Traditional publishing is close to becoming an atavism, a vestigial remnant of the pre-digital age.
Digital or not, the fact that an article or book has passed the filter of a reputable publisher provides useful evidence in estimating its quality.
That’s most obvious for scientific publishing, where publishers employ expert editors and peer review. Publication of material intended for non-technical audiences has to meet lower standards, but there is still some level of editorial oversight.
Digital or not, the fact that an article or book has passed the filter of a reputable publisher provides useful evidence in estimating its quality.
Yep, the word for that is curating and it is a common and valuable activity. Art museums, for example, play a similar role. On the web brand-name blog collections (e.g. the Gawker stable) is also basically about the same thing—in this particular case, though, I don’t know if we’re talking about quality… :-D
Digital or not, the fact that an article or book has passed the filter of a reputable publisher provides useful evidence in estimating its quality.
That’s most obvious for scientific publishing, where publishers employ expert editors and peer review. Publication of material intended for non-technical audiences has to meet lower standards, but there is still some level of editorial oversight.
Yep, the word for that is curating and it is a common and valuable activity. Art museums, for example, play a similar role. On the web brand-name blog collections (e.g. the Gawker stable) is also basically about the same thing—in this particular case, though, I don’t know if we’re talking about quality… :-D