Author Archives: vew908

Data for Librarians: C-EBLIP Journal Club, October 1, 2015

Posted on by

by Kristin Bogdan
Engineering Library, University of Saskatchewan

At the second meeting of the C-EBLIP Journal club for 2015-2016, held on October 1, 2015, we discussed the article:

MacMillan, D. (2014). “Data Sharing and Discovery: What Librarians Need to Know”. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40, 541-549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.06.011

I chose this article because it is a nice overview of the key things that librarians should be familiar with about data and data management. MacMillan does a great job of synthesizing the information out there and applying it in a Canadian context, where current data management trends are not as driven by granting agencies as they are in other jurisdictions (although that could be coming). There was general agreement that the article was a useful place to start when it comes to understanding where data management can fit into library services and systems.

The flow of the discussion changed as we looked at data sharing and discovery based on the roles that librarians and information scientists fulfill in this context. We recognized that the library is a possible home for research data and that we have a role as educators, curators, and stewards of data, but we are also researchers who consume and produce data. These points of view overlap and complement each other, but also offer different ways of looking at how the library can be involved.

When it comes to our role as curators and stewards of data, we discussed the kinds of things that could make data sharing difficult. The members of the Journal Club acknowledged that there is a difference between being able to find data and being able to provide those data to patrons in a way that is usable and sustainable. Infrastructure is required for data sharing and discovery, and there are many possible ways to make this happen. Should libraries have their own repositories or take advantage of existing repositories? What are the possible down-sides of housing data in institutional repositories instead of those that are discipline-specific (highlighted by MacMillan on page 546)? How can we work together to make the most of our limited resources and provide the most comprehensive services for Canadian researchers? Resources are being collected by the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL), including a list of institutional repositories and adoptive repositories (http://www.carl-abrc.ca/ir.html). We talked briefly about data journals as dissemination venues, but wondered about the implications of publishers owning this content.

Issues around data privacy also came up in the discussion. Concerns were raised around security and the measures in place to make sure the individuals’ identities were protected. The Saskatchewan Research Data Centre (SKY-RDC) was identified as an example of how data can be distributed in a controlled way to protect research subjects (more about the SKY-RDC here: http://library.usask.ca/sky-rdc/index.html). In terms of research data, we came to the conclusion that privacy will trump sharing in terms of sensitive data.

Our role as data producers and consumers brought up concerns about when it was appropriate to release data that was still being written about. The idea of being scooped came up as a possible deterrent to making data public. This applies to “small” data as much as to “big” data. There were also concerns about how data sets would be used after they were made public. What if they were not used in a way that was consistent with their intended purpose? Data documentation can help users understand the data and use it in a way that enriches their research but acknowledges the possible limitations of the original data set. Data citation is an important if still relatively new thing, and part of our role as stewards and creators will be to make citing data as easy and common-place as citing other materials.

In the end, I think this article was a great place to begin the discussion of data sharing and discovery in the context of libraries for the C-EBLIP Journal Club. The discussion generated more questions than answers, which made it clear that this is a topic worthy of further investigation.

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.

How to be an effective peer reviewer

Posted on by

by Kristin Hoffmann
Associate Librarian, University of Western Ontario

Peer reviewing is one of my favourite ways to participate in the librarian research community, because it combines two things that I find professionally rewarding and interesting: editing and mentoring.

In our academic writing and publishing system, peer review is a key part of the process, so it’s important that we do it well. However, there isn’t always a lot of guidance for those who are new reviewers. I’ve reviewed for some journals that have detailed reviewer guidelines, and for others that give reviewers a form to complete and not much else. I’ve reviewed book proposals that came with minimal direction, and I’ve reviewed conference proposals where the reviewer’s form was almost as long as the proposals themselves.

In all of those cases, reviewing was an individual activity. I’ve received almost no feedback on my reviewing, and I have had only occasional conversations with others about the process of reviewing.

