[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Journal start-ups---and the current journal scene (fwd)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Journal start-ups---and the current journal scene (fwd)
- From: David Goodman <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:32:21 EDT
- Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
There are many aspects to maintaining quality. As I see it: The referees are responsible for the quality of an individual paper. (How effectively they do this is a subject of much discussion elsewhere.) The editor is responsible for selecting the referees, evaluating their comments, and deciding which papers to publish. The publishers are responsible for selecting the editor and for producing and pricing the journal so it reaches the appropriate audience. The users are the ones who actually evaluate the quality of the journal as a whole, and indeed of the individual articles, by deciding which papers to read and which to cite. The librarians' role is to provide the material that the users most need. They do this based traditionally on the explicit evaluations of the users, but now more often (I hope) by objectively measuring the local use as judged by accesses and citations. This is not a mechanical process, as the use and citation patterns and criteria vary with fields. Librarians use non-numerical criteria as well, especially in judging new titles. We basically use criteria that do not require actually reading and judging the scientific content of the individual articles, such as noting the institutions where the authors are located, looking at the authors' previous citation record, checking reviews when available, looking at the number of articles and regularity of publication; observing relative content of individual articles compared to symposia, observing the congruity between the apparent specificity of the journal and local research interests. As needed, we also typically ask the opinion of appropriate faculty about the quality of the articles. But many of us have learned to make rough evaluations of the merit of scientific articles in the fields in which we specialize--at least well enough to identify the trivia. The distinctive marks of bad work are not that difficult to recognize. Some of us have the initial advantage of advanced degrees in our subjects; more important, all of us learn from our users. Part of the art of the librarian is the ability to work approximately over a very wide range of fields, much wider (and of course much shallower) than the typical scientist or physician. David Goodman (Ph.D., Molecular biology) Biology Librarian, and Co-Chair, Electronic Journals Task Force Princeton University Library firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.princeton.edu/~biolib/ phone: 609-258-3235 fax: 609-258-2627 _______________________________________ Norm Frankel wrote: > > David Goodman raises some very interesting points. I am concerned with > his suggestion that "the differences near the top may be so small and so > difficult to judge that it would be of almost equal quality." This is a > decision that should be made by the peer reviewers, i.e., physicians and > scientists. It is definitely not a decision to be made by librarians and > publishers.
- Prev by Date: RE: What does Tasini mean for us librarians?
- Next by Date: remote authentication
- Prev by thread: Re: Journal start-ups---and the current journal scene (fwd)
- Next by thread: Reminder - Digital Licensing Seminar in Seattle and DC