the scales in favor of greater readership in print. Where would most librarians prefer to have their article published, in American Libraries or LibraryStuff?
StevenC writes:
Why would an editor improve more on the article than the audience? The ability to comment on the article directly (as Bell did in this case) allows for more of a discussion about the topic.
StevenB responds:
I think anyone who has ever worked with an excellent editor can answer this question with a resounding "I'd rather have a good editor help me improve the quality of my article." I think there is great value to getting feedback from colleagues and I almost always share a rough draft of an article with "selected" colleagues who I think can help - because I respect their expertise and writing ability. When writers are in the development stage or forming an idea, yes, discussion may help - but to get a lump of coal shaped into a diamond, a talented editor will help a great deal more than discussion. If StevenC's point had validity, then magazines and newspapers could fire all of their editors and just let their readers help the writers improve their articles.
StevenC writes:
Why can't a weblog post be published as a research article?
StevenB responds:
I suppose a weblog post could be 10,000 words long, but is anyone going to read it? The good thing about most weblog posts is that they're brief, so they allow us to ingest the information quickly. I think any author who has invested considerable time in producing a comprehensive research article, is going to value publication in a high quality journal - where there is permanency, indexing, etc. - over the immediacy of getting it onto a blog. I think there is more of a likelihood an author may want to summarize the research or make know the key findings on the blog. My comments do not suggest research articles are for print publications only. First Monday or D-Lib Magazine are certainly authoritative sources for research publication - but don't share the qualities of blogs for immediacy of publication (but are faster than print).
StevenC writes:
Bell contradicts himself. First he says that he likes getting surprised when he sees his name in print, then he tells us not get giddy about it).
StevenB responds:
Of course it's a satisfying feeling to see your article show up in print (or in an e-journal) and have a nice feeling about it. But if no one reads it, reacts to it, or is influenced by it positively or negatively, who gives a damn. But I think we all need to keep it in perspective - this is JUST an article in a library publication. Feeling personally good about being published (but keeping it to yourself) and running out and shouting (or shamelessly self-promoting it on your blog, in an email to a list, etc) about it are two very different things. I guess this is one issue where we'll agree to disagree. You are welcome to get giddy each time you publish. I've always been very humble about it. My thought is, you're only as good as your next accomplishment, so don't get too excited about yourself. If you do get published - don't brag about it. If it's good other people will know it - and the kudos (and maybe an award or two) will be forthcoming.
StevenC writes:
Last, keeping content under wraps sends chills down my spine. I can understand not releasing information (in the form of an article or essay) before it is completely formed (a different story), but once its solid, get it out there.
StevenB responds:
This takes the comment out of context. My point refers to publishing opportunities where you know that a particular journal is going to be less likely to publish your article if you've already been divulging your content in other forums. Take a look at the editorial guidelines of various journals. They specifically ask "has this been published elsewhere?" They may consider publishing in a weblog "elsewhere". How might this impact Martha if she wants to publish her article on CMS in a quality library journal? Of course it's fine to share some preliminary findings or ideas in a less formal setting. Before I published my first article on Keeping Up - way back in 2000 - I had been sharing my ideas and sources with others on discussion lists and other forums. So I'm all for sharing information when and if it can help colleagues.
StevenC writes:
There is only one process that helps a writer write more fluently. Reading.
StevenB responds:
I'm not a writing instructor and don't claim to know what makes anyone a better writer - other than what works for myself. I do agree that being a vociferous reader - and being devoted to keeping up - will help you in the "generating ideas" department. But reading alone won't help you be a better writer in my opinion. Having a good friend who is the writing director at our university, he tells me that writing improves when you write regularly - and when your writing is subject to critical review by your peers and other experts. Otherwise you are writing in your own world and it may sound good to you, but it may be completely incomprehensible to others. That's where I'll continue to maintain that just writing to your own blog may be a good way to help you get your ideas out, but as far as helping you become a better writer - I just don't buy it.
