Let's look at the arguments in turn.
HILJ does indeed have a journal impact factor, placing it 31st out of the 56 journals in the library and information science category. This is a very modest performance after 25 years. But the point is - could this have been achieved without publisher support? The evidence suggests that it might. There are higher ranking journals in the category, which are open access, such as Information Research. And evidence from other fields suggests that open access journals can have very good impact factors. The suggestion that publisher support was needed to achieve an impact factor is therefore not borne out by the facts.
The arrangement with HILJ does produce an income for HLG. But does the income benefit HLG members, who pay a stiff fee to CILIP or a £25 per annum fee direct to HLG? Looking at the HLG accounts and list of recent activities it appears that the largest expense borne by HLG is its conference, which takes place every 2 years. The second largest expense is that of the committee itself, not surprising given the large number of committee members. Beyond the conference, and using the HLG website as a guide, its is hard to detect many educational and professional development activities arranged by HLG. The ones listed here are mostly organised by other bodies or are expensive CILIP training days. Where are the activities and events that Graham mentions? The guide to working in health information is out of date. Perhaps there are events organised by HLG, but they don't appear as a significant cost on the HLG balance sheet. In fact it appears that most of the income from HILJ is not spent on anything. But there is a query against the 2008 accounts so maybe it is wrong.
The third argument can be paraphrased 'that's just the way it is'. This argument might carry more weight if the income from HILJ was used to obvious benefit and if the publisher was making the journal a leader in its field. Neither of these appears to be true, so maybe it's time for a drains-up look at the relationship between HLG and HILJ, especially in a year when HLG agreed a 9% increase in the price of the journal (that's about x3 the rate of inflation, more likely around x8 inflation by the mid 2009). Maurice Line once wrote, in a journal that is not freely available (Librarianship as it is practised: a failure of intellect, imagination and initiative, Maurice B. Line, Journal: Interlending & Document Supply, 2005 Volume: 33 Issue: 2 Page: 109 - 113)
Unless we can see our future in a far broader context, we may not have a future. Our territory is being lost while we think we are defending it, because we are defending the form and not the substance, and the substance is changing.
The quote might have been designed specifically for HILJ.
Related Post:
Widget by [ Iptek-4u ]
