An eventful decade

In August 1990, I was both surprised and flattered to receive an invitation to take over the editor’s chair of what was then The Journal of Librarianship, and was shortly to become the Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. The first issue for which I was responsible appeared in March 1991, with a new format publisher and title. My appointment was for three years in the first-instance, subsequently extended for a further three, and was then made open-ended. I have thoroughly enjoyed the last ten years and have derived enormous benefit from the experience gained, and professional contacts made, in connection with the journal. However when I took over the role I had no idea how much of a treadmill, the editing of a quarterly journal would be, in addition to my normal teaching, administration and research duties as a university lecturer. I have therefore decided that ten years is enough for me, and in any event it is time to hand over to someone else with fresh ideas for the sake of the journal. After this issue JOLIS will be the responsibility of my successor, Dr Anne Goulding of Loughborough University, who will take the journal into the twenty-first century. My final editorial will therefore offer some thoughts on what, if anything, has been achieved over the last decade, before recording my thanks to the hundreds of people that have contributed to the journal in one way or another over the last ten years.

In my first editorial (March 1991), I offered a brief analysis the contents of the Journal of Librarianship during the twenty-one years of its existence, based upon the subject headings allocated by Library and Information Science Abstracts. I have therefore downloaded those for 1991-1999 for purposes of comparison (the entries for 2000 were not available at the time of writing). I do not claim that these two sets of figures are strictly comparable as the indexing practices have changed and new terminologies and subject areas have developed. Nor do I claim that they are complete, but they do provide an approximate picture of the changes that have taken place over the last decade.

My initial analysis in 1991 was based on the type of library to which many of the articles referred, showing that a quarter of the articles then related to academic libraries. Comparable figures for 1991-9 have been more difficult to isolate, and the significantly greater proportion of articles unrelated to any category does perhaps demonstrate a decline in relative importance of studies of libraries as institutions, as opposed to the provision of information services, in an age of networked communication.

Table 1. - Coverage by type of library.

However the figures do show some minor success in my aim of encouraging more articles from the Special Library sector.

Another objective of the publishers, members of the editorial board, and myself, has been to make the journal as international in scope and readership as possible, by encouraging contributors from overseas to write about initiatives and issues in their own countries, where these have a wider application and relevance. Such encouragement has however been subject to our usual refereeing process, and has had to contend with the difficult task faced by many overseas authors of writing in a language other than their own. In this respect I would also claim modest success in my objective, with the names thirty different countries featuring in the LISA subject headings over the last nine years. Once again a crude quantitative comparison with the Journal of Librarianship demonstrates a noticeable shift in emphasis, and the development of a Eurpoean dimension although JOLIS continues to reflect predominantly UK practice.

Table 2. Coverage by Geographical Area.

Perhaps the main disappointment has been our failure to attract more good quality articles from North and South America. In the former case this is no doubt due to the wide range of alternative vehicles for publication, and in the latter case is perhaps due to the lesser impact of the English language and British culture on that continent, than in Asia or Africa.

In 1991 I claimed that approximately 70% of the articles published before 1990 could be assigned to six crude subject areas, whilst the remaining 30% covered such a wide range of topics that any attempt at classification would not be very meaningful. These subject areas are set out in Table 3 but I have not attempted a similar analysis for 1991-1999, as I am not convinced how useful such crude figures are.

Table 3 General subject areas 1969-1990.

However it may be worth listing some of the most frequently occurring subject descriptors that have been applied to articles and editorials over the last nine years (other than those relating to types of library) in order to gain a flavour of the subject coverage. Some of these are fairly obvious given the title of the journal.

JOLIS articles are therefore predominantly based upon original research, within a fairly wide spectrum of information work, including all aspects of the management and administration of information services, the social context of such services, studies of information users their needs and behaviour, and the technologies for delivering them.

I was a little surprised to discover that the earliest use of the subject descriptors ‘Internet’ and ‘World Wide Web’ was in an editorial dated December 1994, given the enormous impact that communication technologies have had and are continuing to have on all aspects of the provision of information services over the last few years. However with typically an 18-month delay in publishing articles after submission, and the inevitable retrospective nature of detailed research studies, this perhaps is not so unexpected. In any future analysis of headings from the year 2000 onwards these and other related headings will certainly feature far more significantly.

