Author Archives: vew908

A Day Year in the Life of an Editor-in-Chief

Posted on by

by Lorie Kloda
Associate University Librarian, Planning & Community Relations, Concordia University

I have worked as a scholarly journal editor in some fashion or another for at least 10 years with various titles, but mostly with the open access journal Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. In my various roles as a peer reviewer, evidence summary writer, section editor, and associate editor, I have gained a lot of valuable experience and skills. And I imagine many librarians who have had these roles or aspire to fill those positions at some point have a rather good conception of what those roles entail.

Since December 2015 (so, a little more than a year), I have served in the role of editor-in-chief, and I thought it might be interesting to provide an insider’s view as to what this involves. Actually, it was an opportunity for me to reflect on my overall responsibilities and the many (many, many) tasks that I undertake to fulfill these. The fact is, I, and most editors-in-chief of scholarly journals, do not do this is a full-time job. We cobble together the time to get this work done and achieve our vision while working in full-time academic positions. At least, if we’re lucky enough to have full-time paying positions. Another fact is that I do the work from wherever I am, usually my office, or laptop perched somewhere in my home on the weekend. In some ways, working with an editorial team is much like working as a freelancer – I collaborate with several people who also have other jobs and with whom I do not share office space or even a time zone.

I cannot realistically present a “day in the life” because on a given day I may actually do nothing related to my role as editor-in-chief. Whereas on other days, I may do a handful of small tasks. Instead, I present an overview of the kind of work I’ve been involved with over the past year in this particular role.

Responsibilities as an editor-in-chief (in no particular order):
• Assist editors in evaluating submissions
• Recruit peer reviewers for the journal, and provide guidance to (and guidelines for) reviewers
• Provide leadership on the direction of the journal through consultation with various stakeholders
• Solicit and provide editorial review for commentaries and other content
• Answer author queries about potential submissions
• Work closely with the production editor to ensure issues are published on schedule
• Manage a team of editors and editorial advisors, as well as writing assistants, an indexer, and copyeditors
• Write editorials
• Liaise with professionals responsible for managing the Open Journal System (the platform on which the journal content is hosted) and ensure the long-term preservation of the content
• Oversee communications, including promotion of the journal and its indexing in various databases, and status in the Directory of Open Access Journals
• Coordinate “features” – content devoted to particular themes, conferences or symposia which appear in select journal issues

The tasks I undertake to achieve the above consist of a blend of activities, mostly emailing, meetings on Skype (with up to 12 people, across 14 time zones), call for applicants and screening of submissions for various positions. I try to track this time, but even so, the numbers don’t capture everything and the work is not evenly spread out over the weeks or even the months.

It should go without saying, but I would not be able to achieve any of my objectives without the dedication and collaboration of all of my colleagues – associate editors, production editor, copyeditors, etc. In the end, the position is extremely rewarding. I often find myself wishing I had more time to devote to the role and to thinking of ways to support the team of editors in producing such a high caliber publication. Hopefully, with more experience, and perhaps magically, more time, I’ll be able to add to contribute even more.

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Fish, Meet Water: The Importance of Context in Research Design and Writing

Posted on by

by Frank Winter, Librarian Emeritus
University Library, University of Saskatchewan

Introduction
Issues of context are relatively under-examined in discussions of the research process but context is, I believe, critical to understanding and evaluating the results of research. In this sense the lack of context seems like a case of “Fish, meet water.” There are perhaps assumptions of personal and mutual understanding on all levels that might not survive a more critical examination.

There have been, however, a few direct discussions. One that I found particularly helpful is contained in the Journal of Organizational Behavior. A 2001 editorial specifically flagged the importance of addressing issues of context that authors, in the opinion of the editors, often left unaddressed or inadequately addressed in articles. They provided this helpful overview:

The term ‘context’ comes from a Latin root meaning ‘to knit together’ or ‘to make a connection.’ Contextualizing entails linking observations to a set of relevant facts, events, or points of view that make possible research and theory that form part of a larger whole. Contextualization can occur in many stages of the research process, from question formulation, site selection, and measurement to data analysis, interpretation, and reporting.

They continue by noting that, “The need to contextualize is reinforced by the emergence of a world- wide community of organizational scholars adding ever-greater diversity in settings as well as perspectives.” (Rousseau and Fried, 2001, p.1) Unvoiced, shared understandings were no longer possible in such a widespread community. The same is true, I suggest, in librarianship.

When I read the literature of librarianship or think about my own research projects, I often have to remind myself to be explicitly mindful of context. Below, I briefly explore two aspects of context: how the researcher can think about the larger context of the design of the research question; and how the researcher can reflect issues of context in the report of the research.

Considerations in Research Design
“On or about December 1910, human character changed,” Virginia Wolff famously wrote (1924). She was writing about the emergence of the modernist movement in English literature but her formulation of “on or about… “has spawned a host of imitators. I contend the world of research libraries changed radically on or about January 2000. That was the date that many librarians realized that there was now a critical mass of full-text high quality digital scholarly journal literature easily accessible through various databases or via the open Web. This change meant that the workflows of scholars at all levels could now bypass the library, a process explored in detail by experts such as Lorcan Dempsey. The result of this is what I have described elsewhere as the Gone-Away World (Winter, 2014). When reading scholarly research about university libraries and librarians, I always assess whether the research reflects this new world. And of course, when reading research conducted prior to 2000, I have to be alert to the different context in which that research was conducted.

