From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 09:05:58 +0000

In defence of mediocre journals, let me delight you with a quote from
José Ortega y Gasset's 'The Revolt of the Masses': "Experimental
science has progressed – thanks in great part to the work of men
astoundingly mediocre, and even less than mediocre."  (The Ortega
hypothesis)

To which Lewis Wolpert in his book 'The Unnatural Nature of Science'
(required reading, in my view – ISBN 0-571-16490-0): "Science
accommodates and even needs the intellectually commonplace."

To which I would add my assumption that none of that mediocre and
commonplace, but necessary, science is published in 'prestige'
journals. It follows then that the mediocre and even less than
mediocre journals in which that material is presumably published, are
necessary too.

I see science publications as an edifice, with turrets and curlicues
at the top (articles published in the likes of Nature and Science),
solid walls (consisting of articles in the better journals), and a
strong foundation of hard core (consisting of articles in mediocre and
less than mediocre journals). Without this foundation, the edifice
would collapse.

Jan Velterop

On 3 Dec 2011, at 03:55, LIBLICENSE wrote:

Most large publishers produce and clog the market with more mediocre
journals than prestigious ones. Once competition in the title-by-title
acquisition by libraries helped purge
the market.  Now in the Big Deal model, new journals are added to the package
and often there is no opt-out, only notification that the Big Deal will inflate
some percentage and there will be a forced acquisition of these new titles at
some percent of an imaginary list price for the new titles.   Journal titles
rarely cease in this market.