Library literature: academic and generally useless?

Lorcan Dempsey wrote the following in a blog post entitled "Communication":

I think we have a very dreary ‘published’ literature. We have a set of niche publications, many of little sustained interest. The literature is a citation farm for those involved in formal research activity, and in the US, a necessary career convenience for those librarians who work within the tenure system.

Dempsey raises a lot of other issues in his post regarding the archiving of grey library literature (including blogs), how more people read the informal literature than the formal, and so on.  Dorothea Salo grabbed the same quote I found grab-worthy, and commented that the literature is not that great and is not read by many, even within our own field. 

I can speak from my own experience.  My blog posts garner me far more email and IM comments, citations, and well, recognition, than most articles I've written.  And my blog is not, by far, the most popular library world blog out there.   I am not in a tenure-track job, so when I have a good idea for a lengthy article, I get to decide: does it go on LibrarianInBlack.net or do I try to get it published in a professional periodical.  Here are the factors I use to decide:

• LiB: quick and timely publication, more readers, guaranteed publication, no editors to deal with who might possibly butcher my work
• Periodical: might get paid for it, LJ or Journal of Web Librarianship holds more cachet, looks good on the resume because it stands out separately from the general one-line mention of my blog, can send to my parents who then get all happy-like that that English degree paid off after all

Admittedly, the quick publication factor is the primary issue almost every time (sorry Mom and Dad).  I think that if print journals, or even our online digital journals, could get their editorial schedule sped up a bit I might be more interested in going with them.  I end up also thinking about how much cachet I need to look good on a resume?  One article per year?  Two?  Five?  I don't know.  Generally, I think the most about how I can get my words out to the most number of people quickly.  And that is definitely not with a print publication any more.

I also agree with Dempsey and Salo that the bulk of the literature being published in our professional journals is academic-library-focused, with a very narrow research-based focus, not useful or applicable in most real libraries, and largely unread.  The funny thing is that when I started library school (coming from an Literature Master's degree), I criticized library professional literature up and down.  Much of the writing was sloppy, there was very little research done to back up points in many of the articles we were given to read, citations were only done sometimes, and flaws in logic (usually over-generalizations) were found in just about everything I read.  Now, I find that all of that literature was coming from more casual publications, not the refereed journals that we're talking about here. 

I hate to say it, but every time I open up Information Technology and Libraries (LITA's publication), I find maybe one article that is of interest and/or useful to me.  That's pretty bad, considering that is my area of interest and focus.  And I'm going to put myself at risk now by admitting that that's the only refereed journal I read, and only because I get it with my membership.  I also get American Libraries because I'm a member, and read my library's copies of Library Journal, School Library Journal, and Computers in Libraries--but often a couple of months late because they make the rounds to others (very slowly) before they get to me.  I am going to go out on a limb and guess that many library workers are in the same boat, particularly in non-academic libraries. 

So...what need do our professional publications fill?  Are they filling supply or demand?  Do we keep these going because the content really is useful for our real live librarians?  Generally, I would say no--at least nobody I know in public libraries.   Because they're useful to library school students researching what libraries are theoretically like?  Meh, probably not.  We don't want to deceive our students that much.  Or because there are hundreds of librarians in academic libraries who need to publish in refereed journals in order to make tenure?  I would guarantee that this is now what's driving our publications. 

I think that this morphing of our professional literature is unfortunate, and something that should be a point of discussion for library world leaders everywhere.  What can we write and publish, and how, that will help the most front-line staff to fulfill our missions?  That would be a round table I would love to be a part of :)