Our intention in this Editorial is to explore some of the key issues being faced by library and information science (LIS) research based journals.

We are, respectively, Editor of Health Information and Libraries Journal(HILJ) (Grant) and Editor of New Review of Academic Librarianship (NRAL)(Walton). The Editorial is very much our shared perspective and does not

claim to be representative of all LIS practitioner-researcher journals. Our intention is not to give a theoretical perspective but to give a practical insight

into the day-to-day realities of editing a practitioner-researcher LIS journal and how you, as a writer, can use this knowledge to inform your contact with us

Grant, MJ

Walton, G

English

Our intention in this Editorial is to explore some of the key issues being faced by library and information science (LIS) research based journals.We are, respectively, Editor of Health Information and Libraries Journal(HILJ) (Grant) and Editor of New Review of Academic Librarianship (NRAL)(Walton). The Editorial is very much our shared perspective and does notclaim to be representative of all LIS practitioner-researcher journals. Our intention is not to give a theoretical perspective but to give a practical insightinto the day-to-day realities of editing a practitioner-researcher LIS journal and how you, as a writer, can use this knowledge to inform your contact with us

University of Salford Institutional Repository

This article was downloaded by: [Univ of Salford]On: 10 October 2013, At: 11:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UKNew Review of Academic LibrarianshipPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/racl20Strategic Issues for LIS Practitioner-Researcher JournalsGraham Walton a & Maria J. Grant ba New Review of Academic Librarianshipb Health Information and Libraries JournalAccepted author version posted online: 25 Jul 2013.To cite this article: Graham Walton & Maria J. Grant (2013) Strategic Issues for LISPractitioner-Researcher Journals, New Review of Academic Librarianship, 19:3, 221-223, DOI:10.1080/13614533.2013.826140To link to this article:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2013.826140PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLETaylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionsNew Review of Academic Librarianship, 19:221–223, 2013Published with license by Taylor & FrancisISSN: 1361-4533 print / 1740-7834 onlineDOI: 10.1080/13614533.2013.826140EDITORIALStrategic Issues for LIS Practitioner-Researcher JournalsGRAHAM WALTONNew Review of Academic LibrarianshipMARIA J. GRANTHealth Information and Libraries JournalOur intention in this Editorial is to explore some of the key issues be-ing faced by library and information science (LIS) research based journals.We are, respectively, Editor of Health Information and Libraries Journal(HILJ) (Grant) and Editor of New Review of Academic Librarianship (NRAL)(Walton). The Editorial is very much our shared perspective and does notclaim to be representative of all LIS practitioner-researcher journals. Our in-tention is not to give a theoretical perspective but to give a practical insightinto the day-to-day realities of editing a practitioner-researcher LIS journaland how you, as a writer, can use this knowledge to inform your contactwith us.Health Information and Libraries Journal is of international and inter-disciplinary interest to practitioners, researchers, and students in the library,information, and health sectors, promoting debate about new health infor-mation developments with an emphasis on communicating evidence-basedinformation both in the management and support of healthcare services. Itis published quarterly by Wiley. The New Review of Academic Librarianshipaims to establish the relevance and applicability of theory and/or researchfor the academic library practitioner. It is published by Taylor & Francis andthere are three issues per year.Ensuring Quality through Peer ReviewBoth journals use blind peer review inviting people with appropriate knowl-edge to critically read the submitted paper and give a judgment and review© Graham Walton and Maria J. GrantThis editorial was written jointly by both the Editor-in-Chief of the New Review of Aca-demic Librarianship and the Editor-in-Chief of Health Information and Libraries Journal, andwill appear in both journals.221Downloaded by [Univ of Salford] at 11:52 10 October 2013 222 Editorialof its current status. The Health Information and Libraries Journal invitesthree people to review each of its reviews or original articles though, inpractice, not everyone invited is available to provide a review; therefore,like the New Review of Academic Librarianship, only two reviews are typi-cally submitted for each manuscript. The review process is instrumental inenabling your manuscript to be as good as it can be as it provides free andconstructive feedback to help you develop your ideas. We use the feedbackto produce a synthesized summary of the areas of focus and it is accom-panied by a commentary. The peer reviewers provide