Issues of context at this level of research design involve consideration of innumerable historical, socio-economic, technological, legal, institutional, and other environmental factors that might affect the design. And implicitly underlying all of these factors is that of time. Widely used texts on research design such as Creswell’s Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2014) do not address the issue of context in these terms and provide little guidance on what should be included and what should be excluded.

Perhaps Flyvbjerg’s concise advice is as much as can be said: “The drawing of boundaries for the individual unit of study defines what gets to count as case as well as what becomes context to the case” (2011, p. 301).  Where the boundary is drawn is the responsibility of the researcher and should reflect expertise and familiarity with the field and the research method. At this stage, having a defined program of research will be very helpful in deciding what is relevant to context (Winter, 2015).

Considerations in Research Reporting
“Don’t try to write everything you know,” was helpful advice given to me by a colleague as I was struggling with a dissertation-length piece of writing. This advice is even more pertinent for shorter pieces of writing such as scholarly articles. Besides the word limits imposed by the journal itself there is the common sense need to shape a research report such that it is both coherent as well as interesting for its intended audience. Research reports that pack too much into their text are confused and confusing and, ultimately, irritating. How, then, can relevant issues of context be reflected in the text?

In the same issue of the Journal of Organizational Behavior cited above, one of their peer reviewers critiques one of the articles using the perspective advocated by the editors. He notes that,

“understanding both substantive and methodological context permits the reader to put the entire research report in context. Both forms of context do this when they provide information relevant to the theoretical approach being used or to the intersection between this theory and the chosen method. Context for its own sake is to be avoided as non-sequitur” (Johns, p. 32).

Reflecting a bit on this guidance, perhaps issues of context can be directly reflected in the literature review, methods, and limitations sections of an article as well, perhaps, indirectly in the introduction. Johns provides many different suggestions. They do not need to be elaborated but there should be some sense that the researcher is aware of the larger environment.

Conclusion
The reader’s understanding of the context of the research is essential to an informed reception of the author’s work. Attention paid to issues of context at the design and the reporting stages will address this need.

References
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2014.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. (4th ed., pp. 301 – 316). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Johns, G. (2001). In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Feb., 2001), pp. 31-42. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649605.

Rousseau, D. M. and Fried, Y.  (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Feb., 2001), pp. 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649603.

Winter, F. (2014). Traditionalists, progressives and the Gone-Away World.” Retrieved from http://words.usask.ca/ceblipblog/2014/10/14/traditionalists-progressives-and-the-gone-away-world/.

Winter, F. (2015). Forest, trees, and underbrush: Becoming the arborist of your own research. Retrieved from http://words.usask.ca/ceblipblog/2015/07/28/forest-trees-and-underbrush-becoming-the-arborist-of-your-own-research/.

Wolff, Virginia. (1924). Mr Bennett and Mrs Brown. London: Hogarth Press.

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

The Many Benefits of OA and Open Peer Review: C-EBLIP Journal Club, May 10, 2016

Posted on by

by DeDe Dawson
Science Library, University of Saskatchewan

Article:
Tennant JP, Waldner F, Jacques DC et al. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review [version 1; referees: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2016, 5:632 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8460.1)

This is arguably the perfect journal club article! A juicy topic with a few points of contention, a journal platform with many innovative features, and open post-publication peer review. Lots and lots to discuss, and indeed we ran out of time. Here I try to summarize our conversation:

I always gravitate towards review articles and highly recommend them to students. They are often the most efficient way to get up to speed on all the relevant literature in a complex area. Open Access (OA) is just such a complex area with multiple overlapping layers of issues, and all progressing so rapidly, that it is the ideal topic for a review. It is ironic because OA itself is such a simple concept. The complexity comes from the challenges of implementation and the multiple stakeholders (and vested interests) involved.

This review article summarizes the main evidence to date on the impact of OA from three perspectives: academic, economic, and societal. They are essentially three lines of reasoning in support of OA. We thought that the strongest, most well-developed argument in favour of OA in this article was the academic. It certainly had the most citations behind it because of the highly productive research area documenting the OA citation effect. We also thought that maybe this academic perspective was focused on by the authors because it was the most likely to persuade researchers who might be reading this review.

So, was the point of the article to persuade researchers to support OA? The authors have an obvious bias as proponents of OA. But how important is it for authors to be neutral? We thought it was unrealistic to expect authors not to have a bias, and for most kinds of papers authors indeed argue a particular point. But should review papers be different? It was suggested that if authors are clear and upfront about their objectives and competing interests this shouldn’t be a problem.

