re: does more mean more? quantity control

[Heather Morrison <heatherm@eln.bc.ca>]

A recent thread within the topic, "Does more mean more?" has been 
the idea that quantity control is a necessary function, and must 
be supplied by the current publishing system.

Several comments:

IF quantity control in academic publishing is seen as necessary 
and/or desirable, then is it not logical that a production-based 
fee system, with the researcher's department paying the full tab, 
would be the most effective way to control quantity?  If this 
were combined with a submission fee (as suggested in the Wellcome 
report), would this not discourage pointless submissions to 
inappropriate venues?

That's IF quantity control is seen as desirable.  With more 
research being done, the ability to publish data and other 
materials in addition to the article, not to mention robots to 
help sort through the additional data - why control quantity?

One point brought up in this thread is the author who wishes to 
sell novels. The would-be popular author and the scholarly 
researcher are two different matters altogether.  No doubt there 
are more people who would like to make a living writing fiction 
than can be supported; here, there is a need for quantity 
control.  With the professional researcher, however, the person 
is already making a living doing research (often in addition to 
teaching, of course), whether it is funded or not.  Here, failure 
to publish is a waste of money already spent.

Heather G. Morrison
http://oalibrarian.blogspot.com