Library & Information Science Research

25 (2003) 233–237

Editorial

Where Are We, Where Might We Go?

Periodically, we publish a collective editorial representing the thoughts of the Board of

Editors, that hard-working body of men and women who do the bulk of reviewing for

manuscripts submitted to Library & Information Science Research (LISR). This year, on the

occasion of the 25th anniversary of LISR, we asked them to share their thoughts on the

journal —where it has been, and where it might go. As you will see, we have lots of good

advice to run with for the future.

1. For those of you who have been on the Board for 5 or more years, do you see any

changes in the nature of the content of the journal (e.g., different methodologies and

different problems being investigated)?

Debora Shaw feels that LISR covers a broad mix of topics and a good range of research

methods, and that this makes the journal lively and challenging. ‘‘Occasionally I wonder how

an author could even have conceived of a given research topic. . . This is good, as I notice thatmy understanding and appreciation of LIS [library and information science] research has

evolved over the years —I would not want to be limited to reading the kinds of contributions

I would have thought were interesting, or even acceptable, say, 10 years ago. The mix of

research methods is especially useful. As a field, LIS seems to be growing more sophisticated

in its use of qualitative methods. This is reflected in the range of qualitative approaches and

their thoughtful application that we see in LISR over the past 5 years. As to content, the

growing infiltration of the Web into life at large is mirrored in the articles LISR publishes.’’

Although he has been on the Board for only 3 years, Juris Dilevko has noticed a ‘‘very

strong preponderance of ‘information-seeking/information needs’ literature. Three issues are

almost exclusively this type of research (out of eight), and in the other five issues, there is

at least one article of this type. While there is nothing wrong with this school of research, I

am sometimes concerned that LISR may be too often seen as being exclusively associated

with this brand of research. This may be something to avoid. LISR, I think, should have as

wide a variety of ‘schools of research’ as possible. On the other hand, it may be true that

other journals may not be as welcoming to ‘information-seeking’ research as LISR is, and

so LISR naturally attracts this kind of submission because no one else looks upon it with

that much favor.’’

0740-8188/03/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0740-8188(03)00045-8

Editorial / Library & Information Science Research 25 (2003) 233–237234

2. Do you think we should have columns, and if so, of what nature?

Most respondents felt that columns are inappropriate for LISR, and would give the journal

a less scholarly or professional look. On the other hand, Marilyn Domas White and Ronald

Powell think that it might be useful to have short reports on research activities, including

presentations at conferences or symposia. Powell also suggested a column ‘‘aimed at issues of

importance to doctoral students.’’ Lynne Rudasill feels that a ‘‘regular column about research

processes and their application’’ might be appropriate. Although not recommending columns,

Shaw thinks that ‘‘it might be interesting to have a series of invited tutorials or position papers

on various research methods.’’

3. What kinds of content do we feel we should ‘‘press for’’ —are there areas that you

feel are neglected, or perhaps areas that have been overrepresented?

Some of the respondents are happy with the mix of content. Mary Burke says that she likes

‘‘the range of quantitative and qualitative methodologies which appear at present.’’ Melissa

Gross feels that ‘‘we should continue to publish the best research being produced in our field

and I really like that we publish across a wide variety of subjects and strive to include

examples of various methodologies.’’ White states that ‘‘one of the things I like about the

content in LISR is its representation of user behavior (broadly conceived) and its relative lack

of technologically driven articles. There are many vehicles for the latter but relatively few for

the former, so LISR provides a real service to the field in that respect.’’

Dilevko previously addressed the preponderance of information-seeking content and adds

that ‘‘I think also the emphasis should not so much be on encouraging a variety of research

methods in the articles but on encouraging a variety of research topics. It is the topic that

attracts the interest and the downloads, not the method per se. As well. . . purely method-

ological articles about ‘how to do something using method XYZ’ I think should be

discouraged, since there are no real findings; a person has found what she/he thinks is a

suitable method, and then just describes the method and a possible application. LISR should

want results, not just possible methodologies.’’ On the other hand, Powell suggests that we

‘‘might try to publish more about research methods and data analysis techniques per se (they

might be good topics for a column as well).’’

Rudasill feels that the information-seeking content should continue to be a thrust of LISR.

‘‘One of the threads of the last 3 years or so seems to be information-seeking behaviors and

variants on that theme. I hope this will continue. I think it is also very important to publish

articles providing alternative suggestions for research methodology, whether emphasizing the

‘statistical gaze’ or more qualitative projects. As has been mentioned repeatedly in the past,

many library practitioners have little or no experience in the methodology of the social

sciences. Our journal serves as a venue for these individuals to sample the variety of ways in

which valid and reliable research can be pursued. In addition, articles in the area of

assessment might be encouraged. In looking at the top-10 list from the newsletter, behavior

Editorial / Library & Information Science Research 25 (2003) 233–237 235

and assessment appear to be very popular topics. Although one does not want to beleaguer

these topics, I think they will remain viable as avenues of interest for some time to come.’’

Lynn Silipigni Connaway believes that ‘‘we should attempt to get articles addressing the

research involved with the different metadata schemes and issues associated with them in the

electronic environment,’’ and White ‘‘would like to see a broader interpretation of informa-

tion and studies of less traditional information channels, such as electronic lists.’’ Shaw sees

the emphasis on quality more than topic: ‘‘The goal should be, as always, to attract, enhance,

and publish quality papers. I would emphasize work that addresses interesting, high-impact

questions. Authors who can clearly present why their research was worthy of the considerable

effort they have invested should be encouraged.’’

