Earlier today, Dorothea posted about her experience publishing with Library Journal/Elsevier and more recently, Sarah expressed some distaste for publishing with LJ/Elsevier again in the future:

I have to say that having had experience with Elsevier myself, and having written once for LJ’s NetConnect, I did not have the presence of mind to even think that there was another agreement possibly available.  And, given what I now know about their parent company (which, had I been responsible, I whould have figured out before), I may not be writing for them again.

It’s time to think more seriously about this:  there needs to be an open access journal for librarians that can be the equivalent of Library Journal or better.  How many librarians have to rely on either American Libraries or Library Journal for their professional development?  How many are satisfied with this?

Now, I know that there are a number of open access journals that are related to librarianship, but I don’t think that many of them are widely read by librarians in the U.S. – at least, not the ones that relate to librarianship in general (rather than, say digital libraries, or information science).  This might be because of visibility in general, but also because there isn’t a focus on public librarians who might be a more natural audience.

I’m getting distracted by a number of different things, so I’ll stop for now.  But I do think that, if properly promoted and supported, an open access journal for librarians would be a great alternative to Library Journal as well as a great service to librarianship in general.

I wasn't aware that there had once been a National Librarians Association, but thanks to Walt for mentioning it in the comments of a previous post. I've been doing a little bit of research on it, may even try to develop it into an article or a series of blog posts. Anyway, for those of you who, like me, had never heard of NLA, here's an excerpt from the opening two paragraphs from an article written by Peter Dollard (at that time, Executive Director of NLA):

[...] In brief, NLA was founded in 1975 to meet a need long felt by many librarians for a national professional association that would concern itself exclusively with librarian issues rather than with the entire gamut of issues related to libraries in society. It is not that those other issues are not important; to the contrary, members of NLA share a conviction that excellence in general library service can be developed only after the highest standards of performance for librarian practitioners have been identified, articulated, and put into practice. The established library associations, however, having opened their membership to all interested persons, have traditionally attempted to deal in a disinterested manner with the entire range of library-related issues, often giving short shrift to issues of concern primarily to librarians. [...]

Here's the citation: Peter Dollard, "The National Librarians Association and Association Credibility," Colorado Libraries 7:4 (December 1981): 27-32. NLA lasted, as far as I can tell, into the early 1990s.

More thoughts on an earlier suggestion for an organization for librarians, rather than libraries.  Again, these reflections are spurred by the observation that librarians are unhappy with ALA for various reasons – maybe that many librarians feel that ALA doesn't care about what they care about?  That ALA is frustratingly slow, that it can't/won't keep up with where the profession is going, that it ignores what many new librarians feel is a pressing issue: the lack of professional jobs?  Personally, my experience with the ALA constellation hasn't been great – I've been disappointed with what I've seen in some committees and disappointed with what I've seen presented at conferences – but I'm still a member and I'm not sure, at this point, that this will change.  

Perhaps my ambivalence with ALA and its offspring stems from what I've seen happen online: people are providing excellent tips, professional development, thought-provoking essays …  When I wanted to set up a wiki for one of my professors, did I turn to ALA?  No, I searched Meredith's website for advice on free wiki services.  I'm sure there are those who feel like they learn more from Walt Crawford or from Michael Stephens than they do from American Libraries or C&RL News.  Yes, there are good things that ALA does (and provides freely online, though I still think they should be running an OA journal), but, and this is the sticking point for many, is it worth the cost?  Is it worth the $100+ every year to be a member?  Is it worth all the time and expense to attend two ALA conferences every year (plus, the magic third every other year: ACRL)?

So, this brings us to APAL – the Association of Public and Academic Librarians.  Maybe it should be APALW to be more inclusive ("library workers" instead of "librarians")?  As I had previously imagined, what if there were an organization run by librarians for librarians that published an OA, peer-reviewed journal and put on an online conference every year so that more people could participate without all of the expense?  An organization with low membership fees (or none at all!) that was more flexible, with people who participated because being a librarian was important to them, not because there's a line on the resume that needs to be filled?  This seems utopian and also readily achievable.  I'm not sure how this would work in a real, everyday way (hence the utopian part), but thinking about the component parts, each one seems readily achievable.

The thought just crossed my mind:  why have an organization at all?  If there's so much good stuff already going on – Meredith's working on providing more free, online educational opportunities, we can all keep up (more or less) with major stirrings via blogs – why bother to set up another organization?  I think the commitment of belonging will ensure that there's a core group of people supporting each other's work – it will institutionalize to some degree various social networks while creating new contacts and new opportunities for those who labor on the margins of the main librarian social networks (not everyone keeps up with blogs, for example, so there are a lot of people who could be participating but currently don't; heck, there's probably only ten people who even know this blog exists!).  APAL/APALW could also enable local, face-to-face interactions as people who have tuned out of ALA find common ground with other members in their area.

OK, enough disjointed rambling for the evening – it's time to make dinner. 

There is a long tradition of librarians who are unhappy with ALA (however, by long I mean for as long as I’ve been working in libraries, which is really only about 9 years), though lately I’ve seen dissatisfaction flourish more openly, amplified by blogs. The latest round of hostilities was caused by the suggestion on the part of ALA that retired librarians be part of a volunteer corps that will help fill staffing needs at underfunded libraries. I won’t go into all of the arguments as they are amply represented at librarian.net. What I do want to suggest is apostasy (hence the title of this post, a reference to Reformation-era Papal-bashing which should include an image here, but my old iBook is newly converted to Linux and I don’t know how to work GIMP yet).

Anyway, apostasy: why not form an organization for librarians? American Association for Public & Academic Librarians (AAPAL). Here’s how it might work:

• an annual online conference with peer-reviewed conference presentations (this could grow into a non-virtual event if members wanted it)
• monthly or quarterly open-access magazine
• AAPAL website introduces people to librarianship and is also an outlet for white papers on pressing issues (job outlook, USA PATRIOT Act, etc.)
• dues cover expenses incurred by web presence
• committees: executive, publications, conference, mentoring/new librarians, policy, education, website …

There. Fairly simple, isn’t it? It’s just a matter of getting together a core group of 8-12 librarians who can formulate an organizational constitution and who might know another 8 or so librarians who might form the seed of the committees. The group can coalesce around the magazine, build a little word-of-mouth and grow from there.