Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Elsie

Elsie, see my previous post on why. An academic or scientific bookseller's reputation is their life.

When someone, like js1138, says show me something that has been peer-reviewed or in a textbook on this topic, the whole implicit argument is that there is a much higher level of scientific credibility presumed in those regards vs. something posted, say, on a website or in a popular magazine. Why is that?

Journal and book publishers work very hard at building the highest reputation possible by being as selective as possible so they can be as prestigious as possible, such that when something is published with their name on it, that carries weight. Gravitas, if you will.

When I buy a Wiley book, or an O'Reilly software book, it's because I don't want to have to start from square one independently verifying the author's credibility on the subject in question; I am paying for someone else to have done that. If Wiley is no different from HarperCollins, if I'm getting Harry Potter and the History of Evolutionary Dogmatism, instead of a serious scientific text, it's no use to me. Unless I'm looking for entertainment.

Hope that makes sense.


1,049 posted on 12/31/2005 6:35:12 AM PST by jbloedow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1024 | View Replies ]


To: jbloedow
"Hope that makes sense."

It doesn't. On the one hand you say that "book publishers work very hard at building the highest reputation possible by being as selective as possible so they can be as prestigious as possible, such that when something is published with their name on it, that carries weight. Gravitas, if you will."

On the other hand, you say that HarperCollins exercises no selectivity at all and publishes what you believe to be junk like the "History of Evolutionary Dogmatism" (couldn't you name a real book to make your point?).

Seems to me that book publishers (and authors) are principally in business to sell books, which explains rather well the existence of books like "Of Pandas and People" and "Darwin's Black Box", not to mention Jack Chick.

1,054 posted on 12/31/2005 6:54:26 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1049 | View Replies ]

To: jbloedow

Indeed it does!

Thanks.


1,117 posted on 12/31/2005 1:19:16 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1049 | View Replies ]

To: jbloedow

Another thought...

If the publishers are going to be sure (as much as posible) that their output is true, then their checking staff would have to be smarter than the authors. Obviously this is NOT the case, so by default, some stuff HAS to be accepted on faith.


1,118 posted on 12/31/2005 1:21:35 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1049 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson