FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2912794843> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2912794843 endingPage "177" @default.
• W2912794843 startingPage "175" @default.
• W2912794843 abstract "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 (Maria Grant and Graham Walton) are, respectively, Editor of Health Information and Libraries Journal (HILJ) (Grant, 2013) and Editor of New Review of Academic Librarianship (NRAL) (Walton, 2013). 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. Health Information and Libraries Journal is of international and interdisciplinary interest to practitioners, researchers and students in the library, information and health sectors, promoting debate about new health information developments with an emphasis on communicating evidence-based information both in the management and support of healthcare services. It is published quarterly by Wiley. The New Review of Academic Librarianship aims to establish the relevance and applicability of theory and/or research for the academic library practitioner. It is published by Taylor & Francis, and there are three issues per year. Both journals use blind peer review inviting people with appropriate knowledge to critically read the submitted paper and give a judgement and review of its current status. The Health Information and Libraries Journal invites three people to review each of its reviews or original articles although, in practice, not everyone invited is available to provide a review so, like the New Review of Academic Librarianship, only two reviews are typically submitted for each manuscript. The review process is instrumental in enabling your manuscript to be as good as it can be as it provides free and constructive feedback to help you develop your ideas. We use the feedback to produce a synthesised summary of the areas to focus on accompanied by a commentary. The peer reviewers provide reviews voluntarily, in addition to their day job, so it can sometimes take longer than is ideal, and, occasionally, reviewers agree to undertake a review and then are unable to submit within the time lines requested. Another challenge we face is when reviews conflict and express widely different views. The mix of these factors means that managing the peer review process is a sensitive and time-consuming process. A perfect copy flow is the aim for all editors, with at least two issues worth of manuscripts ready to go to print at any one time. However, this can be difficult to achieve. Not having enough copy could potentially result in quality being compromised or publishing schedules being missed; conversely, having too much copy risks authors becoming frustrated because of the delay in publishing their work and also that it will have limited currency. A range of strategies to manage copy flow are adopted over and above relying solely on authors to submit of their own volition. These include commissioning papers, encouraging students’ dissertations to be developed into papers and keeping a watching brief on conferences/study days for presentations that would be suitable (if modified) for publication. We do have to make decisions to reject some manuscripts, most commonly because they are not within scope for our journals; there is no point in wasting a peer reviewers’ time to look at a paper that is unlikely to be published. Other reasons for rejection include the ideas within manuscripts needing further development, perhaps broadening the discussion to be relevant to our readers or needing to be restructured to meet the journal guidelines. With no externally specified deadlines for authors to work towards, manuscripts arrive throughout the year and, working 3–6 months ahead of time, there is always an issue waiting to be published just over the horizon. Apart from ourselves, lots of different people are involved in producing the journal (mostly unseen) including editorial assistants who help ensure the manuscript moves smoothly through the review process, the team of assistant and feature editors who commission content and correct proofs, the peer reviewers and the production editor who assist in compiling each issue. We also each have an editorial advisory board that helps shape the direction the journal takes by defining the boundaries of content and ensuring the journal keeps abreast of issues likely to be relevant. The composition of the board also sends out implicit message of the types of content the journal is interested in. Both of us have to be aware of all the different contributions and ensure that everything is coordinated and ensure working towards the same goals. Both our journals are subscription based and produced by commercial publishers (HILJ – Wiley; NRAL – Taylor & Francis). We are both very much aware that in recent years, the open access publishing model has been seen by many librarians as being the future. This can lead to tension and difference in how librarians’ passionate about open access journals perceive publisher-based journals. Publishing via author services such as Early View, in which manuscripts are made available to subscribers online as soon as proof editing is complete, rather than having to wait for the next print issue, is a step in this direction. From our perspective, the publishers bring credibility, technical expertise, marketing, distribution knowledge and presentation skills. For both of us, negotiating