Reviewers wanted – Internet Resources Column of Public Services Quarterly

Hi! Ran across this call on ILI-L and wanted to pass along, for now or future consideration.

Dear colleagues,

I am writing to solicit reviewers and website suggestions for the Internet Resources Column of Public Services Quarterly. PSQ is a peer-reviewed journal covering a wide variety of public services issues in academic libraries and the Internet Resources Column features reviews of resources that would be useful to public services librarians.

The theme for the upcoming column will be Data Curation (here’s an article from C&RL News on the topic: Reviews will feature free tools or resources related to data curation in academic libraries (reference, instruction, access services, etc.). Reviews should address the resource in general, but also specifically focus on how it can be applicable to library public services and helping public services library professionals be more effective in their positions.

If you are interested in contributing to the next issue, please respond to me at by Monday, July 16, along with a short note about your interest and any relevant experience. Preference will be given to those suggestions submitted by the 16th. If your site is selected for inclusion in the column, your review will be due August 10.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks very much!

Internet Resources Column Editor
Public Services Quarterly

Melissa Mallon, MLIS
Assistant Professor
Coordinator of Library Instruction
Liaison to English, Elliott School of Communication, and
Barton School of Business (Accountancy, Management, Marketing, & FREDS)

Wichita State University Libraries
1845 Fairmount
Wichita, KS 67260-0068
(316) 978-5077
@librarianliss on Twitter

Posted in Service Opportunities, Writing. Comments Off on Reviewers wanted – Internet Resources Column of Public Services Quarterly

Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy

Gwen found this one: Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy
And says: Notice the “Teaching Fails” section, which I love. They also do book reviews. And they have two different time scales for publication, one traditional, one “publish and peer review later.”

What might that look like, in terms of genre?
Send us audio or visual presentations, interviews, dialogues, conversations, creative works, manifestos, jeremiads, even traditional long-form articles. If you have an idea for us to consider, we encourage you to send it. You may query the editors at

The two paths to publication, peer review and publish-then-peer-review, show a new model can coexist within on journal. This is definitely one to keep an eye on!

Posted in Call for Proposals, Writing. Comments Off on Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy

Journal contact / publishing timeline info

Gwen and I spent some time finding this information for journals we identified as potentials for submitting an article. Since this is sometimes buried, this post is both a bookmark and a prod for selecting a journal and submitting awesome articles.

Journal of Academic Librarianship
Author instructions. 6 to 8 weeks to complete double blind-review. Click on the Author Information Pack at the top to get an easy to print set of information.

portal : Libraries and the Academy
Guidelines here:
Portal makes pre-prints available online here:
Double-blind peer review with response within 4 to 8 weeks. Declined articles come with recommendations for improvement or suggest another location for publication!

Instructions for Authors: Double-blind process takes 10 to 12 weeks; after acceptance articles are published about 12 months later.

C&RL makes preprints available within days of acceptance here:
Preprints are posted months and months before publication–stay ahead

College and Undergraduate Libraries
Refereed, double blind peer-reviewed.
Instructions for authors here:

Journal of Library Administration
Peer reviewed.
Instructions for authors here:

Evidence based Library and Information Practice
Double blind peer review and firm decision expected two months after submission.
Submission guidelines here:

Barb Fister posted on the ILI listserv that Reference Services Review and JAL “allow authors to self-archive final versions (not the publishers’ .pdf but their final edited draft) so theoretically ALL of these articles could be OA if authors could be bothered to put their work online. Slightly less than half of librarians do this, according to a recent
(preprint!) study –

We should try to do this too.

Open access options–C&RL is also open access as of April 2011.
Journal of Library Innovation (JOLI). Open access. Began in 2010.
Submission information. 6 to 8 weeks anticipated minimum review time.
Focus and scope

Library Leadership and Management
Author choice of peer review or editorial review announced in May 2011; time of review will vary. Open access.
Author instructions:

C&RL News

Posted in Reviews of the Editorial Process, Toolboxes, Writing. Comments Off on Journal contact / publishing timeline info

How to Fail in Grant Writing — from Chron of Higher Ed

Tips from 6 biology professors on how to make sure your grant proposal is rejected. Some tips are science specific, but some apply to all grants; and some apply to all article writing.

See also:

How does your grant compare

How to write an Outreach Grant proposal

Posted in Tools: Professional Development, Writing. Comments Off on How to Fail in Grant Writing — from Chron of Higher Ed

Open access peer reviewed library journals

As we run across these, let’s add them to a list to keep this in our mind when it is time to start writing or submitting our next articles.

Many are listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, too (115 Library Science ones listed here: — these are a few I found compelling. Which ones would you add to the list [which ones do you read]?

Journal of Library Innovation

Collaborative Librarianship

Communications in Information Literacy

Posted in Writing. Comments Off on Open access peer reviewed library journals

Research Writer’s Consultation Service at ALA Midwinter

ACRL Research Writer’s Consultations @ ALA Midwinter

The ACRL Research Program Committee (RPC) is once again sponsoring Research Writer’s Consultations at the 2010 ALA Midwinter Meeting, held January 7-12  in San Diego, CA. Aimed at the new or inexperienced writer, the Research Writer’s Consultations will match a writer with an experienced writer or editor, who will offer guidance and critique.