reviews voluntarily,in addition to their day job; therefore, it can sometimes take longer thanis ideal and, occasionally, reviewers agree to undertake a review and thenare unable to submit within the time lines requested. Another challenge weface is when reviews conflict and express widely different views. The mixof these factors means that managing the peer review process is a sensitiveand time-consuming process.Copy FlowA perfect copy flow is the aim for all editors, with at least two issues worthof manuscripts read to go to print at any one time. However, this can be dif-ficult to achieve. Not having enough copy could potentially result in qualitybeing compromised or publishing schedules being missed; conversely, hav-ing too much copy risks authors becoming frustrated because of the delayin publishing their work and also that it will have limited currency.A range of strategies to manage copy flow are adopted over and aboverelying solely on authors to submit of their own volition. These includecommissioning papers, encouraging students’ dissertations to be developedinto papers, and keeping a watching brief on conferences/study days forpresentations that would be suitable (if modified) for publication.We do have to make decisions to reject some manuscripts, most com-monly because they are not within scope for our journals; there is no pointin wasting a peer reviewers’ time to look at a paper that is unlikely to be pub-lished. Other reasons for rejection include the ideas within manuscripts need-ing further development, perhaps broadening the discussion to be relevantto our readers, or needing to be restructured to meet the journal guidelines.With no externally specified deadlines for authors to work toward,manuscripts arrive throughout the year and, working three to six monthsahead of time, there is always an issue waiting to be published just over thehorizon.Making It HappenApart from ourselves, lots of different people are involved in producing thejournal (mostly unseen) including editorial assistants who help ensure theDownloaded by [Univ of Salford] at 11:52 10 October 2013 Editorial 223manuscript moves smoothly through the review process, the team of assistantand feature editors who commission content and correct proofs, the peerreviewers, and the production editor who assists in compiling each issue.We also each have an editorial advisory board that helps shape the directionthe journal takes by defining the boundaries of content and ensuring thejournal keeps abreast of issues likely to be relevant. The composition of theboard also sends out implicit message of the types of content the journal isinterested in. Both of us have to be aware of all the different contributionsand ensure that everything is coordinated and ensure working toward thesame goals.Working with the PublisherBoth our journals are subscription based and produced by commercial pub-lishers (HILJ - Wiley; NRAL - Taylor & Francis). We are both very muchaware that in recent years the open access publishing model has been seenby many librarians as being the future. This can lead to tension and dif-ference in how librarians, passionate about open access journals, perceivepublisher based journals. Publishing via author services such as Early View,in which manuscripts are made available to subscribers online as soon asproof editing is complete, rather than having to wait for the next print is-sue, are steps in this direction. From our perspective, the publishers bringcredibility, technical expertise, marketing, distribution knowledge, and pre-sentation skills. For both of us, negotiating with the publisher about whatopen access means for our journals is an important task.Social MediaThe pervasive nature of social media provides an important avenue for usto use in reaching out and communicating with our readerships, whether itis through RSS feeds of content pages, tweets about manuscripts, or weeklytips about writing for publication. Like Facebook, Twitter provides an almostinstantaneous way for us to know if our readers like our content, withretweets, items being marked as “favorites” and comments being generatedon journal activity. HILJ is well on the way to embedding social media in itswork and NRAL is starting down that road.Therefore, what can you take from these ruminations? Well, althoughit can be time-consuming, peer reviewing and referees comments are thereto help you; manuscripts can be submitted at any time though an artificialdeadline to assist your own planning (you do not have to wait until theend of the year!); and journals are a team effort, therefore, directing yourenquiries to the correct person and medium may mean a speedier response.We look forward to hearing from you.Downloaded by [Univ of Salford] at 11:52 10 October 2013 

Strategic issues for LIS practitioner-researcher journals

https://salford-repository.worktribe.com/file/1429623/1/13614533.2013.826140.pdf

Strategic issues for LIS practitioner-researcher journals

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Salford Institutional Repository