This brought us to the question of what evidence against OA might there be anyway? (We expose our own pro-OA bias here!). One of the online commenters on the article challenged the authors to provide a more balanced review – but he could not provide the authors with links to literature to support these other anti-OA perspectives. Some of the obvious counter-arguments were already dealt with in the article: such as the rise of deceptive (“predatory”) publishing, and the challenges of paying article processing charges (APCs) for authors without funding or those from underdeveloped countries. Otherwise, it is pretty hard to argue against OA unless you are a commercial publisher (or shareholder) with financial interest in sustaining the current system. The commenter argued that jobs will be lost in the transition. But this is a weak point. Are we to prop up an entire dysfunctional, and inequitable, system for the sake of some jobs? Besides these jobs will likely morph into other more relevant and useful functions. What seemed to emerge from this back-and-forth was that “sustainable” means something completely different to commercial publishers (and their allies) and OA proponents! Publishers are from Mars; OA proponents are from Venus.

Beyond the article itself we had a lot to say about the platform and the open peer review model. The article is essentially still in its pre-print version. It was posted on the F1000Research site before peer review. It was a fascinating process to see the reviewers’ reports as they were submitted, and to watch as others commented on the article and the authors responded. It gave the impression of a proper scholarly conversation taking place. This is ideally what journals should be facilitating. Technology allows this now – so why are so many journals still clinging to outdated formats from the print era?

The “open” nature of the reviews and comments also ensured an appropriate level of civility. Who has not received rude and unproductive comments from a reviewer that feels protected by their anonymity? (There is an entire Tumblr site devoted to such remarks!). However, if the reviewer is obliged to reveal themselves, not just to the authors but to the whole of the readership, then they are more likely to behave diplomatically, and provide constructive and substantiated critiques. This also works in the reviewer’s favour: readers (and evaluators) can plainly see the amount of work and time invested by the reviewer in their function. If the reviewer has spent considerable time in providing a thoughtful review then they can justifiably link to it on their CV and collegial committees can see for themselves the energy the reviewer expended.

We also spoke of how we might use this kind of journal format in information literacy instruction with students. This would more clearly make the point that scholarship is a conversation, and that there are multiple points of view. It would demystify the peer review process too: we can see the issues raised by the reviewers and can follow the paper into its next version seeing how the authors might address these concerns. This process is usually completely hidden from the average reader; so it is difficult for a student to imagine a paper other than the final version.

These various versions of papers do present challenges for the reader in citing though! It seems that all the versions remain on the site and have their own DOIs, but the added complexity in citing remains. This is a relatively minor issue though compared to the benefits of an open scholarly conversation that such a model of peer review allows.

We look forward to seeing the next version of this article and continuing the conversation on the benefits of OA!

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Walking the (Research Data Management) Talk

Posted on by

by Marjorie Mitchell
Librarian, Learning and Research Services
UBC Okanagan Library

Librarians helping researchers to create data management plans, developing usable file management systems (including file naming conventions), preparing the data for submission into repositories and working through the mysteries of subject-specific metadata schemes are at the forefront of the data sharing movement. All this work leads to research that is more reproducible, more rigorous, has fewer errors, and more frequently cited (Wicherts, 2011) than research that isn’t shared. In addition to those benefits, shared data leads to increased opportunities for collaboration and, potentially, economic benefits (Johnson, 2016). However, are we doing what we are asking our researchers to do and ultimately making our research data available and open for reanalysis and reuse? Are we walking the talk? Or is this the case of the carpenter’s house (unfinished) and the mechanic’s car (needing repair)?

When I’m speaking of data I use Eisner and Vasgird’s description of data as “a collection of facts, measurements or observations used to make inferences about the world we live in” (n.d.) because the research done by librarians consists of wide varieties of data: numerical, textual, photographic images, hand drawn maps, or diagrams created by study participants. Almost all have the potential to be shared openly and to act as a springboard for further research, subject to appropriate ethical considerations.

I started searching to see what data I could find from Canadian librarian researchers in repositories. I have not finished my search, but my early results show some interesting things. To date, this has not been a rigorous study, but more of a curious, pre-research “let’s see what’s out there” browse, and therefore must not be misconstrued as the basis for conclusions. I briefly looked internationally for a few studies and found a wider variety of topics with available datasets than I had found in Canadian repositories, which was what I expected to find.

Two things jumped out at me right away. First, when data is available, it is either from large, national or multi-institutional studies, or it is from studies that have been repeated over time, such as LibQUAL+®. Far fewer institution-specific or single researcher/research team datasets are “available.” Some of those have “request access” restrictions, meaning it may be possible to access the data with permission from the creator, but that is not guaranteed. The second thing I noticed was how difficult it is locate these datasets. Although there is a movement to assign unique and persistent identifiers to datasets, this has not, as yet, translated into a search engine that can comprehensively search for datasets.

I am happy to see a steady increase in the amount of librarian-generated research data being made available. Librarian-generated research is not alone in this trend. It is happening across the disciplines. While little library research is externally funded, it is worth noting some funders are requiring data management plans with the goal of data sharing. Some scholarly journals, particularly in the sciences, have strong policies about data sharing. Each change, minor or major, moves us more toward data that is shared as a matter of course, rather than data shared only reluctantly.

If this all sounds like “just another thing to do” or maybe “I don’t have the skills or interest to do this,” consider research data sharing as an opportunity to partner with another librarian who has those skills but perhaps lacks the research skills you have. Research partners and teams can allow people to contribute their best skills rather than struggling to compensate for their weaknesses throughout the process.

