Many thanks for re-surfacing this issue. It generated some buzz when I wrote in February, but then fell off the collective radar screen like everything else.

Great comments from everyone. Pam, I wonder if what will evolve is a tiered system in which blogs and journals serve different purposes. Excellent ideas, Cliff. And Dorothea, I’m pleased to say that I have a few items in E-LIS!

Does this sound like LIS research literature and our community of research-publishing academics and practitioners? No. We have no preprint tradition, no community tradition of boldly transparent, open, and participatory research literature discussion and development. The majority of our peer-reviewers come from just one slice of our field: academics or academic / medical librarians. Sure, a segment of our community discusses and shares opinions using blogs but we don’t have an existing tradition of public discussion of our research literature to harness and make better using today’s internet tools like the Physicists did and do.

Leaving aside much-discussed criticism of the quality, impact, or value of our collective research literature, is it really in our best interest to leave our research literature publishing to scattered blogging efforts? Are we really just needing a tool to improve our research literature? There is most certainly a place for blog-based discussion of LIS research but it is short-sighted to think this is where we should be directing our research literature output. We don’t need “a professional shift that values speed of new ideas over polished presentation” anywhere near as much as we need increased community engagement and participation in all facets of the development of a deep and rigorous research-base for all areas of librarianship.

As one of four editors of EBLIP , I know first-hand that LIS research literature can be published with a quick turn-around, online-only and open access, with the authority and rigor of formal peer-review, the backing of our institutions for continuity (or associations, see The Partnership Journal as another example ), LOCKKS-ready preservation and archiving, transparent and documented governance and editorial policies, OAI-compliant indexing, as well as the ability for post-publication comment embedded with the article. This is made possible by the brilliance of OJS and this the stewardship and care that our research literature deserves. This is also made possible with an engaged and committed group of international community members working in a fully volunteer effort for editorial, peer-review, and production work. See: Richard’s “The Ins and Outs of the Peer-Review Process” and think if you’re willing to put that rigour into your blog comments.

Regardless of the technology used to communicate research findings (paper or online journal, blog, wiki, what have you), there is a tremendous difference between pre-publication blind or open peer review and pre or post publication comment and discussion. The Physicists know this. Indeed, the Physics community is leaps and bounds ahead of the LIS community in taking control of access to their research literature. The High Energy Physics community is currently spearheading the first research community driven initiative to make all of their peer-reviewed, authoritative literature fully open access (see: SCOAP3). That their preprints are already openly available isn’t sufficient as they do not represent or replace the quality their community expects of their formal research literature. We have much to learn from the Physics community and we need to talk more about this issue using any of the forums available to us. Thanks to Marcus and Michael for contributing to the discussion.

1) A multi-scholar blog that peer reviews scholarly posts on other blogs (can be single blind w/ anonymous reviewer)
2) A blog of scholarly submissions that is open for peer-review by other established scholarly blogs (could also be single blind w/ anonymous author)
3) A pair of blogs, one for submissions and the other for review (for double-blind)

Authors and reviewers could easily be screened by sending the blog(s) editor a CV, and a simple WordPressMU installation(s) should be able to handle the workflow.

What do you think?

Please set an example for your colleagues by self-archiving what you write, present, and design!