The Famous Mr. Brothman

From the [archhist] roundtable (read until end.  It sounds like if you go to DC2010
you can actually meet him:

Brien:
I couldn't say "wrong," but Libraries & the Cultural Record
absolutely is a journal you should consider.  Here are reasons why:

1. The journal has been expanding its scope ever since it was founded
as the Journal of Library History 40-plus years ago.  Under my
editorship, it is the journal of the history of the information
domain.  We are very consciously including pieces from each of the
fields of the information domain--libraries and librarianship, archives
and archival enterprise, information science in all its breadth,
preservation and conservation of the cultural record, and museum
administration and history museums.  Moreover, under my leadership, we
are consciously not following others
in the library field who are focusing on the history of books and
reading.  While the word "history" is not in our title, and has not
been for more than 30 years, this has consistently been a journal of
history.

2. The title is an expansion from its previous Libraries &
Culture.  As we mature as the journal of the history of the
information domain, perhaps someday another title may be more
appropriate.  Nothing of that sort is even being contemplated at this
point, particularly because in making the change we have made, we could
not afford to appear to abandon a solid and valuable audience while
building another that must include the first one.

3. A number of substantial pieces dealing with archival history have
been published in our pages through the years, and under the new title,
that number is increasing.  We published papers from the Boston I-CHORA
and will publish ones from the 2012 Austin I-CHORA.  When that happens,
we will be the first journal to publish papers from more than one.  I
have argued for sometime that I-CHORA should identify a journal of
record so that we all know where to look for the papers.  Since we are
not affiliated with any association, we are the best choice in my
view.  With the 2012 set of papers, we will voice this again loudly,
and having two in our pages, can make a strong case for our journal.
Beyond this, we will open the SAA's 75th anniversary year with a dandy
piece offering what I believe readers will find to be a significant
interpretation of the French experience with archives from the
Revolution to Respect des Fonds.  Other pieces on archives are in the
works.  The bottom line is that L&CR publishes more pieces dealing
with the history of archives than do other archival journals.

4. In the recent ranking of the Australian Research Council of
20,000-plus journals developed over a two-year period,  L&CR fared
very well.  We learned of the ranking from the announcement posted on
the ICA list!  Here is the statement you can find on our website
reporting this ranking (Note the sentence about our ranking vis-a-vis
archival journals):
Libraries & the Cultural Record has been rated among the
top twenty percent of journals in its field by the Australian Research
Council in a ranking of scholarly journals worldwide.  In the category
of library and information studies, 148 journals were ranked on a
four-step scale of A+, A, B, and C.  Libraries & the Cultural Record
received an A rating, one of only 30 in the LIS field receiving either
an A or A+ rating.  Just six journals (4 percent) received the A+
ranking.  Among the 13 archival journals on the list, only two ranked
higher than Libraries & the Cultural Record.

Libraries & the Cultural Record
is a multi-disciplinary research journal that explores the history of
the information domain and especially the broad history of collections
of knowledge that form the cultural record.  The peer-reviewed
quarterly journal is edited in the University of Texas School of
Information and is published by University of Texas Press.
According to the Australian Research Council,
for journals ranked A, the majority of papers . . . will be of very
high quality.  Publishing in an A journal would enhance the author's
standing, showing they have real engagement with the global research
community and that they have something to say about problems of some
significance.

The Australian Research Council, a government
agency, worked for two years to complete the job of ranking 20,712
unique peer-reviewed journals published worldwide.  The database of
rankings is available at:  http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_journal_list.htm.

So, I believe you cannot do better than Libraries & the
Cultural Record as a venue for publishing archival history (and one
certainly can do worse), especially works that explore the history of
archival enterprise as it has been intertwined with the history of one
or more other components of the information domain.  We mean to be a
major participant in the discussion of archival history.  Our
increasing content testifies to it.  And now the recent ranking
documents that we are doing so.
I thank you very much for your inquiry and look forward to being in
contact about a submission from you.
All the best.

XXXX

XXXX:

Thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail to my comment on "Libraries and
the Cultural Record." I have had the opportunity to read a number of contributions
to the journal and found them to be of very high quality. So, I did not at all
intend to impugn the journal.

Nevertheless, in light of what you say about the journal's broadened mandate, the
title is misleading. Indeed, it seems to sell the journal short. This may be one
more bit of evidence that our language and frames of reference are tending to lag
behind  technological, social and cultural developments. As you well know,
information technology studies is an evolving field - perhaps at the very beginning
of its evolution - in which many disparate interests are attempting to bring closure
to what we mean by  "information technology", "information studies" and so on.

All the more important, then, for archivists to bring historical perspectives to
bear on their understanding and interpretation of the  shaping of what seems
traditional and different about our "information society", "information studies",
etc. For example, some  bits of historical analysis argue that the information
revolution is nothing but a hyped up reincarnation of late nineteenth - early
twentieth century industrial production systems in the guise of  hypermanagement as
well as gussied up parts (code) and rules standardization. 

Hope to continue this in Washington at SAA.

Brien