Finally, have a look at the data that is out there just waiting to be reused. Cite it, add to it (if allowed), and share your new results. I am confident this will add greater context to your research and highlight subtleties and nuances that might have remained invisible otherwise.

References

Eisner, R., & Vasgird, D. (n.d.) Foundation Text. In RCR Data Acquisition and Management. Retrieved from http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/columbia_wbt/rcr_data/foundation/index.html

Johnson, B. (2016). Open Data: Delivering the Benefits. Presentation, London, UK.

Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M., & Molenaar, D. (2011). Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results. PLoS ONE, 6(11). doi:hOp://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026828

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Carrots & Sticks: Encouraging self-archiving in an IR. C-EBLIP Journal Club, Mar 31, 2016

Posted on by

by Shannon Lucky
IT Librarian
University Library, University of Saskatchewan

Article: Betz, S., & Hall, R. (2015). Self-Archiving with Ease in an Institutional Repository: Microinteractions and the User Experience. Information Technology and Libraries, 34(3), 43–58. http://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v34i3.5900

One of the things I love about the C-EBLIP journal club is the ease of having one of my colleagues pick out an interesting article from their area of specialization so I can poke my head into their world for an hour and see what ideas they are wrestling with. As an IT librarian, picking an article creates some anxiety because systems and technology aren’t always that accessible (or interesting) for a diverse audience. I was happy to see Sonya Betz and Robyn Hall’s article pop up on a library tech listserv as it was a great fit for our group.

The University Library currently doesn’t have an institutional repository (IR) for the entire campus, but we do have a DSpace eCommons repository for research by UofS librarians. Because we have all deposited our own work into eCommons our conversation started with a unanimous (good natured) rant about how hard it is to do self-archiving. It is time-consuming and the technology was deemed to be frustrating and unsatisfying. Like other tedious institutional reporting systems, we assumed this was the only way. As one member put it, “I didn’t know we could expect better”.

While we talked about how frustrating the process could be, we also wondered just how much effort, time, and money should be invested in improving a system that we all have to use, but that our library users will never see. When do we make the call that something is good enough and we, or our fellow faculty, can suck it up and figure it out or ask for help? One of my favourite suggestions was that a “good enough” scenario would have the user feeling “the absence of anger”. Apparently the bar is quite low. Betz and Hall talk about some of the barriers to self-archiving but don’t ask why, when contributing to IRs is so difficult, many academics voluntarily submit their work to sites like academia.edu and ResearchGate – what is it they are doing right that we could learn from?

This led to a discussion about what libraries could do to encourage faculty, both within and outside the library, to deposit in an IR. We saw two routes: the carrot and the stick.

1024px-Carrot_and_stick_motivation svg

Carrots:
• Link academic reporting systems together to cut down on the number of places this information needs to be input (e.g. have citations from the IR export to formatted CVs, link ORCHID accounts with IR entries for authority control and better exposure, etc.)
• Group scholarly output for colleges, departments, or research groups together in the IR to show the collective impact of their work
• Gamify the submission process with progress bars, badges, and the ability to level up you scholarly work

Sticks:
• Money. Canada Council requires submission to an IR as a part of their funding model
• Librarians armed with actual sticks going office to office “persuading” scholars to deposit their research

We agreed that libraries don’t wield an effective stick in this scenario. Research services, colleges, and departments have to be the ones to put on the pressure to deposit. Librarians can help make that happen and (hopefully) make it as pain-free as possible.

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

The Librarian’s Guide to Surviving (and thriving) During Conference Season

Posted on by

by Carolyn Doi
Education and Music Library, University of Saskatchewan

It’s that time of year again: conference season. It seems like myself and all of my library colleagues are out there right now, presenting, networking, and gathering ideas to bring back to the workplace. That being said, not every conference experience is a positive one. Here are some of my tips and tricks for making it through your next conference like a pro!

1) Plan for success. Preview the conference schedule beforehand and prioritize the things you absolutely need to attend (committee meetings, chapter sessions, your own presentation (!), etc.) and then the ones you’d really like to see. Pick your scheduling method of choice. A colleague of mine prefers to highlight the heck out of the print schedule, while I’ve found that taking advantage of the conference apps such as Guidebook can be really handy.

Don’t forget to give yourself time to see some of the local sights as well! If there’s an afternoon you can get away from the conference or – even better – if you can book an extra day or two on either end of the conference, you’ll be happy you did. It can be really frustrating to travel across the country to only see the inside of a convention centre. Plus, exploring the city with your fellow conference attendees is a great networking activity.

2) Surf the backchannel. Find the conference hashtag and tap into real-time Twitter/Facebook/Instagram conversations to find out what folks are saying about everything from the conference sessions, venue, and best place to grab a quick bite to eat. It can be a great way to feel engaged and connected. Just remember, if you’ve got something negative to say on Twitter, be sure you’re ready to have the same conversation in person at the coffee break.

When I’m presenting, I find Twitter provides a quick and easy way to see how my presentation went over with the audience and gives me an opportunity to answer questions or send out links following the allotted presentation time. It’s always good to include the presenter in the conversation as well with an @ mention and use the conference hashtag, so those following from afar can also tap into what’s going on. There’s a lot to consider about the merits, drawbacks and etiquette of conference tweeting. Check out Ryan Cordell’s article and suggested tweeting principles for more ideas.