Are you an ACRL member working on a research article? Would you like some constructive feedback? Submit a draft research paper for consultation. RPC will match each new writer with an experienced writer and the pairs will meet face-to-face during the San Diego meeting. Draft research papers must be submitted by Monday, December 20, 2010. Papers will be shared with the experienced writer/editor only. Submission details follow:

Include on first page: Author’s name and contact information in upper left and a paragraph describing what you would like others to comment on about your paper (e.g,. grammar, writing style, clarity, presentation of the research methodology).

Page limit:  25 double-spaced pages, standard 1″ margins

Preferred format:  Microsoft Word. Number pages. Footers should include author’s full name and e-mail.

Draft research papers should be in complete enough form for others to read easily.

Submit by Monday, December 20th  to: Sheril Hook at<<>>


Are you an experienced, published writer or editor? Interested in providing guidance to your colleagues who may be writing their first research article? Submit your name and a description of your areas of expertise by December 1, 2010. Reviewers are expected to review papers submitted by authors in advance of the San Diego conference, as well as meet with the author for consultation onsite during the conference.

Please send your current contact information, a copy of your current resume or list of publications, and a brief description of your current research interests.

Submit by December 15, 2010 to: Sheril Hook at<<>>

MEET DURING ALA Midwinter Meeting

Each pair will correspond ahead of time to set up their own meeting time and place at the Midwinter Meeting to critique the papers, discuss approaches for writing, and share ideas on where to submit articles.

Questions should be directed to Sheril Hook at<<>>

Sheril Hook, M.A. English, MLIS
Collaborative Curriculum Development Librarian University of Toronto Mississauga HMALC, Library
3359 Mississauga Road
Mississauga, ON
Ph: (905) 838-3885

Posted in Writing. Comments Off on Research Writer’s Consultation Service at ALA Midwinter

Experience with Publisher: The Charleston Review

First, huge thanks to Stefanie for pointing us to this journal. She mentioned them in her talk on publication as a peer-reviewed venue for database and library online product reviews.

The Charleston Advisor (which is actually a library journal despite the name). They do database reviews — lengthy reviews, peer reviewed! Sign up.

I signed up Thursday morning using the web form, and by Thursday night had an email from the managing editor showing interest and giving me a wealth of information about guidelines, the author agreement, etc.  and a possible timeline for submission and publication. (Quick turnaround — review due in February 2011, publication in April 2011 if accepted. They publish quarterly, and it is online). Also, it looks like they do still pay if your review is accepted.

Their main focus is databases and other content publishers — so while I made a few suggestions for my particular expertise, those of you who work with specific databases should take a look at what’s been done already and see if we have anything new or exciting that would be a good candidate (you specify which products you are interested in reviewing in the sign up form). Open access and Open Source databases and products are accepted — they’ve done reviews of Google, Google Voice, LibStats, PLoS one, etc. They have a browsable Index of reviews on their site, and we do have access to the full text so you can take a look at their reviews.

Posted in Reviews of the Editorial Process, Writing. Tags: , . Comments Off on Experience with Publisher: The Charleston Review

Writing a Book: Stefanie Dennis and Patty Falk

Today our guests are Stefanie Dennis and Patty Falk, who are talking about the process of writing and publishing their recent book “Cataloguing Outside the Box.” Buy it from Amazon!

How did the book contract come about? Email to Stefanie from Chandos publishing — call for authors explaining what sorts of things they publish, what they are looking for. Patty had just written a few drafts of articles, and Stefanie asked if Patty was interested. So Stefanie responded to Chandos and they sent link to book proposal — audience, brief outline, title (pubs didn’t like the title) — changed it to “Cataloging Outside the Box”. Publishers responded saying they were interested and some more information about the length, etc. (word length)

Contract — Stef/Patty had never seen a book contract. Consulted Linda Brown about the contract –British English terminology unfamiliar in legal context. Renegotiated some things — more time for indexing. Brit copyright was different than US copyright; royalties; Brit Moral Rights; Could we re-use it? Part of Moral Rights — can use the content, but not just make copies of the actual book/chapters. Agreed to 2nd edition if they wanted it; agreed to find authors if Stef/Patty didn’t want to do it (verbal agreement for five year span). Chandos set the time frame of one year.

Sent things periodically (every month or so). In the contract, said “floppies and hard copy” but they sent a huge word file via email.

Created a calendar for proofs, typesetting, etc. once the manuscript was done. October 2009 manuscript turned in, published in January. Had to do a lot of work/deadlines to review proofs, make revisions, etc. British spelling (Catalogue instead of Catalog, for example). Intended for international audience (switch spell-checker to Brit English in Word)?

Still don’t know exactly how they got Stefanie’s name — except she reviewed

Split work by formats — Patty did music; Stefanie did other things (daily work) collaborated on the authority work and the preface. Used Word and swapped files. Tried to use Google Docs, but the formatting issues were too time wasting.

Easy to write because our daily work; getting examples was hard (and had to correct a lot of cataloging from previous records).

