LAUC Journal Feasibility Group Call
Present:† Dan Goldstein (chair), Andrea Duda, Angela Riggio, Janet Martorana, Anita Colby (recording)
The group agreed to fortnightly conference calls on Mondays at 11:00am-12:00.† Though the entire group was not available for any week in March.
Re: Danís proposal for a journal description:
[The journal seeks to publish articles on matters of interest to the
communities of Academic and Special Librarians.† Submissions should both contain substantive research and explain the context and implications of that research for the library and information science communities, and/or the social, technical and intellectual contexts in which it is situated.† The journal will consider articles for all disciplinary perspectives from history to computer science as long as they address some aspect of library or information science.]
Janet agreed with the academic/special library scope, but questioned restricting the journal to research only. She wants to include ďHow we did itĒ articles.† She feels broadening the scope of the journal would result in a broader audience and broader contributor base.† Anita agreed that restricting the journal to research articles was too narrow.† Andrea commented that Webliographies are a popular feature of ISTL.† Angela also supported the broader scope.
Andrea wanted to back up to the question of whether we really need this journal.† Whether there is any evidence that there is enough publishable material out there.† She has been beating the bushes to find sufficient content for ISTL.†
Janet suggested that we target a commercial journal and attempt to draw authors away.†† Janet suggested the Elsevier journal, Research Strategies, as such a journal.† Andrea suggested the Haworth press† titles as possible targets.† Andrea agreed that launching an alternative to Journal of Academic Librarianship would not work.† Janet questioned what the LAUC journal could offer that would make it different.† Dan recalled that Ruth Gustafson feels that there is no good peer reviewed journal of special libraries.† He would like to see LAUC pursue this journal as an experiment to see whether librarians, who are supposed to be best educated about Scholarly Communication issues, will support an open access journal.† If librarians wonít support OA, then OA is in trouble.† Dan would like to push the notion of theme issues with guest editors, and to see the LAUC journal promoted as a good first place to publish.† Janet argued that published in a prestigious journal is as desirable among library professionals as other faculty.† She felt we need a couple of strong issues to begin.† Anita suggested the need for a longer view.
Dan suggested that we look at the library journals currently being published to identify the niche weíre trying to occupy/share/take over.
Following up on the notion of theme issues with guest editors, Andrea felt the first step would be to develop a roster of possible guest editors and possible future themes.† Anita suggested that conference panels are a good place to look for editors.† Dan wondered what our role would be Ė whether we would go as far as voting on the potential topics.† Andrea felt that our list would just be a place for the journalís editorial board to begin.
Re: the editorial board.† It was agreed that as the journal would not be a LAUC organ, the board would not be comprised entirely of LAUC members but some prestigious others.
The group agreed that all substantive articles would be sent out for peer review.† That the referee list would probably develop over time in order to gain a sufficient strong panel for any topic.
The theme of the journal would likely determine the scope of its content.† The journal articles could be qualitative, quantitative, descriptive or a mixture depending on what was appropriate for the theme.†
The question of whether to start the journal with columns with editors (like ISTL) was discussed.† There was some agreement that the initial issues should probably not include these, and that the columns would not be peer reviewed.† We questioned whether book reviews would be on theme or not.† Dan felt that the guest editor would have various options depending on theme.† Janet pointed out that this could make each issue wildly different.† Anita explained the New Directions for Community Colleges model.† An editorial board meets annually to propose future topics and possible editors.† Guest editors are asked to submit proposals for the issue, including an overview of the theme and the authors and their topics to be included.† Once the board approves the proposal, editors are given a place in the publication line up and given a timeline for submitting their issues.† The guest editors work with the authors to finalize topics in order to create a cohesive whole.† Editors collect the articles and submit the completed issue.† Each article in the issue is sent out for blind peer review by one or more reviewers.† Reviewers comments are returned to the authors and revised articles are returned. The completed mss is sent for copy editing, then production.† She pointed out that production of this type of publication is far easier to manage than a journal w/ columns, features, editorials etc.
Janet agreed that it seemed a doable model.† Dan thought it might be good to begin w/ a tight focus, and grow over time. Angela suggested that we donít start off too complicated.
Dan saw the next steps as 1) writing up the workflow process, including the people involved (e.g., referees, copy editors) and 2) investigating the e-scholarship connection (He revealed that at this point LAUC is not eligible to sponsor a journal w/in the e-scholarship repository); and 3) getting a handle on what it would cost.
Is the editor paid, allotted released time, volunteering their time.
His contact w/in the PoliSci Dept wants $10,000 per year from the university to underwrite an editor position.† The ULís have expressed some interest, but itís unclear if that interest would translate to funding.† LAUCís research proposal program could support the initial year?† LAUC could probably come up w/ a few thousand per year.† Andrea raised the possibility of collaborating w/ library schools.
ACTION:† Dan will contact CDL re: e-scholarship problem.
Anita & Angela will look at technical support issues, e.g., copy-editing, e-scholarship chores
Andrea & Janet will look at other parts of the process, e.g., refereeing, guest editor and topic selection.