3) Making networking meaningful. Small talk can be intimidating, but it’s certainly not impossible. Fallon Bleich’s article Small Talk at Conferences: How to Survive It offers some good tips.

As much as it can be tempting to talk to the people you already know, try to also work in some conversations with people you’ve never met, or someone you’ve always wanted to chat with. When in doubt, ask them what they’re working on at the moment. You might learn something new or even find someone new to collaborate with! I’ve had some great collaborative research projects come out of a simple conversation at a conference reception.

4) Presenting like a Pro. So much has already been written about how to give a good presentation. But as a rule of thumb, whether you’re using PowerPoint, Prezi, Google Slides, or Reveal, make sure your presentation slides aren’t more interesting than you are as a speaker. Selinda Berg discussed this in a previous C-EBLIP blog post where she argued for “PowerPoint as a companion…not as a standalone document to be read.” I couldn’t agree more. At the end of the day, you don’t want to be outdone by your own conference slides!

5) Mindful reflection. Take time before the conference to set an intention for your experience there. Is there a particular problem you want to solve, certain people you need to have a face-to-face conversation with, or vendors that you need to approach? Conferences can go by quickly. Make sure you’ve identified your goals in advance so they become a priority while you’re there. I like to use a free note taking system such as Evernote to write everything down. Once I get home, I reread my notes and reflect on my experience. How can I apply what I learned in my own practice or research? Who do I need to follow up with?

Everyone has their own approach to travelling, presenting, and networking at professional events. These are some of the things that have worked for me and helped to make the whole experience more beneficial and enjoyable overall. Whatever your approach, I encourage you to sit back and enjoy the ride. Happy conference season, everyone!

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Lessons Learned: The Peer Review Process

Posted on by

by Tasha Maddison
Saskatchewan Polytechnic
and
Maha Kumaran
Leslie and Irene Dubé Health Sciences Library, University of Saskatchewan

We are currently in the final stages of editing a book on distributed learning. We initially received 27 chapter submissions on October 31, 2015 and set up a peer review process shortly thereafter. Each chapter was reviewed by two external reviewers. Our first challenge was to find enough reviewers so that each chapter could be reviewed in a timely manner. We sought reviewers from our immediate network of colleagues and later from acquaintances and individuals that we met at conferences. Finally we had to extend our search and seek out individuals out for that purpose. Once the first few chapters were finalized, we requested assistance from those chapter authors with reviewing chapters, and if they were not available, asked if could they recommended others from their institutions. Reviewers were invited to comment directly on the document and/or provide comments using a template that we provided. It was a learning process for everyone involved; the authors, the reviewers and also the editors. Here is what we have learned thus far in this process:

• Reviewers don’t always agree. In cases like these, it is very helpful to have a third opinion and this is where the editors play a critical role. They can ask the following questions and make a decision on the chapter: Does the review seem overly critical, or unjust? Is the reviewer actually providing suggestions help to improve the chapter? Or are they unnecessarily picky? Should the author(s) be given a chance to review and significantly revise their work, or is it feasible to reject it outright?

Lesson Learned: Use your judgement in accepting or intermediating the reviewer’s comments

• Reviewers are too nice. There were occasions when reviewers did not make any comments on the document, and/or had only positive comments on the template. Upon reading the same documents, editors had questions or needed clarification.

Lesson Learned: The reviewer’s comments are not the only quintessential element to use towards bettering a chapter.

• Reviewers and deadlines. Deadlines don’t mean the same thing to everyone. Some reviewers demonstrate tremendous discipline and always submit their work on time. Others, use deadlines more as a guideline than a hard and fast rule. Editors should count on these potential delays and build in a significant contingency plan for time.

Lesson Learned: Be prepared to be flexible and give reviewers 3 weeks to return their evaluation, but expect at least two weeks lag time for some. Also, build in a time contingency for the entire project.

• Reviewers as copyeditors: Reviewers are tempted to take on the role of copyediting when reviewing a text, but the primary job here is to review the content and comment appropriately. The more detailed a reviewers’ suggestions can be, the more helpful it is to the authors, and ultimately, the more successful the final chapter will be. General sweeping statements are not useful. Specific detailed comments are more helpful. If you are a peer reviewer, think of yourself as a most valued intermediary in the process of publishing a chapter. You take the work, and help to elevate it to the next level.

Lesson Learned: Provide reviewers with a template posing specific questions to present their comments and an area where they can include general comments for the editors, which will not be shared with authors.

• Rejections after reviewing: Unfortunately rejections are part of the peer review process. It is important that all parties are gracious and respectful if this is the outcome. The reviewers and editors should provide suggestions that strengthen the chapter and have it fit for publication upon revision. The authors should be left feeling that their submission and their participation in the process was worthwhile, and hopefully they too learned a lot.

Lesson Learned: Be prepared to listen to authors’ justifications about their chapter and then make final decisions.