In this post, I’ll give some suggestions for how to be an effective peer reviewer, in the hopes of helping novice reviewers and starting a conversation about reviewing:

  1. Think of peer reviewing as asynchronous, (usually) anonymous mentoring. A mentor is “an experienced and trusted advisor” (New Oxford American Dictionary), and a peer reviewer is an experienced and trusted advisor for someone else’s research. This is especially clear in open review processes, where the reviewer and author know each other’s identity, but it’s true of blind reviewing, too.
  1. Always find something positive to say about the piece you’re reviewing. Tell the author what worked well in their paper.
  1. Give specific, constructive suggestions. If you think the piece isn’t organized well, give the author ideas of how to re-structure it. If you think the analysis could be more robust, suggest additional aspects for the author to consider.
  1. When making substantive suggestions or pointing out flaws or concerns, do so in a way that shows you want the end result to be a better paper, and not that your goal is to assert your own superior research abilities. For example, “it would help if the Introduction included a stronger rationale for why this study is significant,” is better than, “this study is pointless and a monkey could have written the paper.”
  1. Remember that reviewers recommend, and editors decide. If you aren’t sure about your recommendation, tell the editor why you’re uncertain. They will look at your feedback along with that of the other reviewer(s) and make the best overall decision for the piece.
  1. Resist the urge to copy-edit. The editor needs you to comment on the submitted article as a whole, not the individual sentences. If the writing is hard to follow, or if the author consistently makes the same grammatical mistakes, then give a general comment about that. But remember that punctuation or sentence structure might change as a result of other, more substantial changes to the paper, so don’t put unnecessary work into copy-editing.

These are the main principles that I keep in mind as I’m writing reviews, but this isn’t an exhaustive list. I’d love to hear from Brain-Work readers: What other suggestions would you give to peer reviewers? What questions do you have about peer reviewing?

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: Mastering Basic Punctuation

Posted on by

by David Fox
Librarian Emeritus, University of Saskatchewan

WARNING: This article contains Oxford commas!

I confess to being a punctuation nerd – or, to use Lynne Truss’s slightly more dignified term, a punctuation stickler (1). I consider a well-punctuated paper to be akin to a fine work of art. Now, I realize that Brain-Work followers are superior in every way, and so I apologize in advance if some may feel that they already know it all when it comes to punctuation. If you don’t need this column, gentle reader, then I suspect you know someone who does.

Why is punctuation important? Good punctuation, usually without our realizing it, helps to convey meaning, promote understanding, and allows a piece of text to be read quickly and efficiently. Bad punctuation does the opposite. Any reputable scholarly journal will want to adhere to accepted standards of punctuation. Authors may help speed up the processing of their manuscripts by paying careful attention to their punctuation.

One would think that most librarians who aspire to be writers have already mastered the art of basic punctuation. However, over four years as Editor-in-Chief at Partnership, I found that almost all manuscripts submitted to the journal needed a large number of punctuation corrections. Some of these corrections were due to minor lapses of attention, but in many cases it was obvious that the writer was making the same error consistently, demonstrating a lack of awareness of basic punctuation rules.

Some punctuation practices are well established. Others are optional and subject to the author’s or editor’s preference. This blog post will deal with the basics of commas and semi colons: two of the most commonly misused punctuation symbols.

The comma

(One of the clearest and most concise punctuation guides I’ve found on the Web is the University of Sussex Guide to Punctuation by Larry Trask. According to Trask, “There are four types of comma: the listing comma, the joining comma, the gapping comma and bracketing commas” (Summary of Commas).

A listing comma, as the name implies, separates words, phrases, or clauses in series.

Edwin has published many articles in journals, books, and conference proceedings.

The most common pitfalls involve surveys, the analysis of qualitative data, and the omission of human ethics permissions.

A joining comma combines two independent clauses and is followed by one of the connecting words: and, or, but, yet or while.

The journal accepts online submissions in MS Word format, and authors must register on the system in order to submit.

This may seem an obvious point, but it is a significant one.

A gapping comma can be used to avoid repetition of words that have already occurred in a sentence.

It was obvious that the writer was making the same error consistently, demonstrating a lack of awareness of basic punctuation rules.

instead of

It was obvious that the writer was making the same error consistently; it was obvious that the writer was demonstrating a lack of awareness of basic punctuation rules.

Bracketing commas usually come in pairs. They set off a weak interruption which could be removed from the sentence without changing its meaning substantially. A single bracketing comma can also appear at the beginning or end of a sentence.

If you don’t need this column, gentle reader, then I suspect you know someone who does.

Good punctuation, usually without our realizing it, helps to convey meaning.

Amanda exercised admirable self-control, for the most part.