4. Publishers generally associate ‘‘quality’’ with ‘‘impact factor’’ (based on citation

analysis) and number of downloads. What would you see as appropriate criteria for

assessing the ‘‘quality’’ of the journal?

Burke let us know that ‘‘I tell my research students that LISR is the best journal to read to

learn about research methods. I’m not sure how much that will impress the publishers, but it

does mean articles which have good methodologies get read.’’ Gross agrees that ‘‘reputation

is a strong indicator of quality and impact, though it is harder to measure than number of

citations or downloads.’’ Connaway believes that ‘‘impact factor is one measure. I think that

sales and article submission numbers/rates as compared to other top-ranked journals in the

field are other measures of quality.’’

White pointed out that ‘‘the number of researchers working in some areas is relatively

small and the median life for literature in some research areas is relatively long, so citation

analysis (if limited to relatively short periods of time) may not be as useful as it would be in

the sciences. What I would like to see is a regular survey, conducted at 3-year intervals by a

relatively disinterested organization with an established, high reputation for integrity, asking a

large sample of LIS researchers and professionals to rate the quality of journals in the field for

certain activities: research, practice, etc. Another option is to report the acceptance/rejection

rate on a regular basis. The American Economic Review editors include this information in

their regular report to the sponsoring organization and it is published in their proceedings.’’

Rudasill offered some alternatives for assessing quality: ‘‘It is indeed difficult to ascertain

the best way to assess the quality and reputation of any journal. I think a combination of

impact factor and, as mentioned, actual downloads provides some measure of the journal’s

quality. These should provide good baseline information concerning the reputation of any

journal. I believe download numbers will become increasingly important and somewhat more

reliable as measures of quality in the future. There must, however, be other ways to assess the

quality of any particular journal title. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and others

tend to look only at their journal lists and a few selected books. I think citations within

dissertations as well as readings used in graduate classes also provide an avenue for

measuring the quality of publications. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to gather these

figures at this time.’’ Shaw also brought up the idea of journal use in education: ‘‘I would not

Editorial / Library & Information Science Research 25 (2003) 233–237236

recommend trying to use some count of Web hits as a way of assessing impact. This is based

in part on a study I did with Liwen Vaughan, where we found that (so far) in LIS, Web hits

correlate with ISI impact factor. So trying to sort through Web hits would be a lot of work for

not much additional information. However, I do think it might be possible to do some

targeted Web searching. In particular, I’d look at how LISR articles are showing up in

readings for classes. Which articles, which classes, and such would be a way to assess impact

on teaching (in contrast to research).’’

Dilevko, among others, feels that download data should be approached with caution, and

suggested the following: ‘‘With regard to the matter of downloads and citations, I am

concerned that downloads can be skewed. If Person A assigns her/his article for a class

reading in a class of 60 from the same university, there are potentially 60 downloads right

there. . . Now citations are not perfect either, because many articles are used/read by people

who never intend to publish something of their own, and so the articles that were important to

them in their work/lectures are never counted as being important. . . Would it be possible to

make some kind of arrangement with the producers of Library & Information Science

Abstracts, Information Science Abstracts, and other such databases to get a count of how

many times an abstract of an LISR-published article is read, how many times its citation is

printed out, etc.? I think this would give a much better impression of how often LISR articles

are actually used.’’

5. Do you have any additional recommendations, suggestions, and so on?

White feels that ‘‘whatever you can do to establish and maintain short time lags from

submission to acceptance and from acceptance to publication is very important. The lag times

in publication in some other journals that are over a year are very disheartening. I think

probably publishing some statistics about LISR’s statistics on this is important.’’ Powell

recommended that more should be done on marketing and publicity: ‘‘I’m always surprised to

see how many LIS students and practitioners haven’t heard of LISR.’’ Rudasill called for

continuing efforts to ‘‘include practitioners in the work you are doing so well.’’

Shaw suggests that ‘‘a round table or ‘sage advice’ for novice researchers (doctoral

students) would be helpful. For example, it could be a kick-off for doctoral seminars:

practical advice on everything from how to pick a research topic to how to get published.

Something like Phil Agre’s Networking on the Network: http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/

pagre/network.html.’’

Dilevko thinks that ‘‘LISR should discourage articles that navel-gaze at the articles we

ourselves produce. That to me seems myopic. We want the world to see what LIS as a field

has to offer the broader world, we do not want them to think that all we do is examine our

own production. I know that LISR has moved in the right direction in this regard: if I

remember correctly, there have only been about two articles of this sort in the past 4 years or

so. . . LISR should be results oriented: looking at various issues that are germane to a variety

of libraries and information centers, both in the physical realm and the digital realm.’’

Editorial / Library & Information Science Research 25 (2003) 233–237 237

6. And so. . .

We have some fine ideas to mull over as a result of this collective editorial. Our thanks to

those members of the Board who participated. On a happy note, we were also pleased to hear

comments such as ‘‘after much consideration, I have to say that I like the journal the way it

is’’ and ‘‘LISR is by far and away the most professional of the LIS research journals, both in

the quality of the articles, standards, and in the seriousness of its approach, and in the evident

professionalism that editors and reviewers deal with arising issues and manuscripts.’’

Candy Schwartz

Peter Hernon

Mary Burke

Lynn Silipigni Connaway

Juris Dilevko

Melissa Gross

Ronald R. Powell

Lynne Rudasill

Debora Shaw

Marilyn Domas White