Opportunities, threats and myths in journals

Who knows what journals really are? Not I, but it doesn’t stop me writing about them. Nor anybody else, I suspect, but that hasn’t stemmed the torrent of opinion in print and on the internet over the years. And indeed, who should know? Perhaps not even the scholars/authors/readers who would at least appear to be the ultimate source and reason for the whole business – as John Ziman, himself an eminent scientist, put it ‘not every high and mighty professor, with a hundred papers to his name, grasps the full subtlety and complexity of the system as it has evolved over 300 years.’ The journal has carved out so many niches over that period that it is just possible that its overall function is greater than the sum of its parts. But it does matter what journals are. Without some understanding we can easily fall for the platitudes and conventional wisdoms, even apparent consensus, in some cases, which turn out to have been based on a misconception. Grab a misunderstood opportunity and it becomes a threat. It is not my intention to offend scholars or authors, at least not just them. We are all guilty, whether it be we publishers, or librarians or the host of other players, of presenting just one biased picture. And your opportunity might be my threat. It’s not that the pronouncements by the luminaries of the professions are wrong. They’re just not sufficiently right. Before looking at one or two of potential ways forward in the electronic era, I thought I would put up some Aunt Sallys that we’ve all heard over the years, and subject them to a little scrutiny. The plan is to link them to a theme intended to emerge at the end. Opportunities, threats and myths in journals