The semi-colon
Semi-colons are easy. They have only two main uses:
1) To join two independent clauses without the use of a coordinating conjunction:

Errors in methodology will almost certainly undermine the results of a research study; serious flaws may render a manuscript unpublishable.

NOTE, however –
Three or more independent clauses should be joined using commas.

Originally the plantations were rather small, there were fewer slaves than colonists, and social discrimination was less harsh than in the eighteenth century (MLA 86).

(This is an example of the use of the listing comma.)

2) To separate items in a series when one or more of those items contain commas:

The library strategic plan contains measures to promote tenure and performance standards; reimbursement for research expenses, research days, and release time; development of research competencies, lecture series, and workshops; and measures to disseminate the research of librarians.

A common mistake with semi-colons is to use them where a colon should be used instead. A colon is meant to indicate that what comes next is an elaboration of what came before.

Correct: It takes two to speak the truth: one to speak and another to hear.

Incorrect: It takes two to speak the truth; one to speak and another to hear.

(A semi-colon joins two independent clauses. In the incorrect example above “one to speak and another to hear” is a sentence fragment, not an independent clause.)

Another mistake is to use a semi-colon where a comma would suffice.

Incorrect: The library strategic plan contains measures to promote tenure and performance standards; reimbursement for research expenses; development of research competencies; and measures to disseminate the research of librarians.

Correct: The library strategic plan contains measures to promote tenure and performance standards, reimbursement for research expenses, development of research competencies, and measures to disseminate the research of librarians.

(In the above example, semi-colons are not necessary as the items in series do not themselves contain commas.)

The serial or “Oxford” comma
Authorities differ concerning the use of a comma preceding “and” or “or” before the final item in a list. I have used serial commas throughout this article.

Edwin has published many articles in journals, books, and conference proceedings.

The most common pitfalls involve surveys, the analysis of qualitative data, and the omission of human ethics permissions.

However, typical British practice is to omit the final comma.

Hungarian is spoken in Hungary, in western Rumania, in northern Serbia and in parts of Austria and Slovakia. (Trask)

Personally, I would prefer a comma after “Serbia” in this sentence.

Those who argue against the serial comma claim that it is redundant and contrary to conventional practice. They reason that one shouldn’t need both a comma and a conjunction. Others maintain that consistent use of serial commas helps to avoid ambiguity.

Regardless of one’s opinion on this controversy, a number of leading writers’ manuals, including The MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, the Chicago Manual of Style, and the Oxford Style Manual all recommend use of the serial comma (Serial comma). With such widespread endorsement, it makes sense to adopt the practice of using serial commas – especially when writing for a journal that uses any of these major style guides.

In Conclusion
There are four standard ways to join two independent clauses:
1) Use a semi-colon

Information literacy is essential for developing critical thinking; it is also important for cultivating lifelong learning.

2) Use a comma and a conjunction

Information literacy is essential for developing critical thinking, and it is also important for cultivating lifelong learning.

3) Use a main clause and dependent clause joined by a conjunction

Information literacy is essential for developing critical thinking and is also important for cultivating lifelong learning.

(In this example, “Information literacy” is the subject of both clauses. A comma is not required before the conjunction “and”.)

4) Use two separate sentences

Information literacy is essential for developing critical thinking. It is also important for cultivating lifelong learning.

I would guess that nearly half of the punctuation corrections I have made as an editor involve misuse of options 1, 2, or 3 above. “What’s the big deal?” you might say. It matters because reputable journals care about these small details; the more attention an editor needs to give to the mechanics of a paper, the less time there may be to consider its actual content. This is not rocket science. It’s just as easy to do it right as to do it wrong. Unleash your inner stickler!

Works Cited

MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, 3rd ed. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 2008. Print.

Serial comma. Wikipedia. 16 Oct. 2015. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma>

Trask, Larry. Guide to Punctuation. University of Sussex, 1997. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.
<http://www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/punctuation/>

Truss, Lynne. Eats, Shoots & Leaves. New York: Gotham Books, 2003. Print.

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.

On Online Conferences

Posted on by

by Donna Frederick
Services to Libraries, University of Saskatchewan

As I prepare my presentation for the Library 2.015 conference, I am reminded of recent comments about online conferences. These comments range from how some librarians enjoy the variety of topics and perspectives offered to those who felt that these conferences were amateurish and low-impact. The debates I have heard remind me somewhat of arguments I have heard about open access publishing. Given that I have attended free online conferences for five years in a row and presented at them four times, I feel that I can now confidently compare and contrast the different types.