with the publisher about what open access means for our journals is an important task. The pervasive nature of social media provides an important avenue for us to use in reaching out and communicating with our readerships; be it through RSS feeds of content pages, tweets about manuscripts or weekly tips about writing for publication. Like Facebook, Twitter provides an almost instantaneous way for us to know whether our readers like our content, with retweets, items being marked as ‘favourites’ and comments being generated on journal activity. HILJ is well on the way to embedding social media in its work, and NRAL is starting down the road. So, what can you take from these ruminations? Well, although it can be time-consuming, peer reviewing and referees comments are there to help you; manuscripts can be submitted at any time although an artificial deadline to assist your own planning can help (you do not have to wait until the end of the year!); and journals are a team effort so directing your enquiries to the correct person and medium may mean a speedier response. We will look forward to hearing from you. There are three broad themes for this quarters’ issue of the Health Information and Libraries Journal, those of information need within healthcare settings, issues relating to the quality of patient information and health information within an academic setting. In terms of health information needs, Ayatollahi presents the findings of a qualitative study investigating the information needs of clinicians and non-clinicians in Emergency Departments1 while Clarke et al. present their secondary analysis of the most common information needs of physicians and nurses.2 When it comes to the quality of patient information, Sakai reports on a study to compare six versions of the same piece of patient information and concludes that vocabulary is the single critical factor in preparing quality patient information,3 while Charbonneau highlights the ongoing problem with incomplete risk information in written treatment information.4 Finally, in an educational context, Azadeh et al. examine the issue of the accuracy of references in relation to information literacy, while Clairoux advocates frequent communication with partners in the clinical field, active involvement in academic networks and health library associations and reflective professional strategies as a means of ensuring the sustainability and evolution of the library instruction programme. I am sure you will agree these six papers provide strong practitioner-based research evidence to inform your professional activities in the coming months." @default.
• W2912794843 created "2019-02-21" @default.
• W2912794843 creator A5004368837 @default.
• W2912794843 creator A5035224431 @default.
• W2912794843 date "2013-08-24" @default.
• W2912794843 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2912794843 title "Strategic issues for LIS practitioner-researcher journals" @default.
• W2912794843 cites W2014917767 @default.
• W2912794843 cites W2026312989 @default.
• W2912794843 cites W2032288361 @default.
• W2912794843 cites W2051282380 @default.
• W2912794843 cites W2064850686 @default.
• W2912794843 cites W2066291680 @default.
• W2912794843 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12039" @default.
• W2912794843 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2912794843 type Work @default.
• W2912794843 sameAs 2912794843 @default.
• W2912794843 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2912794843 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2912794843 hasAuthorship W2912794843A5004368837 @default.
• W2912794843 hasAuthorship W2912794843A5035224431 @default.
• W2912794843 hasBestOaLocation W29127948431 @default.
• W2912794843 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W2912794843 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
• W2912794843 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2912794843 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2912794843 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2912794843 hasConceptScore W2912794843C161191863 @default.
• W2912794843 hasConceptScore W2912794843C2522767166 @default.
• W2912794843 hasConceptScore W2912794843C41008148 @default.
• W2912794843 hasConceptScore W2912794843C509550671 @default.
• W2912794843 hasConceptScore W2912794843C71924100 @default.
• W2912794843 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2912794843 hasLocation W29127948431 @default.
• W2912794843 hasLocation W29127948432 @default.
• W2912794843 hasOpenAccess W2912794843 @default.
• W2912794843 hasPrimaryLocation W29127948431 @default.
• W2912794843 hasRelatedWork W2093578348 @default.
• W2912794843 hasRelatedWork W2096946506 @default.
• W2912794843 hasRelatedWork W2350741829 @default.
• W2912794843 hasRelatedWork W2358668433 @default.
• W2912794843 hasRelatedWork W2376932109 @default.
• W2912794843 hasRelatedWork W2382290278 @default.
• W2912794843 hasRelatedWork W2390279801 @default.
• W2912794843 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2912794843 hasRelatedWork W2766271392 @default.
• W2912794843 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2912794843 hasVolume "30" @default.
• W2912794843 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2912794843 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2912794843 magId "2912794843" @default.
• W2912794843 workType "article" @default.