The development of information and communication technologies are having a far more fundamental impact upon the future of the journal than the subject content of its articles, calling into question the format or formats in which it is published and many of the processes of publication. In 1990 the editing and publication of the Journal of Librarianship was largely through traditional means with a minimal use of computers. Today almost all articles and reviews are handled electronically, and much of the communication between authors, editors, publishers, and typesetters is done by email or other electronic means. Likewise in 1990 electronic journals were a minor feature of the publishing world with a minimal overall impact on the processes of academic communication. This can no longer be said to be true, with the advent of portable document format (pdf) and other convenient, legible, and user-friendly means of delivering textual matter to users electronically. Already JOLIS and many similar publications are being made available simultaneously in both hard copy and electronic formats. The time has not yet arrived when the future viability of hard copy academic journals is seriously under question, but this will undoubtedly be an issue for my successor, and the publishers to consider in years to come. 

Finally I must now acknowledge all those hundreds of individuals who have contributed to the content, publication and production of JOLIS, whilst I have been the editor, beginning with our unpaid authors without whom there would be no journal. From time to time we have tried to commission pieces, but frequently without success, and so we have had to rely upon submissions sent to us. However there has always been a sufficient volume of high quality research to provide us with adequate material, even though the referees only recommend acceptance of about one third of these without amendment. On a few occasions I have wondered whether we would be able to fill a forthcoming issue, and at other times we have had a glut of good material. (I believe the periodic Research Assessment Exercises have got something to answer for in terms of distorting the pattern of scholarly communication.) I am always amazed at how well authors take the criticisms by referees of their work, or requests either to rewrite sections or else add extra paragraphs or references. Most academic authors (myself included) will have had some work rejected or criticized by referees. I believe it takes an admirable strength of character to continue to submit articles after one or more rejections.

The referees of the articles also contribute a great deal of time and effort, and without doubt serve to maintain or improve the quality of the contents, and preserve the reputation of the journal. Much of the refereeing is done by the Editorial Board or the Editorial Advisors, but I often find myself approaching experts previously unknown to me, and with no connection with the journal, requesting a detailed report on a submission. Equally I have plagued many of my colleagues at the University of Wales Aberystwyth where I know an article falls within the area of their own expertise. Once again, I am surprised at how seldom I have had my requests turned down, and as far as I know never without a good reason.

My colleagues on the journal’s Editorial Board contribute in several other respects towards the direction of the journal, by providing useful feedback on each issue, suggesting topics for future articles or editorials, commenting upon the design and production, and suggesting the names of potential referees or book reviewers. They have also contributed guest editorials and undertake a significant amount of book reviewing in their own right.

I believe the detailed book reviews are a valued part of the journal. Edward Dudley, the Reviews Editor, handles this side of the publication. He undertook the role for the Journal of Librarianship and will continue to do so under the new editor. I know that he would also wish me to acknowledge the significant contribution to the professional literature of so many book reviewers over the last decade.

The publisher, Bowker-Saur, has provided the infrastructure within which the journal is financed, designed, produced, marketed, and distributed, ever since the purchase of the title from the Library Association in 1990. Bowker-Saur has employed many talented and dedicated individuals (alas too many to name individually) who have served to ensure that the journal is produced to predetermined schedules and that production standards have been maintained. The publisher’s staff has always been supportive, helpful and enthusiastic. I am only aware of having missed the designated month of publication on two occasions in the last decade, and one of those it was when a package containing corrected proofs was delivered to the wrong address. Most of the credit for keeping to our schedules has been due to the publishers’ staff and my sub-editor rather than any virtue of my own however.

Although I have hitherto avoided naming individuals, I must acknowledge the vital and frequently unrecognized role of my sub-editor Patricia Moore, who will be finishing at the same time as I do. The sub-editor ensures consistency and adherence to the house-style of contributions, she also corrects spelling and grammar (including my own), gathers and prepares the materials for each issue for transmission to the typesetters, and organizes the distribution of proofs, collating any additions and corrections made. Finally I have received part-time clerical assistance from a number of postgraduate students of the University of Wales Aberystwyth over the years. Several of my young assistants have gone on to publish in their own right and have begun to establish creditable reputations as researchers. I hope the limited experience gained of the journal publishing process, by helping me, has been or will be of benefit to them in their own careers.

The last ten years has been a period of rapid and far-reaching change both in the information and library worlds and also in journal publishing. I have absolutely no doubt that the next decade will be equally, if not more, challenging for Anne Goulding, who has my best wishes for the future of the journal. I hope she continues to receive as much help and support as I have had.

David Stoker

September 2000.