I have presented at both “in person” and “online” conferences. There are some key differences between the two. These differences don’t necessarily make one type better or more important than the other. “In person” conferences do generally have a stricter vetting process for proposals, this makes sense for a conference which involves physical space, sessions which occur at a specific time and a limited number of attendees. It would be a waste to rent a room for a session which very few people attend. If the number of presentations is bloated out of proportion with the number of conference attendees, the “empty” room is likely. Careful selection of the most suitable proposals makes sense. With online conferences, presenters are required to submit proposals which are reviewed by a committee before being accepted but the criteria is not as strict and, as far as I understand, there is no official limit on the number of sessions.

My favourite in person conference is definitely ALA. Once a year I meet with colleagues and experts from within my specialization. I communicate with many of these librarians via email and social media during the year. I find it valuable to meet with them in person. There is nothing like being in the room when the Library of Congress discusses a controversial new standard change. Given that I often don’t have the chance to speak to those who have a deep understanding of or interest in the fine details of my work, I relish animated and energetic interest group talks. I have found it motivating to speak to those who have written the books and journal articles I have read. I wouldn’t suggest that it would be good for the ALA conferences to be replaced entirely with an online conference. To do so would truly be a loss.

But what about online conferences? I have to admit that the first time I gave a presentation to a blank computer screen was a strange and alienating experience. This is coming from a person who completed a master’s degree online! With the online conference, the magic often shows up after the fact. Maybe 20 or 30 people will be present in the virtual room while I give the presentation, but I have discovered people will continue to watch the recorded sessions two or three years after they were first given. My Library 2.0 presentations have led to many interesting email and social media discussions. Various doors have been opened to me and I have made some valuable professional connections. With the in person conferences where I have presented, I received some follow-up email but not anywhere near the volume I received for my online conferences.

In terms of being an attendee at an online conference, there are a few unpolished sessions but most are worth watching. I find the keynote speakers are generally well-known and respected librarians. Quality research and reports of highly interesting projects from around the world are common. One of the key issues is that some of the librarians who present at Library 2.0 are those who for one reason or another may not have the resources to travel to and present at the larger conferences. I find that the recordings are a definite strength because I can gradually work through the sessions which might be of interest for months after the conference. If I start watching a session which is not of interest, then I move on to the next one.

In summary, I think that online conferences play a significant role in leveling the playing field for ideas from libraries and librarians from around the world. It’s important to recognize the value of the opportunities to share ideas and experiences and not write the conferences off because they are free or because the diverse array of presenters include students and less experienced librarians.

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.

EBLIP and Public Librarians: A call to action!

Posted on by

by Pam Ryan
Director, Collections & Technology at Edmonton Public Library
pryan@epl.ca / Twitter: @pamryan

As a former academic librarian, I’m often asked what the biggest differences are between public and academic libraries and librarianship. My short answer is usually something about having only worked for one (each excellent and probably non-standard) example of each so it’s difficult to know if the differences I’ve experienced are more organizational or sectoral. However, an increasingly concerning difference is the relationship that public librarians have with the research and evidence base of our profession.

Low public librarian participation in research and publication is not a new phenomenon nor is the small overall percentage of LIS research articles about public library practice. Research in 2005 showed that over a four year period just 3% of article authors in North American LIS journals were employed in public libraries. Even in Public Library Quarterly, only 14% of the authors were public librarians. An earlier study in 2001 showed that only 7% of LIS research articles were public library orientedi.

The recommendations in the 2014 Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel report on Canada’s libraries call for increased sharing of research and statistics to support evidence-based practice in public libraries. The recommendations specifically include a call to action for public libraries to make their work visible by posting evidence-based studies on library websites for the benefit of the entire library community, in addition to continuing to share statistical data freely with CULC and other organizationsii.

These recommendations follow from the fact that public libraries are increasingly called upon to show their value and prove their impact yet we are not actively in charge of telling our own story by sharing our organization practice findings or enlisting our librarians to share their work outside of internal operational functions. We need to heed this call to action both as organizations and as individual professionals. I am keenly aware of all of the good program evaluation and assessment work that goes on in public libraries to inform services and innovation yet it is too frequently not taken the step further, to openly available publication, to build our evidence-base, inform our collective practice, and be available to tell our stories.

