I’ve been thinking more about the challenges we all face in keeping up with scholarly literature. This came up on the SNAP Twitter chat and I wrote more about it a couple weeks ago. Eira Tansey has a great calendar she uses (which she graciously allowed me to add here).
We all know it’s overwhelming to know where to start. Do you start with the latest issue of American Archivist? Read that Archival Issues that’s been sitting on your desk for four years? Look at the plethora of online journals? Or find articles about a certain topic of interest?
As I thought about this, it emphasized a gap: there are few reviews of journals or articles, the focus is more on books, exhibits, software, or other tools. The American Archivist reviews portal has a review of the Provenance Advocacy issue, and I did a profile of VIEW. After I wrote that post, I intended to continue to feature journals (besides CFP or new issues/articles). But it’s a lot for one person to do.
So here’s my proposal: I’d like anyone interested to contribute to this blog by reviewing articles and/or journals. You can write as many as you want, as often as you want. You choose what you want to write about and I’ll post it. All along, I’ve wanted this blog to have multiple contributors and I’ve had a few guest posts (for which I’m grateful for). Think about it: it encourages you to read the literature AND gives you an opportunity to write!
I created a sign-up sheet to avoid overlap. Feel free to add anything. Know that it won’t be my intention to moderate what you write (though I’ll gladly offer feedback if you want it). For all the guest posts so far, I haven’t changed a word. I believe it’s important to have multiple voices and perspectives, so I see my role as only posting what you write.
I hope you like this idea and I especially hope to hear from you!
Publishing in the Archives Profession 
Hi Cheryl,
I really like this idea and think it would be very valuable to the profession. Too often we don’t know the rankings of our journals when trying to decide where to submit works. I have referred people to Bealls List of Predatory Open Access Publishers where he has developed a criteria for what he considers predatory. There has been some push back but it is a very useful list. It would great to have something similar for archives, maybe not a predatory list though, haha. I think your list contains reputable publishers.
In 2009 I wrote an article for RUSQ evaluating a number of databases for their coverage of Black women feminists writers. Would you be interested in something that looks at the coverage of different topics or issues or people in these journals? Or just straight forward reviews of the journals?
I will add my name to one of the journals. Do you have a time-frame that you want the review finished? My plate is pretty full at the moment, but I would like to contribute.
LikeLike
Thanks Rebecca! You have great suggestions. For reviews, I don’t have a specific timeframe and I want it be an ongoing initiative. I really like the idea of reviewing archival literature through coverage of topics/issues/people and I think that would greatly benefit others. I’m very open to ideas so go for it! I previously wrote about open access (see part 1 and part 2), and there’s always room for more discussion. I welcome your help in creating a resource like that for archives!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Cheryl, I’ll see what I can do, but it may be a while. I think this is something the profession would find of real value. Thanks for the post on open access; we are seeing more journals adopt that model, but as you noted, it is not free and it takes time.
LikeLike