The peer review process, regardless of the fate of the document, should noticeably improve the quality of the final product. Unbiased feedback from experts notes the successes or shortcomings of each chapter’s argument, the validity of results, the flow of the discussion, and the sound foundation of research. All members involved will benefit if they come in with a positive attitude and with a generosity towards accepting criticism.

For more information on the peer review process, check out these recent Brain Work Blog posts:
• http://words.usask.ca/ceblipblog/2016/01/12/peer-review/
• http://words.usask.ca/ceblipblog/2015/11/17/how-to-be-an-effective-peer-reviewer/

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

The author’s side of peer review

Posted on by

by Kristin Hoffmann
Associate Librarian, University of Western Ontario

In the last few months, Brain-Work has featured two discussions of peer review: How to be an effective peer reviewer and Peer reviewing as a foundation of research culture, both aimed at librarians who might be serving as reviewers. In this post, I want to look at peer review from the perspective of the author who is reading and responding to peer reviewers’ feedback.

I get butterflies in my stomach every time I see the subject line in my inbox announcing an email that contains reviewer comments. Reading reviewer feedback feels like the closest I come these days to getting a grade back on a test or an essay, and I still desperately want that A. What I have increasingly come to realize is that reviewers’ feedback isn’t going to determine my final grade in the course, and that it can really be a process of giving supportive and formative feedback.

Here are some suggestions I have that will hopefully make the process of reading and responding to peer review feel less daunting and more supportive:

1. Ask someone else to read your paper before you submit it. It’s always a good idea to get a fresh perspective on your work. Also, getting feedback from someone you know will help prepare you for getting more feedback from the reviewers.

2. When you get the reviewers’ comments, particularly if they include lots of suggestions for revision, let yourself complain and vent about it – for a day. Then put the complaining behind you and move on.

3. Remember that the reviewers’ feedback is intended to improve your paper. Read it with that in mind. In my experience, reviewers have always provided at least one helpful suggestion. (Exception: a review that says simply “this was terrible and shouldn’t ever be published.” That review isn’t going to improve your paper, so go ahead and complain about that terrible review that should never have been written, and then move on.)

4. You don’t necessarily need to take all of the reviewers’ suggestions or address all their questions. The reviewers don’t know your research as well as you do, and it may be that their suggestions would change the focus of your paper beyond what you intended. It could also be that they’re asking for changes because they didn’t clearly understand your intent as you had presented it in the paper—and that should be a sign to you that you need to change something, even if the change is perhaps not exactly what the reviewers asked for.

5. Stay in contact with the editor. Let them know that you are working on changes. If the editor had sent a “revise and resubmit” decision and you’ve decided not to resubmit, let them know that too. Ask the editor for advice if the reviewers’ suggestions aren’t clear, or if the reviewers have provided conflicting suggestions.

For more advice about reading and responding to peer review, the following offer more good suggestions:

Annesley, Thomas M. 2011. “Top 10 Tips for Responding to Reviewer and Editor Comments.” Clinical Chemistry 57 (4): 551–54. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2011.162388.

McKenzie, Francine. 2009. “The Art of Responding to Peer Reviews.” University Affairs. http://www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/career-advice-article/the-art-of-responding-to-peer-reviews/

The Open Source Paleontologist. 2009. “Responding to Peer Review.” http://openpaleo.blogspot.ca/2009/01/responding-to-peer-review.html

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

A Critical View of Metrics in EBLIP

Posted on by

by Donna Frederick
Services to Libraries, University of Saskatchewan

The Association of Library Collections and Technical Services, better known as ALCTS, is a division of the American Library Association. Approximately once a month ALCTS hosts an “eForum” which is a two day moderated email-based discussion. Current and pressing issues and concerns of librarians are often surfaced through these discussions. Some eForums demonstrate how online discussions can challenge our thinking and assumptions. While most of the threads are practical in nature and focus on mundane problems, the author of this post can generally uncover at least one valuable nugget which likely would not be discovered elsewhere.

The February 2016 ALCTS eForum was called “Career Progression in Cataloging and Metadata”. It was led by Lisa Robinson of Michigan State University and Stacie Traill of the University of Minnesota. Lisa and Stacie have provided a summary of the discussion which is referenced at the end of this post. The diversity of participants likely played a role in the wide range of points of view voiced. The “valuable nugget” of the month was about the assumptions we make when we apply traditional measures of effectiveness, productivity or efficiency to changed environments and the impact of making decisions based on the “evidence” derived from the application of those measures.

One of the discussions in the eForum was whether or not cataloguing and metadata creation are the same discipline. Participants generally agreed that both are unified by a shared theory of metadata. There was also agreement that the two are different in practice. Lisa Bodenheimer of Clemson University was able to bring clarity to the discussion when she stated that, “The need for different metrics and the use of different standards lead me to say, yes, metadata is a specialty distinct from cataloging.” The reality is that because the basic theory at the core of cataloging can and should be applied to all library metadata, technical services librarians often apply “tried and true metrics” to all forms of metadata creation whether it be traditional cataloging or creating records for one of the newer metadata containers. These measures often lead to conclusions about low productivity among traditional cataloguers which, if the difference in practice and the nature of the metrics used are well understood, are inaccurate. For example, some metadata creation processes involve taking 100s of traditional catalog records and, through a single action, convert them into new metadata records. Comparisons using a traditional metric is misleading in such a context. Neither the older or newer process is well-represented in the results seeing as the original cataloger may have needed to research topics or authors to create effective discovery metadata while the metadata librarian may have taken days or weeks to create a script or process which would process all of those records at once. The latter type of activity is not represented in existing cataloging metrics. Participants reported technical services decisions which were made based on data collected by applying metrics inappropriately.