Of particular note in this call to action is to openly and freely post this work of our public libraries and librarians. A very distinct and frustrating difference between academic and public librarianship is access to the literature behind paywalls. I am well-aware of how frequently I beg sharing of PDF articles of academic colleagues and also, embarrassingly, how less frequently I dip into the literature because access to it isn’t as seamless as it was when I was an academic librarian. Open Access publishing options for our own literature needs a much higher profile than it currently has and is something our entire sector needs to work on.

Where to start? As examples, Edmonton Public Library (EPL) recognizes that research and its dissemination are integral to being innovative. EPL provides two recent librarian graduates from the University of Alberta’s School of Library and Information Studies with one year research internships. These new professional librarians conduct research that is invaluable to EPL’s future planning. Recent assignments on digital public spaces and open data; digital discovery and access; 21st century library spaces; and analyzing the nature and types of questions received at service desks have also included the expectation of openly sharing internal reportsiii via the EPL website, as well as publication in Open Access forumsiv v vi vii. Librarians working on innovative projects are also encouraged to share their practice and findings openlyviii ix. Providing the encouragement, support, time, and expectation that sharing need be an integrated part of public librarian practice is something all libraries can foster. We need to collectively take responsibility for changing public library culture and take ownership of telling our own stories and sharing our evidence.
________________________________________________________________
iRyan, Pam. 2012. EBLIP and Public Libraries. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. Vol 7:1. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/16557/13672

iiDemers, Patricia (chair), Guylaine Beaudry, Pamela Bjornson, Michael Carroll, Carol Couture, Charlotte Gray, Judith Hare, Ernie Ingles, Eric Ketelaar, Gerald McMaster, Ken Roberts. (2014). Expert Panel Report on The Future Now: Canada’s Libraries, Archives, and Public Memory. Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa, ON. Pg. 120. https://rsc-src.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/L%26A_Report_EN_FINAL_Web.pdf

iiiPublications. Edmonton Public Library. http://www.epl.ca/about-epl/news/publications

ivArnason, Holly Kristin and Louise Reimer. 2012. Analyzing Public Library Service Interactions to Improve Public Library Customer Service and Technology Systems. EBLIP and Public Libraries. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. Vol 7:1. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/11654

vWortman, Beth. 2012. What Are They Doing and What Do They Want: The Library Spaces Customer Survey at Edmonton Public Library. Partnership: the Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research. Vol 7:2. https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/1967/2633#.Vh1gAU3lu70

viDaSilva, Allison. 2014. Enriching Discovery Layers: A Product Comparison of Content Enrichment Services Syndetic Solutions and Content Café 2. Partnership: the Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research. Vol 9:2. https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/2816#.Vh1p4U3lu70

viiCarruthers, Alex. 2014. Open Data Day Hackathon 2014 at Edmonton Public Library. Partnership: the Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research. Vol 9:2. https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/3121#.Vh1f3U3lu70

viiiHaug, Carla. 2014. Here’s How We Did It: The Story of the EPL Makerspace. Felicter. Vol 60:1. http://www.cla.ca/feliciter/2014/1/mobile/

ixCarruthers, Alex. 2015. Edmonton Public Library’s First Digital Public Space. The Library as Incubator Project. January 20, 2015: http://www.libraryasincubatorproject.org/?p=15914

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.

Research Community: It takes a village

Posted on by

by Selinda Berg
Schulich School of Medicine – Windsor Program
Leddy Library, University of Windsor
University Library Researcher in Residence, University of Saskatchewan

At this time of year we often pause to express our gratitude for those things that can go unrecognized throughout our day-to-day routine. Because this post will be shared near the Canadian and American holiday of Thanksgiving, I want to share my gratitude for the research community that I have acquired through my participation in research and my involvement in various research support initiatives. I also want to urge others to make the effort to join and/or build a research community of their own—it is so worth it!

I was recently interviewed about my experience as a researcher, and when asked about what I have gained from research, I unequivocally stated “a sense community within librarianship.” Professional communities are a key part of the identities of librarians: There are communities based on subject specialization, technical specializations, social groups, and each of these communities offer their members a sense of belonging within the profession. It is within the community of librarian-researchers that I found my sense of belonging.

