I encourage you to join the celebration. Detailed information is available at the ALCTS anniversary Web site (www.ala.org/alcts50). Be sure to visit the section “Looking Back,” which has a list of past presidents, photos, trivia, and more.

As I look toward the fiftieth anniversary festivities, I also ponder the future of ALCTS and LRTS. Both depend on you—being engaged in ALCTS activities, volunteering for service, and writing for publication. To that end, I am suggesting topics that would make excellent themes for papers to be submitted to LRTS. These topics could be the starting point for research projects or a catalyst for essays that thoughtfully consider one or more perspectives on a particular topic. LRTS also publishes papers in a section called “Notes on Operations,” which report practical applications and problems solutions that have implications beyond the library in which they occur.

We have had few papers in the area of acquisitions recently, yet I think this is one of the exciting, fast-moving areas in technical services. What new services are foreign vendors offering and how do they compare with those provided by U.S. vendors? How do these changing services from both foreign and domestic vendors affect workflow, allocation of staff time, and level of staff (type or classification) doing the work? Is anyone thinking about a standard elements for an acquisitions record? What about a historical review of the changes undergone and undertaken by monograph vendors to meet libraries’ changing expectations? Related to this topic—are libraries changing practices to mesh with changing services, or are libraries driving the changes in services that vendors supply? Does anyone have experience with the new WorldCat Selection service, based on the Integrated Tool for Selection and Ordering at Cornell University Library (ITSO CUL)? Perhaps someone in a library implementing this service could collect data pre- and post-implementation and prepare an analysis for LRTS.

The future of the catalog is the topic du jour and probably de dix ans. Next generation catalogs and various initiatives underway (such as PennTags, WorldCat Identities, and University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana Libraries’ Buy a Book service) to enhance current catalogs and services are fascinating. What do librarians at Endeca-using institutions have to tell us? Those that are looking to implement the Ex Libris Primo should be thinking now about how they can share their experiences and the results with colleagues.

Preservation of digital content and traditional formats remains a critical topic. I would welcome exploration of solutions to digital archiving—helping readers understand LOCKSS, PORTICO, dark archives, semi-dark archives, light archives, perpetual archives, and where librarians and libraries have responsibilities. Do microforms still have a role in library collections? Are they being replaced by digitized content? If so, what are the responses from and consequences to users?

The landscape for licensing digital content and access to digital content is changing rapidly. Perhaps now is the time for a paper that considers the Google project, the Open Content Alliance, and in-house projects—and how they are, together, building a new universe for information seekers. How do these new types of collections fit with traditional collection, use, and user assessment? Are libraries employing statistical measures of usage for Web-based information resources? Have the guidelines for these measures promoted by the International Coalition of Library Consortia affected the practices of content providers? I’ve heard talk about a universal license. What has been the result of national e-content licenses in other countries? Licensors and licensees both have perspectives that can be explored and shared.

I am especially interested in trends in the organization of technical services, the changing skill sets expected of professional librarians, and the expanding role of non-MLIS professionals. What defines original cataloging or, more to the point, what is the role of MLIS professionals in technical services?

Anyone who is considering writing a paper for LRTS should review the “Instructions for Authors” and “Author FAQ” sections on the LRTS Web site (www.ala.org/alcts/lrts). The LRTS Editorial Board provides mentors to potential authors, who are interested in this service. I conclude with my now familiar advice for aspiring authors.

• Do not write a simple how-we-did-it good paper. Successful projects can be the basis of good papers, but they need to be placed in a larger context. Why should readers care? Have others tackled the problems or written about it? What can readers learn from the project being reported?
• Be attentive to grammar and spelling. Proofread and proofread again.
• Check citations for accuracy.
• Do not overshadow prose with illustrative matter. Most papers need no more than six to eight (at most) figures and tables. The data represented in illustrative matter and their significance should be explained in the prose. Illustrative matter is not required; some papers do not need tables reporting quantitative and statistical findings or figures demonstrating topics addressed.
• Be sure that your paper fits within the scope of LRTS.
• Browse through recent issues of LRTS to get a sense of style, length, and tone. Read the papers that received the Best of LRTS award. I commend to you:
  • Jennifer Bowen, “FRBR: Coming Soon to Your Library,” 49, no. 3 (July 2005): 175–188.
  • Kristin Antelman, “Identifying the Serial Work as a Bibliographic Entity,” 48, no. 4 (Oct. 2004): 238–55.
  • Amy Weiss, “Proliferating Guidelines: A History and Analysis of the Cataloging of Electronic Resources,” 47, no. 4 (Oct. 2003): 171–187.
• LRTS is a scholarly journal. Your paper should reflect this while being readable. Ponderous prose is deadly.

Finally, do not hesitate to contact a member of the Editorial Board or me if you wish to discuss a potential paper.