While the eForum discussion of metrics appears to be most relevant to metadata and cataloging librarians, it demonstrates a concern for evidence based library and information practice. Metrics are used to extract the evidence upon which we make decisions. To measure something, we must understand what it is we are measuring and ensure that the tool for measurement is appropriate. When we make comparisons based on metrics, we also must understand the mechanics of the tool and critically evaluate both the appropriateness of its application and the results it produces. As the forum revealed, metrics are useful and powerful tools but differences in practice can make a particular metric inappropriate for use in seemingly related contexts and/or can result in misleading results. In the case of this eForum, the apparent conclusion is that the discipline needs an overhaul in the metrics it uses for measuring cataloguing and metadata work. Keeping this in mind, are there other areas of library work where changes over time and/or slight variations in practice have rendered our “tried and true” metrics less than useful as evidence?

References
Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (2016) “Career Progression in Cataloging and Metadata” [eForum archive] ALCTS eForum Archive. Dates of event: Tuesday, 2/16/2016 – Wednesday, 2/17/2016. Retrieved from: http://lists.ala.org/sympa 29 February 2016

Robinson, Lisa and Traill, Stacie (2016) “Career Progression in Cataloging and Metadata: eForum Summary” ALCTS News, features. Retrieved from: http://www.ala.org/alctsnews/features/e-forum-career 26 February 2016

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Writing for Scholarly Publication: Grammar, Style, and Usage

Posted on by

by David Fox
Librarian Emeritus, University of Saskatchewan

“… when it comes to correct English, there’s no one in charge; the lunatics are running the asylum” (Pinker 189).

Steven Pinker’s point is that there is no absolute authority for English usage. The language is an evolving organism, and there are multiple standards. What is practised in everyday speech and informal writing is often not acceptable in formal communication. Sentences like “Me and Melinda went to the mall” are frequently heard in everyday conversation. They are a form of English, and their meaning is clear. It’s just not the style of English practised in the official forums of government, journalism, or academia.

Pinker, a descriptive linguist, believes that the “rules” of usage are tacit conventions… among the members of a community (190) at a particular point in time. Formal, academic English is a subset of the language that conforms to certain prescriptive rules its users have adopted by consensus. However, as we shall see, many of these so-called rules are not immutable, and there is sometimes good reason to break them in the interest of harmonious writing.

In my final contribution to this series of articles on writing for scholarly publication, I attempt to tackle briefly some of the trickier questions of grammar and usage I’ve struggled to learn and understand over the years. My hope is that other writers may benefit from my exploration of these topics. Those interested in an extended discussion of the “singular they” may see my Brain-Work post from June 30, 2015.

which vs. that
Traditionally, which is used with a non-restrictive relative clause, usually set off by commas (or dashes or parentheses), and introduces a comment that is not essential to the understanding of the sentence.

Three Day Road, which was written by Joseph Boyden, is my favourite novel.

By contrast, that introduces a restrictive relative clause whose content is important to the meaning of the sentence.

The house that I bought last year had sustained some fire damage.

In many cases that can be omitted from a relative clause. An implied that is known as a zero relative pronoun or bare relative.

The house I bought last year had sustained some fire damage.

Personally, I prefer this construction because it is stylistically cleaner.

The which vs. that rule is frequently broken, and in fact, Pinker considers it a spurious rule to begin with (235-6). Setting off a non-restrictive relative clause with commas should be enough to signify to the reader that what is contained within is a non-essential elaboration, and either which or that is acceptable, in his opinion.

each other vs. one another
I used to think that each other referred to relationships between two persons, whereas one another was employed with groups larger than two. However, in modern usage, according to Pinker (251), these terms have become essentially interchangeable. Use whichever one sounds better in a particular situation.

less vs. fewer
The conventional distinction between these two words is that less is used for unquantifiable amounts (less sand, less air, etc.) while fewer is used for countable objects (e.g., fewer books, fewer apples). However, there are exceptions. Less is commonly used where units of measurement are involved.

They were all less than eighteen years old.

She was driving less than 70 kilometers per hour.

The box weighed less than 5 kilograms.

In each of these cases it would sound weird to say fewer than eighteen years old, fewer than 70 kilometers per hour, fewer than 5 kilograms. Less is also used in certain idiomatic expressions such as “one less x” and “no less than y”.

In everyday speech and informal communication, less is frequently used in place of fewer.

between vs. among
Most of us were taught that between must be used with just two items and among is used when there are more than two. “The real principle is that between is used for a relationship of an individual to any number of other individuals, as long as they are being considered two at a time, whereas among is used for a relationship of an individual to an amorphous mass or collectivity” (Pinker 251).

different from vs. different than
The answer here is fairly straightforward. Things differ from each other, not than each other. The preposition than is used with greater or less. The preposition from is used with different.

data is or data are?
This one is controversial. Technically, data is the plural form of the seldom-used Latin word datum, and so purists insist that it should be used with the plural form of a verb, e.g., the data are, the data show. Others argue that data is plural when referring to quantities that can be counted, but singular when referring to quantities that can’t.

