From: "John P. Abbott" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:40:26 -0500

Jan-

No problem with the edifice, only price the portions accordingly:
The strong foundation of mediocre journals priced
like earthen fill and crushed rock; and the few curlicues at
the turret tops priced as artisans' works.

John


John P. Abbott, MS MSLS
Associate Professor&  Coordinator, Collection Management
University Library
Appalachian State University
ASU Box  32026
218 College Street
Boone, NC  28608

828-262-2821 (vox)
828-262-2773 (fax)
[log in to unmask]


On 12/5/2011 7:20 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> 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
>