Five years ago, I published an article with Heidi Jacobs (Rethinking Conversations on Research Culture in Canadian Academic Libraries) and it made use of Walker et al.’s concept of Intellectual Communities. Walker et al. describe four qualities necessary for strong “intellectual communities”: shared purpose; diverse and multigenerational community; flexible and forgiving community; and respectful and generous community. I am so very appreciative of the fact that I am a member of an Intellectual Community that possesses those qualities. The members of my community cross geographic, professional, and disciplinary boundaries and my community is made up mentors, mentees, collaborators, and students. Each and every one of these people not only share their knowledge and wisdom with me, but also provides the inspiration, motivation, and perseverance I need to participate in research.

Finding and fostering a research community takes effort, but very small acts can make a big difference:
• Make yourself vulnerable: Research is personal. Sharing our experiences – the bad and the good – can make us feel vulnerable. However, by making ourselves vulnerable we are demonstrating our trust in and respect for others. It helps to demonstrate the safety and security within a community, and will help others to find the strength to make themselves vulnerable.
• Share your work: It is scary to share your research with your colleagues, but this is a part of community-building. Sharing our research with one another helps us to understand and support each other’s endeavours and encourages respect and empathy amongst members.
• Model the kind of community you want to belong to: Safe, strong, and healthy research communities can start by individuals modeling the behavior that they wish to receive from others. We want to belong to a community that possesses the qualities that Walker et al. describes in Intellectual Communities. If you are flexible and forgiving; and respectful and generous to your colleagues (and to yourself), those qualities are likely to be transmitted throughout the community.

We have a lot of work to do in building formalized research communities in Canada, but informal research communities are a great start! Take a first step in building the community of researchers you want!

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.

Jumping into the Deep End: Reflections of a Librarian Practitioner-Researcher

Posted on by

by Charlene Sorensen
Services to Libraries, University of Saskatchewan

I am always curious as to how people find their way to librarianship. I myself didn’t plan on becoming a librarian. But suddenly after I completed my undergrad a friend was going to this thing called “library school” and I was intrigued. A couple of years later I decided to obtain my Library Technician diploma as a way to ease into library work and find out if I liked it. I worked as a library technician for three years and then decided it was time to get my MLIS. I can’t exactly remember why or how I made that decision but I knew it was the next step for me. I quit my job, moved away, and hoped to find work when I was done. I enjoyed library school – though I’m glad I chose a 12-month program – and did get a job right away. I worked some contracts and my first longer term job was as a serials cataloguer and I have thoroughly enjoyed where this fairly accidental career path has taken me.
CSlibrary_SanAntonio
San Antonio Public Library (Central) – San Antonio, Texas

I find that being a librarian permeates my life and defines me in many ways, even though I didn’t plan for this to happen. It affects what I read, some of my activities, who I spend time with, and many of my values and beliefs. Being a cataloguer also colours some of my day-to-day activities, probably in fairly stereotypical ways such as wondering why the KD isn’t beside the rest of the pasta in my grocery store – should they not be classified together?
CSlibrary_classification
Public library classification system – Albufeira, Portugal

When I came to the University of Saskatchewan, I was following this path of working with serials but I had now started along another track that I had never imagined – I was now a researcher. Even though I love being a librarian – and even find myself seeking out and taking pictures of libraries when I travel – I didn’t know much about librarians as researchers until recently. When I accepted a position at the UofS, I suddenly had standards for tenure to fulfill and not a lot of time to fulfill them. It really was a matter of jumping into the deep end and discovering that I COULD swim.
CSlibrary_Nice
Bibliothèque Louis Nucéra – Nice, France

I have, however, been thinking more about what it means to be a practitioner-researcher librarian. I have an on and off relationship with this definition of myself and feel the need to embrace it more fully. Now that some time has passed, I’m hoping I can think more clearly about what I would like to do in this area of my work, and less about what I need to do to get tenure. I have the urge to wade more carefully into these waters and discover what’s there. And on a lighter note, I’m thinking about how this aspect of my career could/should be affecting my life like “librarian” and “cataloguer” already do.

And so I have questions for you, dear reader. How comfortable are you with defining yourself as a researcher? Do you see this aspect of your career come out in your personal life? Do we yet have stereotypical behaviours for librarian researchers, much like we have for other librarian roles?
CSlibrary_Tavira
Biblioteca Municipal Álvaro de Campos – Tavira, Portugal

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.

