Editorial

Now that a new year has begun, I look forward to a new round of papers to be submitted to the journal. Each year brings different types of topics, and there are often patterns. In past years, there were more papers on a given topic, such as RDA or patron driven acquisitions. Metrics and collection analysis and digital preservation are current topics of interest.

Papers make their way to LRTS in a variety of ways. Some papers are unsolicited, and are submitted by authors who see the journal’s scope and reputation as a good match for them. I solicit many papers by monitoring discussion lists and by reading conference programs. The LRTS website includes guidelines for turning a presentation into a paper (see www.ala.org/alcts/resources/lrts/authtips). I also make contact with potential authors through ALCTS activities that include the ALCTS New Members Interest Group and ALCTS 101. Members of the editorial board (current and former) also solicit content that has led to excellent papers.

Not every author who submits a paper to LRTS is a seasoned professional with a long list of publications. LRTS authors include first time authors, who may submit a paper as a single author or collaborate with experienced colleagues. An expert editorial board that represents all of ALCTS’ sections reviews submissions. They provide feedback that enables authors to revise and refine their papers. A great deal of time and effort goes into reviews and feedback.

LRTS accepts two different types of papers, research papers and “Notes on Operations,” which explore operational issues with value and implications for other libraries. Published “Notes on Operations” papers include “E-book Cataloging Workflows at Oregon State University” by Richard Sapon-White (v. 58, no. 2), “Metadata Makeover: Transforming MARC Records Using XSLT” by Violeta Ilik, Jessica Storlien, and Joseph Olivarez (v. 58, no. 3), and “When One Plus One Remains One: The Challenges and Triumphs of Merging Two University Libraries” by Elaine Mael (v. 58, no. 4). Both types of papers undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review, and include the following elements of a research paper: research method, results or findings, discussion and/or analysis, and a conclusion.

Book reviews are another way to contribute to LRTS. They are a good way for those new to the profession to get started with publishing, and also provide experienced professionals an opportunity to evaluate professional publications. In either case, book reviews provide a valuable service to the profession. Interested individuals may contact LRTS Book Review Editor Elyssa Sanner at www.ala.org/alcts/resources/lrts/be_reviewer.

I encourage you to consider submitting a paper to LRTS or writing a book review. Publishing is a very rewarding experience, particularly when you get feedback from others regarding your work or when you see your work has been cited elsewhere.

In closing, I would like to highlight the contents of this issue:

  • In “Calculating All that Jazz: Accurately Predicting Digital Storage Needs Utilizing Digitization Parameters for Analog Audio and Still Image Files,” Krista White considers the challenges posed to library personnel who lack computer science or audio visual training who are tasked with writing digital project proposals, grant applications, or rationale to digitization projects at their institutions.
  • Myung-Ja K. Han, Nicole E. Ream-Sotomayor, Patricia Lampron, Janet Weber, and Deren Kudeki detail the challenges and expense of creating MARC data for unique and hidden collections in their paper “Making Metadata Maker: A Web Application for Metadata Production.” The authors solved the problem at their institution by developing the web application Metadata Maker, which enables anyone, regardless of their familiarity with metadata standards, to create metadata in four formats, including MARC21.
  • “An Analysis of Evolving Metadata Influences, Standards, and Practices in Electronic Theses and Dissertations,” by Sarah Potvin and Santi Thompson, seeks to raise awareness of the differences between current practices and metadata standards and guidelines for electronic theses and dissertations. They consider the philosophies that have guided the design of several metadata standards.
  • Dawn McKinnon’s paper “Using Perceptions and Preferences from Public Services Staff to Improve Error Reporting and Workflows” explores the workload impact that has resulted from the ongoing transition of mostly print purchases to electronic, which has led libraries to focus on improving workflow efficiencies.

I hope you enjoy this issue of LRTS.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


ALA Privacy Policy

© 2023 Core