In theory, reading everything that has ever been published about a given subject is a finite task, even if it is impossible in practice. I find this thought comforting at times. Until I remember that there is always new scholarship coming out. The state of constant research output in the academy puts paid to the already outlandish fantasy of ever “catching up” and raises the important question of how scholars “keep up” with the work their colleagues are doing.

One approach would be to simply add new research to the “back of the line” — to get to it once you’ve worked your way through everything else. De-prioritizing recent scholarship isn’t a good idea, though. Newer isn’t always better, but it still deserves particular attention. Recent scholarship is more likely to reflect current discussions and debates, and reading it is essential for not only knowing what those are but how your own work might fit into, contribute to, or change the course of current research trends.

The medium for publishing academic work most familiar to readers is probably the book. Yes, academics do write, buy, occasionally read, horde, and haul around many books. The thing with books, though, is that they take a long time to write and publish. Take my dissertation, for instance. I started my PhD program in 2013. It will take me six to seven years to graduate, then at least a few years after that to revise my dissertation and publish it as a book. The upside of this decade-minimum process is that my work will be thoroughly vetted by professors, peers, reviewers, and editors. Not only will the research be sound, but the project will contribute to and challenge a broad sweep of scholarship.

But ten-plus years!?

Fortunately, there are other, more streamlined avenues for sharing research findings. That’s where academic journals come in. Journals allow scholars to present their research in smaller bits while still undergoing peer review and reaching a potentially broad academic audience in print (paper and online). In fact, in some disciplines journal articles are the primary way to publicize research, unlike history, which is a “book discipline.”

Journals come in different types. Some are so wide-ranging and prominent that they become the “journal of record” for a given field. For me, two that fit this bill are The American Historical Review and The Journal of Asian Studies, albeit in quite different ways. The AHR covers the history of the whole world, at least in theory. Although it includes works from a number of different genres, it is solidly focused on the discipline of history, and, in fact, its sponsoring organization, the American Historical Association, is the primary professional organization for historians in the U.S. In contrast, the disciplinary scope of JAS is broad, as it publishes publishes papers across disciplines in the social sciences and humanities, including on contemporary topics. As the title suggests, though, its geographic focus is a bit narrower than the whole world. Other journals are even narrower in geographic, temporal, or thematic scope. For example, another journal of great interest to me is Late Imperial China, which is more geographically and temporally focused than either AHR or JAS, but falls somewhere between the two in disciplinary terms. Journals also vary by their size and how many issues they publish each year (usually between two and six).

In addition to research articles, some journals also include book reviews and sometimes review essays that discuss several books. Reviews provide short summaries and evaluations of recently published works. The sheer breadth of scholarship covered in book reviews, especially in a journal like AHR, makes them an extremely useful and fun resource.

Of course, journals are not without downsides, some of them the same as books. Even though the average journal article takes far less time to write and publish than the vast majority of scholarly books, time-to-publication can be surprisingly lengthy. As the number of scholars working in various fields increases, so do the number of articles, especially those submitted to “top-tier” journals. Because these journals have the highest reputation — giving an extra boost to scholars who publish in them — the backlog there is especially severe. The issue of reputation is complex. Reputation can, of course, be deserved. For journals, that might mean especially stringent review processes conducted by highly competent and knowledgeable editors and reviewers. The other side to this, though, is that these measures might reproduce existing consensus and keep out voices that challenge mainstream scholarship. Put crassly, it’s the problem that no one gets into the “cool group” by challenging what it means to be “cool.” (This doesn’t even begin to touch the economic issues surrounding academic journals.)

There’s no easy way out of this. (If there were, high school would be a lot more pleasant for everyone, I imagine.) However, one small step in the right direction is for individual scholars to intentionally read a broad range of journals. Becoming familiar with journals outside the “cool” group and evaluating their quality independently should help when weighing peers’ publication record. It’s certainly better than basing judgments about the impressiveness of publications on assumptions about “reputation” or quantitative measures that may well reflect the former. Of course, reading journals also essential for scouting out potential outlets for one’s own publications.

This year, I’ve been trying to be more disciplined about reading journals consistently. I decided to start by picking out one journal issue to read each week. I’ve got a list of journals in a Google Doc, including the number of issues they put out each year, and a tentative schedule of which ones to read when. Over the course of the year, I’ve adapted this schedule to when issues actually come out or become available through online databases.

I don’t read journals cover-to-cover. I try to at least skim each article that’s remotely interesting to me. (And if it’s not that interesting to me personally, I still try to think about why it’s been included in the journal.) If there’s an article that’s directly relevant to my research, I actually don’t read it then and there. I might take some notes on the larger argument, but I’ll add the article to one of my reading lists for later. That allows me to keep control of how I prioritize my reading, rather than just chasing after what’s newest. It also helps me exert control over how much time I spend reading journals, which I think is important to making this a sustainable discipline.

So far, I’ve been able to keep up the habit, meaning it’s lasted longer than most New Year’s resolutions. I’m looking forward to revamping my list of publications next year — so far I’ve only made small tweaks along the way. With more experience with how long it takes to work through various journals, I think I can add more to the list and broaden the range of what I’m reading. If you’ve got any suggestions, let me know!