Some Musings on Metrics

Posted on by

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

As the first few weeks of the new academic year wrap up in Canada, academic librarians can now shift their focus from orienting new students back to supporting faculty and graduate students, especially research focused support. Many researchers are preparing grant funding applications for the fall round of deadlines and the systems for assessing these applications is becoming ever more complex.

As research funding becomes a global competition, how are funders to decide which research deserves their support?

Over the past few years, global discussions regarding various metrics determining research impact have increased. Within their institutional research communications, administrators use impact metrics to compare their institutions to others, either nationally or internationally. Within their funding applications, researchers use impact factors to indicate the importance and worthiness of their research. One real appeal of metrics is that they are tangible, objective measures of the real use of a product of scholarly research. Or are they?

Since the 1950s, bibliographic citation databases have been in continuous development and have formed a broad base for different publication metrics, especially article and journal metrics. These metrics have not been without issues, not the least of which is the variation in citation patterns between disciplines and the potential for researchers to attempt to “play” the system to make it appear that their research has had greater impact than it actually has had.

Coined in 2010 by Priem, “alternative metrics” measure the impact of newer, non-traditional forms of scholarship published and discussed outside academic journals or conference proceedings. Digital humanities, community-involved research, and emerging forms of scholarship prove challenging for grant funding bodies and administrators to assess. Interestingly, books have neither been extensively covered in the bibliographic citation databases nor have been the subject of computerized citation analysis to the same degree as journal articles or new, non-traditional forms of scholarly publications. All of these instances are fertile ground for conversations led by librarians.

Does this matter?

Institutionally, librarians can help both researchers and administrators to gain a fuller understanding of the uses, and potential pitfalls from misuse, of metrics of all varieties. The broader the understanding of the subtleties of metrics, the less likely they are to be misunderstood and/or misrepresented. Ultimately, this greater understanding could form the basis for a more balanced and equitable story of research happening within our universities.

Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7). Retrieved September 21, 2015, from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2874/2570

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.

Promoting Your Scholarship: A Post-publication Checklist

Posted on by

by Lorie Kloda
Assessment Librarian, McGill University

As a researcher-practitioner, I spend a significant amount of time on scholarship – grant applications, research, journal editing, conference presentations and posters, journal articles, and everything else that comes with the territory. Like many people, I often consider the end result of this process to be the publication or presentation. And that’s true: the product of scholarship is typically a written report or verbal presentation delivered to an intended audience for consumption. But it’s not the last step in the cycle of scholarly communication. I’m not talking about other researchers referencing my work in their own publications (which – hopefully – comes much later), I’m talking about the promotion that comes post-publication that I have to do myself.

It’s no fun to have a paper published in a journal only to sit and wait for colleagues and peers to notice it. Over the years, I’ve developed a checklist of channels or venues in which to track and promote my scholarship. Some of these are institutional requirements, and I choose to tackle them immediately rather than update them all at once at the end of the year or before an important point in my career. Some of the items on the checklist are for promotional purposes, and vary depending on the accomplishment and who I think might be interested. Routinizing the documentation and promotion of my scholarship makes the process a little less of a chore, and ensures that I don’t accidentally forget something important.

What follows is a checklist, not meant to be exhaustive, of places to document and promote one’s scholarship. I have grouped the various options into categories that make sense to me, and included possible channels or venues that may be appropriate. I certainly don’t do all of these things every time I give a conference presentation or publish an article, although some of the items on the list are less optional than others. The items on the checklist are intended for traditional article or book publications, but can be adapted for presentations, workshops, grants awarded, or other achievements.

_________________________________________________________________________
1. Dossiers and curriculum vitae (cv)

  • Academic cv
  • Annual report or performance review (working copy)
  • Reappointment / tenure / promotion dossier (working copy)
  • Canadian Common cv

2. Repositories:

Make sure to check with your co-authors and author-publisher agreements before depositing a publication or presentation in an open access repository.

  • Subject repository (E-LiS)
  • Institutional repository

3. Professional Networking Websites:

4. Citation Managers:

5. Communications & Social Media:

Create a short URL (using Bit.ly or similar) to track clicks and use the altmetric bookmarklet to track social media engagement.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+

Contact your communications officer at the institution or department level to share the news. They may be able to help you promote your work.

