LHRT (Library History Round Table)

I was having a discussion about publishing in LIS as compared to other disciplines and the conversation inspired a question: what is more valuable in LIS--articles or monographs? And when it comes to monographs, is there a go-to university press? My observations suggest that articles are more valuable/more likely but I'd be curious what are other thoughts on the subject. I remembered this post on Wayne Wiegand's vast work on library history but it also inspired the question of why there are seven different university presses in his bibliography (without getting into personal details). Is engaging with multiple presses common? 

I've been thinking deeply about scholarly communication in LIS for a long time, and so I've reframed your question into two parts for nuance.

Q1: Are articles or monographs more valuable in LIS for career advancement and impact?

It depends. Key factors: role (academic/ARL Librarian vs. LIS/iSchool faculty), career stage, institutional context, and disciplinary affiliation. 

Librarians often face promotion and tenure criteria that prioritize refereed journal articles; iSchool faculty's expectations vary by the home college and also career stage-previously there were LIS schools in humanities‑aligned units which tend to value books more, while social‑science and science–aligned units emphasize refereed articles. Refereed articles are typically required for promotion from assistant to associate, while books become more important for associate to full professor; this is a well-documented pattern in academia (second book problem), although not universal. 

The rise of digital and commercial open‑access publishing has expanded academic book production, with commercial publishing reporting up to 7x more monograph titles than university presses. Books remain symbolic, cultural, intellectual markers of prestige-so LIS scholars and librarians still pursue monographs despite broader awareness of scholarly‑communication critiques.

Q2: If books matter, is there a typical university press or is publishing across multiple presses normal? 

There is no single university press for LIS. This is partly because university presses specialize by discipline, and the field has expanded from "library science" to "library and information science" and now "the information sciences"- borrowing from so many disciplines like Science and Technology Studies. Major commercial academic publishers for LIS include Routledge (Taylor & Francis), and Bloomsbury is now emerging as a strong contender with the purchase of the academic business of Rowman & Littlefield. Among university presses, LIS titles have been published by MIT Press, University of California Press, Stanford, Harvard, University of Illinois Press, University of North Carolina Press, and more. Then, there are professional society presses (ALA Editions, Facet Publishing (UK), Society of American Archivists, ASIS&T). So yes, publishing across multiple presses is normal - presses have different strengths and are not strong in all LIS topics.

You began by also observing that 'articles are more valuable' and I want to highlight that. Yes, there are many discussions that journal articles are better for communicating new knowledge and that academic incentives and prestige structures should stop fetishizing the monograph and start reimagining academic publishing as a living conversation. Both Locke and Condorcet warned against monopolies of knowledge and although neither could have foreseen the modern monograph, I think they'd view today's book-centered academia as a failure of knowledge failing to circulate freely. This is no disrespect to the scholars who churn out books - some ideas genuinely require complex arguments that only books can accommodate. The bigger problem is not so much access as overload and publish or perish is real. What do you think?

I was having a discussion about publishing in LIS as compared to other disciplines and the conversation inspired a question: what is more valuable in LIS--articles or monographs? And when it comes to monographs, is there a go-to university press? My observations suggest that articles are more valuable/more likely but I'd be curious what are other thoughts on the subject. I remembered this post on Wayne Wiegand's vast work on library history but it also inspired the question of why there are seven different university presses in his bibliography (without getting into personal details). Is engaging with multiple presses common? 

Hello all,

I'm sending out this message on ALA Connect on behalf of Dr. Wiegand...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colleagues:

I've been thinking deeply about scholarly communication in LIS for a long time, and so I've reframed your question into two parts for nuance.

Q1: Are articles or monographs more valuable in LIS for career advancement and impact?

It depends. Key factors: role (academic/ARL Librarian vs. LIS/iSchool faculty), career stage, institutional context, and disciplinary affiliation. 

Librarians often face promotion and tenure criteria that prioritize refereed journal articles; iSchool faculty's expectations vary by the home college and also career stage-previously there were LIS schools in humanities‑aligned units which tend to value books more, while social‑science and science–aligned units emphasize refereed articles. Refereed articles are typically required for promotion from assistant to associate, while books become more important for associate to full professor; this is a well-documented pattern in academia (second book problem), although not universal. 

The rise of digital and commercial open‑access publishing has expanded academic book production, with commercial publishing reporting up to 7x more monograph titles than university presses. Books remain symbolic, cultural, intellectual markers of prestige-so LIS scholars and librarians still pursue monographs despite broader awareness of scholarly‑communication critiques.

Q2: If books matter, is there a typical university press or is publishing across multiple presses normal? 

There is no single university press for LIS. This is partly because university presses specialize by discipline, and the field has expanded from "library science" to "library and information science" and now "the information sciences"- borrowing from so many disciplines like Science and Technology Studies. Major commercial academic publishers for LIS include Routledge (Taylor & Francis), and Bloomsbury is now emerging as a strong contender with the purchase of the academic business of Rowman & Littlefield. Among university presses, LIS titles have been published by MIT Press, University of California Press, Stanford, Harvard, University of Illinois Press, University of North Carolina Press, and more. Then, there are professional society presses (ALA Editions, Facet Publishing (UK), Society of American Archivists, ASIS&T). So yes, publishing across multiple presses is normal - presses have different strengths and are not strong in all LIS topics.

You began by also observing that 'articles are more valuable' and I want to highlight that. Yes, there are many discussions that journal articles are better for communicating new knowledge and that academic incentives and prestige structures should stop fetishizing the monograph and start reimagining academic publishing as a living conversation. Both Locke and Condorcet warned against monopolies of knowledge and although neither could have foreseen the modern monograph, I think they'd view today's book-centered academia as a failure of knowledge failing to circulate freely. This is no disrespect to the scholars who churn out books - some ideas genuinely require complex arguments that only books can accommodate. The bigger problem is not so much access as overload and publish or perish is real. What do you think?

I was having a discussion about publishing in LIS as compared to other disciplines and the conversation inspired a question: what is more valuable in LIS--articles or monographs? And when it comes to monographs, is there a go-to university press? My observations suggest that articles are more valuable/more likely but I'd be curious what are other thoughts on the subject. I remembered this post on Wayne Wiegand's vast work on library history but it also inspired the question of why there are seven different university presses in his bibliography (without getting into personal details). Is engaging with multiple presses common?