Editorial

Editorial

Due Process

I spent the last three weeks reporting for jury duty. My term of service coincided with finalizing the production of this issue of LRTS. Since the courthouse provided limited access to Wi-Fi, I did not bring my ancient laptop and was forced to take a non-technological approach to editing papers. I brought a stack of papers printed from Editorial Manager, LRTS’ online submission management system. I typically edit submissions and revisions online. After reading all the submissions, I still needed to use a computer to incorporate the reviewers’ responses and return papers to the authors. While I used a low tech approach in this particular instance, the end results are the same—a thorough reading of the paper and substantive feedback. However, it made me wonder how my predecessors functioned before Editorial Manager.

Papers submitted to LRTS cover the gamut of topics ranging from BIBFRAME and emerging technologies to best practices for preserving fragile materials. How authors conduct their research, how their papers are structured, and their style of writing varies by individual. The LRTS author guidelines (www.ala.org/alcts/resources/lrts/authinst) outline the required elements for a research paper. I frequently receive questions from prospective authors about topics, asking whether they need to submit a proposal or if there is a deadline for submissions. Proposals are not required and submissions are accepted on a rolling basis.

The time required for a paper to be accepted and published varies. It sometimes is a challenge to match a paper on a very specialized topic with reviewers. Authors may need additional time to revise and resubmit papers. One of the authors in this issue of LRTS needed additional time since she was also completing her doctoral dissertation. Papers may be accepted well before they are published. The papers in this issue were accepted in August and September 2015, for example.

The past year has been an excellent one for LRTS. The journal received more than twenty-seven submissions, which is an increase from last year. The thanks I receive from authors or praise from readers is one of the perks of being LRTS Editor, and what makes it rewarding. I owe thanks to the ALCTS Publications Committee’s Publicity Committee and their work to publicize the journal. Outreach by editorial board members, both current and former, has also generated submissions. I am constantly on the lookout for presentations, surveys, etc. that can be developed into a research paper.

In closing, I bring your attention to this issue’s contents:

  • Demand-driven acquisition is a just-in-time method of collection development, while approval plans are just-in-case collection models. In “Both Just-In-Time and Just-in-Case: The Demand-Driven-Preferred Approval Plan,” Ann Roll details how California State University, Fullerton implemented a hybrid approach of demand-driven acquisition and the approval plan, resulting in their DDA-preferred approval plan that enabled the library to provide access to more books while saving money.
  • In “The Promise of the Future: A Review of the Serials Literature, 2012–13,” Paula Sullenger discusses the ongoing challenges faced by those who participate in the serials information chain. Her paper considers issues including workflow, the electronic exchange of information, and control of proprietary information.
  • Amy Buhler and Tara Cataldo assess university students’ ability to identify document types or information containers such as journals, books, or articles, in “Identifying E-Resources: An Exploratory Study of University Students.” The pervasive nature of electronic resources poses challenges for students, and Buhler and Cataldo’s research seeks to understand the impact of these resources on students’ information seeking behavior and the resulting impact on information literacy.
  • Annie Peterson, Holly Robertson, and Nick Szydlowski discuss the American Library Association’s Preservation Statistics Survey and the Association of Research Libraries’ discontinued preservation statistics program in “Do You Count?: The Revitalization of a National Preservation Statistics Survey.” Their paper examines both surveys and discusses the rationale for collecting national data on preservation efforts, and suggests that support for preservation activities has declined since the early 1990s.
  • In “Transforming Technical Services: Evolving Functions in Large Research University Libraries,” Jeehyun Yun Davis investigates how technical services operations in large research libraries are adapting to support the changing role of the academic library. Her research is based in part on hour-long interviews with representatives from nineteen of the twenty-five institutions that participate in the ALCTS Technical Services Directors Large Research Libraries Interest Group.

I hope you enjoy this issue of LRTS and are able to attend the ALA Midwinter Meeting in Boston.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


ALA Privacy Policy

© 2022 Core