One final comment for StevenC:
If no one is commenting on your weblog posts lately, could it possibly have anything to do with them knowing that any one who offers a dissenting or alternate viewpoint, vision or opinion will have their comments dissected paragraph by paragraph by you? Personally, I'm fine with it and look forward to having anyone respond critically to what I write. I know I certainly get things wrong and have some dumb ideas and you have every right to disagree or point out the faults in my logic. As I said I'd much rather have you disagree with my points than be apathetic. However, that may not be the case for the majority of your 2,000 readers or so. My guess is that the ones who agree with everything you say aren't likely to comment (other than to say "Right on Steven" and doesn't that get kind of tiresome), and the ones who don't agree may not have the courage to state their own opinions for fear of being ripped to shreds. In either case, you may be creating a "chilling" factor right here - and if so, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of a weblog - which is to encourage and faciliate a discussion. As always I appreciate the time you took to respond to my comments.
And one last comment for Martha - she writes:
I'm always put off by the intellectual property agreements posted on library journal websites, telling me I'll be handing over my rights.
StevenB suggests: Try publishing in journals like Portal: Libraries and the Academy. They let you keep the rights to your work.
Posted by: steven bell on December 10, 2003 07:02 AMI'll have to disagree with the final comment by StevenB - "and if so, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of a weblog - which is to encourage and faciliate a discussion."
I'm not convinced that that is the purpose of Weblogs. I personally find a e-mail list more conducive to discussion. The structure of a 'blog gives the 'blog owner a position of power. This very lopsided discussion tends to inhibit discussion.
I suppose a 'blog constructed where everybody has posting rights (/. maybe) could be a discussion. However, most of the 'blogs I read are current awareness tools, not discussions. The occasional comment does not change the fundamental nature of the form.
As a current awareness tool, I don't see the value of posting long in-depth articles in a 'blog. Point to them comment, and summarize them, yes. I'd like to see our profession use preprint servers more. I deal with the folks who use ArXive and see what a great tool they have constructed there. The Astrophysics Data Service is another wonderful tool. Why does DLIST have so few papers and reports? As information professionals we should have a services equal to those in physics and astronomy.
Posted by: David Bigwood on December 10, 2003 08:52 AMFascinating stuff, particularly since it's a coherent and civilized discussion by people who I respect and who are signing their writing (sorry: just came from LISNews...)
A few random thoughts:
a. I may not feel giddy when one of my pieces appears in a traditional print journal, but I'm frequently delighted to see the results of aggressive editing (which I encourage) and context--and, as I've said elsewhere, reading the piece with a two- or three-month delay offers fresh perspective and can be delightful. (Well, OK, once in a while I do feel giddy...)
b. Re signing away your rights: What SBell says. American Libraries uses a standard freelance contract (which leaves you with copyright). AFAIK, every ALA divisional has an "alternate" form that leaves you with copyright and assigns very limited rights to the journal. I'm (VERY reluctantly) assigning rights in a forthcoming book review (because I'd already agreed to do it before I realized the situation), but I increasingly believe that you should just say no: If publishers insist on full assignment, take your words elsewhere
c. I believe that writing improves through reading, through writing, through looking back at your work after a time delay--and, critically, through tough, constructive editing (and refereeing, for that matter). And I believe that, for most of us mere mortals (myself explicitly included), almost all of our writing can *always* benefit from good editing. (One of few regrets I have about Cites & Insights: No editor.)
d. While I'm not as enthusiastic about First Monday as SBell, and really do question the possibility of a legitimate "refereeing" process that takes 1-2 days from submission to acceptance, there's no question that there are refereed ejournals with very small publication delays.
In the end, of course, what's best for Steven M. Cohen simply may not be best for Steven Bell, which in turn may not be best for Walt Crawford, which in turn... There's room for a lot of different mechanisms.
Posted by: Walt Crawford on December 10, 2003 09:10 AMThe best way to become a great writer is to work with a great mentor. For many writers, that mentor is an editor. I greatly appreciate everything I learn from the folks at American Libraries, Library Journal, Neal Schuman, and other places where my writing has had the benefit of close editorial review. I consider an editor's input a strong benefit of writing for formal publication.
Reading is an important tool for learning how to write better, but ultimately, reading is about other folks' writing.
Posted by: K. G. Schneider on December 10, 2003 01:15 PMOk from an information literacy POV, if all research was published in blogs, say, how would we verify it? By trackbacks? How logical the premise sounds?
For me, still, I use double-blind peer reviewed journals as my crutch for validity. Yes, sometimes that system doesn't work, but usually it does.
I don't see why we can't have peer review for blogging, especially on cutting edge topics. This would bring validity to the medium. And perhaps also weed out the 'link of the day' blogs which are fun, but not major contributions to new knowledge.