This is a case where the language is in flux. For the time being, academic style probably leans towards using a plural verb with data. To be safe, consult the style manual for the publication you’re writing for. In the long run, I suspect that data will go the way of agenda, another Latin plural that nowadays is treated as a singular noun. Nobody says “The agenda were distributed to the committee members.”

because, since, or as?
These words are all conjunctions with overlapping meanings. Because, as the word implies, signifies reason or causality. It answers the question “Why?”

I bring up this point because so many readers have asked about it.

Since and as can be used to imply either causality or a time relationship.

I have not spoken to Barbara since she moved to Toronto. (time)

Since my baby left me, I found a new place to dwell. (causality or time)

I cannot complete this report by Friday as I have too many other deadlines. (causality)

Because since and as can have more than one meaning, their use can sometimes create ambiguity. In the second example above, we are not sure whether Elvis meant that after his baby left him he changed his residence, or he changed his residence because his baby left him. Therefore, if the intention is to convey causality, because is the preferred conjunction.

subjunctive mood
The subjunctive mood is the verb form used to express a wish, a suggestion, a command, or a condition that is contrary to fact (Grammar-monster.com). For almost all verbs, the present subjunctive differs from the present indicative only in the third person singular form, which lacks the ending -s in the subjunctive (Wikipedia).

It is important that she stay out of trouble.

It is necessary that he see a doctor immediately.

The past subjunctive is identical to the indicative mood except for the verb to be which becomes were in all cases:

If I were a giraffe, I could see over top of the fence.

Proper use of the subjunctive mood is a hallmark of formal speech and writing. Elsewhere its use is falling out of fashion. It is possible to write correctly without using the subjunctive mood at all.

It is important that she stays out of trouble.

It is necessary that he sees a doctor immediately.

The above are perfectly good English sentences. There is just a subtle difference in nuance. However, there are certain sentences whose indicative and subjunctive forms have totally different meanings. Consider the following:

All of my friends insisted that I am respectful. (indicative)

All of my friends insisted that I be respectful. (subjunctive)

The first example conveys that my friends affirm that I am indeed respectful. The second suggests that my friends are concerned that I might not be respectful.

who vs whom
Who and whom are relative pronouns. Who is used as the subject of a verb; whom is used as the object of a verb or preposition. Grammatically, whom is the equivalent of him or her. The use of whom following a preposition seems natural and familiar.

To whom it may concern

With whom do you wish to speak?

For whom the bell tolls

However, the use of whom as the object of a verb tends to sound awkward and a little pompous to the modern ear.

Whom was the dog chasing?

I don’t know whom she invited to speak at the meeting.

As a result, whom is nowadays often replaced by who in daily speech and informal writing. ‘’Like the subjunctive mood,” says Pinker, “the pronoun whom is widely thought to be circling the drain” (242). For the time being, whom should continue to be used in formal prose.

me, myself, and I
The question of how to refer to oneself along with other people is frequently misunderstood. Myself is a reflexive pronoun. It is used to refer back to a previously occurring noun or pronoun. It should not be used by itself where a simple “I” or “me” would be sufficient.

Correct:

Melinda and I went to the mall.

I kept the secret to myself.

I, myself don’t believe a thing she said.

Murray went to the mall with Melinda and me.

Incorrect:

Melinda and myself went to the mall.

Murray went to the mall with Melinda and I.

Murray went to the mall with Melinda and myself.

Conclusion
English usage is evolving. Nobody today speaks or writes in the style of Shakespeare or the King James Bible. Written English is becoming more like spoken English. Some would say that the language is becoming more utilitarian and, as a result, losing some of its character, richness, and precision. There is no use resisting or lamenting these changes. It is what it is.

What is a conscientious writer to do in the face of changing usage and a lack of absolute guidelines? Partly it depends on the purpose. Are you writing a text message, a blog post, an information piece for your provincial newsletter, or a research article for a peer-reviewed publication? The expectations for adherence to formal standards become progressively more rigorous as you move up this hierarchy.

Academic writing is the most formal style of English, and follows the accepted conventions of grammar, punctuation, and word usage of the day. Reputable academic publications employ copy editors who base their decisions on currently authoritative dictionaries and style manuals, supplemented by in-house rules, in order to ensure quality and consistency of published work. In preparing manuscripts, it is wise for authors to adopt the standards for grammar, style, and usage prescribed by their prospective publisher. Even so, given the evolutionary nature of such standards, articles published today may seem quaint to readers a hundred years from now!

Works Cited
“English Subjunctive.” Wikipedia. 15 March 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive

Pinker, Steven. The Sense of Style: the Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century. New York: Viking, 2014. Print.

“What Is the Subjunctive Mood? (with Examples).” Grammar-monster.com. 17 March 2016.
http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/subjunctive_mood.htm

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.