_________________________________________________________________________

Having your article published is a cause for celebration! Taking an hour to go through a checklist can be a rewarding way to acknowledge it. For me, it is an enjoyable ritual to update my cv and let my colleagues know. What’s the first thing you do after getting published? What would you add to the post-publication checklist?

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 appropriation of evidence based terminology by vendors

Posted on by

by Denise Koufogiannakis
University of Alberta Libraries

Over the past few years, I’ve noticed an increasing number of products being marketed to librarians as “evidence based” tools for improving our decision making. Vendors seem to be hooking onto the growth and acceptance of evidence based practice within librarianship and are marketing their products as such. They are wanting to appeal to those who see value in data as a driver for decision making.

I recently looked into this more formally (see my EBLIP8 presentation from July of this year) and found two different types of products being promoted as “evidence based”:

1. Data gathering tools for collections analysis – these products are aimed at both academic and public librarians, but there are different products for each. For public libraries, the products focus on information such as circulation and demographic data to aid with management of the collection and new acquisitions. Similar products being targeted to academic libraries focus on collections usage statistics for the purposes of making cancellation decisions, weeding, and showing return on investment. Examples include CollectionHQ for public libraries and Intota Assessment for academic libraries.

2. Evidence Based Acquisition approaches – aimed at academic librarians, “evidence based acquisition” (sometimes called usage-based acquisition) is a relatively new option being presented by publishers, similar to patron-driven or demand-driven approaches. In this model, a group of titles from a publisher (such as all the titles in a particular subject area) are enabled upon commitment from the library to spend an agreed upon amount of money. Following the agreed upon time period, the library chooses the titles they wish to keep, based upon usage of those titles (for more detail see the overview included in the NISO Recommended Practice for Demand Driven Acquisition of Monographs). Examples of this approach can be found with many of the major academic publishers including Elsevier, Cambridge, and SAGE.

The question I ask myself is whether these products are really evidence based? Can they deliver what they promise when they say that they will improve collection management, make librarians’ jobs easier, help with decision making, save time, and provide dependable, high quality service? I guess it is the evidence based, critical side of me that is doubtful.

EBLIP is a process that asks us to consider the whole of the evidence when making a decision. To try and determine what the best evidence is. To try and see a complete picture by bringing together different evidence sources when making a decision. EBLIP is an approach to practice that is considered and reflective. Conversely, these products are meant to convince us that because they are called evidence based they will magically take care of all this hard work for us!

None of this is to say that the products are bad. In fact, they seem to offer potentially useful ways of drawing together data for collections and acquisitions librarians to use, or a model for acquisition that may actually prove to be a good one for many libraries. In short, what I see in these products are individual pieces of evidence that may be useful to aid with decisions, but certainly will not be a complete answer.

What we should all consider is the appropriation of evidence based terminology. This appropriation probably means that the EBLIP movement has become sufficiently recognized as integral to librarianship, to the point that its terminology is now selling vendors’ products to librarians, using the discourse of the movement. Referring to a product as evidence based lends credibility to it. If accepted as evidence based, the product’s profile is raised in comparison to other products, which may then be regarded as not being evidence based, even though they may certainly be just as evidence based as the products being marketed as such. This use of the term has been too easily allowed to be applied without question.

EBLIP as a way of approaching practice is far more complex than what these products can offer. If they hold some piece of information that helps you with the process, great! But don’t think your job ends there. Just like all products, the types of products I’ve described above need to be assessed and tested. To state the obvious, do not rely on the evidence based terminology used by the vendor. If it does something that makes your work easier, then by all means use it. But no product will be a magic solution. Above all, let’s test these these products and determine how evidence based they actually are. How much will they help us advance the goals and mission of our Library? Let’s make sure they live up to what they say they offer, and place whatever they do offer in the larger context of overall evidence based decision making within collections.

Let’s not rely on vendors to tell us what is evidence based – let’s figure it out ourselves. We need to do more testing and critically examine all these products, document and share what we learn with one another. Here are a couple of examples that may help you with your own examination:
• Buying by the bucket: A comparative study of e-book acquisitions strategies.
• Evidence based acquisitions: Does the evidence support this hybrid model?

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.