As for indexing of blogs by ISI or Library Literature, I can't see that happening for some time yet. Most are too unstructured. And do you really want to index every little link and post that each blog makes?
Posted by: Fiona on December 10, 2003 05:01 PMGreat comments, thus far. My $0.02 (only because I haven't seen these issues mentioned so far):
SC:
Shouldn't the legitimacy of the article be based on the person writing the article, not the form in which it is published? Case in point: Walt Crawford.
But Walt Crawford has tons of legitimacy, already. Regardless of the format he uses in current or future writing, his "cred" is well-established. What about those that are new to the field? How do they establish legitimacy if they are only (or largely) publishing in a very new format?
SB:
My thought is, you're only as good as your next accomplishment, so don't get too excited about yourself. If you do get published - don't brag about it.
As someone who just saw their second-ever article in "print" (electronic newsletter, actually) a little more than an hour ago ... sorry, I still get really giddy and I'm probably going to put a link to the article in my blog. I may get more humble about it in a year or so.
SB:
Is technology still so much in its infancy that less people will read it if it were in a trade or scholarly publication?
Objectively, I don't know. My gut feeling: yes, definitely. We're talking about a fairly new format in a relatively new medium. I suspect there's a type of digital divide among librarians, and a lot of librarians are struggling to keep up technologically (heck, I have two blogs and I still haven't found an RSS aggregator that I'm comfortable using on a regular basis). I don't want my writings to be completely invisible to them, even (or sometimes especially) if I'm writing about digital aspects of librarianship.
And this is phrased all wrong, but I hope the kernals of what I mean are discernable ...
Posted by: Eli on December 11, 2003 01:28 PMThis is easily the most interesting extended discussion I've seen on a libblog in some time (particularly since it stays at a high level).
Responding (?) to one of Eli's notes: Well, now, consider: the columns I write for American Libraries, EContent, and Online are indexed extensively (I don't have access to the library-literature indexes, but I know they're in several of the big general-purpose indexes). To the best of my knowledge, nothing in Cites & Insights--90% of my writing, probably 85% of my professional effort--is indexed anywhere. And I'd bet that 90% of any citations to my writing, other than in weblogs, is (are?) to books and articles that appear in print publications.
So, by traditional measures of impact, the tiny amount I do in traditional media far outweighs the amount I do in partially-nontraditional media.
[I have some unkind comments about legitimacy--as measured by citations in The Literature--and my standing compared to anybody who normally publishes in true refereed journals, but I'll leave those for another time. Suffice it to say that I'm a fringe personality within much of The Profession, quite possibly appropriately.]
Posted by: Walt Crawford on December 11, 2003 01:51 PMI posted a comment on the 'Thoughts?' posting, so didn't manage to get my oar in properly on this discussion, if anyone is desparately interested in my view, they can read it there. However I thought I'd take the opportunity to plug (pr)e-print archives as a potential staging post between areas of publishing (blog and print). If the paper was submitted to an OAI compliant pre-print archive, we (the interested community) would have the benefit of the article being available immediately, there would be a greater chance of permanence, (even if the article never made it into publication), and the publication process could go on at it's own pace, with the possibility of the post-print being both in print, and online.
I've just emerged from a deep flu, which I'll use as my excuse for my spelling faux pas (or is that phaux pas) -- sorry Steven B -- and was impressed to find this conversation still going on. It must be winding down, but I have few last observations after seeing all these good comments.
- As interesting as this is, I also think -- what's the fuss? Many of these questions were really introduced by the web many years ago, not weblogs, and we seem to be growing quite comfortable there.
- This seems obvious, but I don't think it's been said bluntly: it's not a question of either/or, would someone prefer to be published in American Libraries or Library Stuff. It depends. People write for a multitude of different purposes and audiences, and those determine the venue. If I'm publishing research I'll send it to a peer-reviewed journal, and I could use a pre-print archive as David and Owen suggest. I might send an opinion piece for a wide audience to a newspaper, etc etc. And of course there's huge value in editorial input and peer review -- that's accepted by anyone even remotely connected with tenure and promotion. But the purpose could be something like current awareness within a particular community or across different communities, with no desire for 'gratification,' and a weblog (or an old-fashioned website and listserv notice) might serve you very well.
- There are no weblog rules. But I guess there are emerging community conventions. Let's hope they stay nice and loose and conducive to the exchange of ideas.
Posted by: Martha Whitehead on December 13, 2003 01:56 PM