|
I am concerned with a niche type of publishing - academic journals, in particular in my area of expertise, which is empirical finance. And the lines are blurring there as well - but only to some extent.
They are blurring because any article that makes it to a top journal has already been read by anyone who cares. I have unpublished articles that have been presented at tens of conferences and downloaded over 5,000 times - which, in the small world of academic finance, means everyone who cared, has read them already.
Yet, at the same time, a prestigious journal has a strong certification value. If I see something published in the Journal of Finance, I look at it differently - I know the evidence has been vetted, that (most) mistakes have been corrected. While not a-critical, I do look at it with a higher level of confidence. And the other way around - if I see some interesting paper published in a low-level journal, I always wonder - where is the problem? Why is it this piece of research didn't make it into a top journal?
Even more, prestigious journal publications allow for ranking of researchers and provide an objective way to compare research output.
In other words - editors do more than transfer words to paper. They improve papers and books by their advice and directions, they certify the quality of what is written - because, be it professional or pleasure reading, we all have limited time and expertise to identify what is truly worth focusing on.
I know it may be tempting to have faith in the 'mass-consensus' and viral marketing of the internet. But, if you truly believe that professional reviewers and editors are not needed, that the public is capable of identifying high-quality work, then remember that the three biggest literary phenomena of the past years have been Dan Brown, Twilight and Stieg Larsson.
|