In accord with one of the points in David Colander's recent post, I would
like to propose that any further discussion on the topic of chapters in
edited volumes versus journal articles be submitted under the subject line
in my post above rather than on the previous "nobel prize..." subject
line. While I have found the discussion interesting and informative, I do
not think the subject line for it should be linked with with one
particular proposed edited volume. As David Colander noted, this is
problematic even with a disclaimer of judgment on the particular proposed
volume.

I have nothing to add to the substance of the discussion other than to
reiterate the view already expressed that there are arguments to be made
on either side regarding the merits both intellectual and in terms of
career advancement for publishing in journals vs. edited volumes.

David Mitch


> Since I have been channeled, (thanks Roger) I thought I should add my few
> cents.  I have agreed with almost all the comments, as well as with much
> of what was in Roy's original post.  But I have a few additional points.
>
>
> 1.       While this is   an important topic, it is one that I believe
> should have been raised separately, not in connection with any specific
> post.  The goal is discussion, not judgments, and if you have to say that
> you are not making any judgments in a post, then it suggests  that a
> judgment is being made.
>
> 2.       Grad students at most grad schools are given similar suggestions
> to Roy's, except that it is in regard to doing any work in history of
> thought wherever it is going to be published-students are often told: why
> waste your time doing history of thought-it won't lead to publication in
> the "appropriate" journals. (Your third, throwaway, essay  of  your
> dissertation might be on a history of thought theme.) The good students
> don't take that advice seriously. They   do what interests them, subject
> to the constraint that they need a job and a forum.  (Students are also
> told not to do books as well, since they don't count for tenure and don't
> get cited as much.)
>
> 3.       The argument Roy made about for-profit publishers and edited
> volumes extends to for-profit journals, which are similarly questionable.
> The high pricing of journals is a primary reason edited volumes are being
> squeezed out-regardless of quality-libraries can't afford them, and when
> not many libraries buy them, the cost per unit goes up.  Not for profit
> journals also don't come out so well here either-while they have lower
> costs to libraries that is generally because, due to grandfathering, they
> have larger circulations, which spreads the costs. The AEA's cost of
> production per article (with the three journals before the new ones) was
> higher than the cost of production of just about any other economic
> journal. But with so many libraries buying it, they could spread out those
> costs. The for-profit publishers are creating so many new journals in
> order to offer the "package" and say that they have low per article costs.
>
> 4.       There is an obsession with rankings and citations which needs to
> be seen for what it is-an obsession. My advice to young scholars is that
> If a project  is interesting, and you want to do it, do it-but make sure
> that you are meeting the criteria to stay in the profession, which means
> paying attention to the issues Roy raises. But  remember, tenure decisions
> are local-check with your local powers that be to determine what counts
> and what does not, and how much.  What I search for when evaluating
> someone is whether they have interesting things to say. Quality shows
> through independently of where something is published.
>
> 5.       In fact the primary purpose that journals now serve is
> selection-this is worth reading, this not, not dissemination of
> information. As a means of disseminating information, journals and books
> are obsolete.
>
> 6.       Eventually, journals and books will be replaced by other
> selection mechanisms of what is good work and what isn't.  I expect that
> there will be "specialist editors", who will troll the web searching for
> articles worth reading. Then, they will post their selections, with links.
>  That will be that editor's journal.  That will leave it up to the people
> who post the article to see that it meets a quality standard.
>
> 7.       Peer review by journals and editors often is not all that great,
> and the current focus on a few journals too often gives too much weight to
> a small number of gatekeepers. Generally, the most important peer review
> that one gets comes from friends and colleagues who read your work and
> make honest comments before you submit it to a journal.
>
>
>
>
>