Looked at other cataloging books; liked the ones that had examples; would start a chapter, and then talk about how they would present it, etc. Chandos had asked if it could be used as a textbook — and that’s how they came up with “Challenge Yourself” with answers in the appendixes. Used originals that they had done here.

First typeset had to be very well-proofed because of the MARC record format issues. Authorial “voice” had to be consistent but they write in similar styles to begin with, and the text was pretty cut and dried.

Examples for Challenge Yourself: Scripts often didn’t have titles, or had working titles; Fanzines don’t have consistent titles.

Made little tables with pertinent information so didn’t have to violate copyright with screenshots: title, author, info from the title page, etc. At one point had to contact the author of a score for more information.

What would you do differently? Nothing, really. Patty kept Stefanie on task; Stefanie would do the formatting, technical stuff, etc. Hard to get research time for Stefanie (kids) — used the 4 hours a week at work; late night, early mornings when small children aren’t up.

Publishers were easy to work with; time difference was difficult when had to make the few phone calls.

Index was the hardest part: split chapters up, went through and starting writing down terms with page numbers. MARC tags needed to be indexed. Paper forms to keep track. Didn’t ask for any revisions on indexing.

Kellie and Amy Fyn have indexing experience, for future reference.

Glossary of terms — acronyms, book terms, etc.

Process was easier than a lot of articles that Stefanie has done.

Revisions — “Comment Enabled PDF” comments and annotations on a PDF — comment, add sticky notes, etc. Some changes, etc. were done over the phone while both sides looked at the proof.

Copyright issues with MARC records? Reason they used own records from our own catalog.

[Showed proofs; calendar with specific dates] Calendar moved very quickly — 3 days for this, 2 days for that, etc.

Proposal in in July, took two months to get a response; took about a year and a half for the whole thing.

Okayed the cover, didn’t see it before it was designed. Publisher gave them flyers to hand out as marketing materials.

Updating “Popular Culture Collections in the US”– next project. Exploring how much work it might be.

Asked publisher if there have been reviews, and sales figures, but haven’t heard back. Get paid royalties annually.

Had to fill out a marketing questionnaire (which listservs should they advertise on, etc.)

3 author’s copies — initially sent the wrong book. Very anti-climactic to open the box.

Someone else did the authority record and catalog record in OCLC before they could do it!

Q: Where were some of the first places you were published? BGSU Libraries Newsletter; Abstracts for RILM (Patty) — short, consistent, keeps hand in. Stefanie was a reporter for ACRL conference. Lots of collaboration in LTL at the time because lots of probationers. IRAs for example — we started those here and published on it; first libraries in Ohio to do chat reference; FALCON online tutorial; Conference proceedings; Patty did a lot of poster sessions at MLA (National poster sessions easier to do than a presentation, still national). Collaborated with a social work instructor when changed the instruction method (Stefanie wrote that up with L. Rich)

Stefanie: Bad experience with that article (J of Law and Social Work) — three years until it got published. Editor moved universities, delayed the publication, tenure coming up, no word until actually published.

Patty — easy to co-author with Bill, he had already worked with that journal.

Susannah — ALA “holding a book hostage” — publication date keeps changing. As long as you have a date, you can use it in your probationary binder.

Stefanie — did a lot of reviews because recommended by boss to do a few things on her own. Did reviews in the Charleston Advisor (which is actually a library journal despite the name). They do database reviews — lengthy reviews, peer reviewed! Sign up

Journal of Web Librarianship

PTRC role questions:

Q: How much weight do the presentations carry in a binder? Poster Sessions at National versus a Presentation at a regional? Maybe weighted the same. Want to see variety of activities — how much involvement did you have? A presentation with 3 people versus a poster session that you were sole author. Stefanie is a reviewer for poster sessions — anonymous reviews, had to rank them, 2 different people review each proposal — very competitive. How easy was it to get accepted? ACRL publishes statistics of turn downs — helpful to add that as an accompanying piece of documentation.

Presentations — No one used to know if a presentation didn’t go well, but now with twitter and blogging… everyone knows. Music Cataloging — everyone is doing the same thing, hard to be innovative. Hard to find a niche in popular culture conferences because they aren’t catalogers and don’t really care. Find a niche — hard to stand out if a lot of people are doing the same thing.

Don’t have to be hard-core research study; just has to be peer reviewed. “How we did it good in our library” or “what we did in our library” genre.

Posted in Writing. Tags: , . 1 Comment »

Productivity Porn!

Love the concept — nice article/video on how to avoid avoiding work by obsessive fiddling with productivity tools.

WorkSmart Video and article. Mentions RescueTime — a little program that reminds you that you’ve just spent X minutes on Facebook, or Gawker, or whatever, instead of WRITING YOUR ARTICLE.

Posted in Toolboxes, Tools: Professional Development, Writing. Tags: . Comments Off on Productivity Porn!

Would you like to write a survey?

The Applied Statistics and Operations Research people in the College of Business work with BG faculty.

From their website:
“Consulting Services Available To Faculty: Planning of Experiments and Surveys, Method of Analysis, Use of Statistical Computer Programs, Interpretation of Results, for research and instructional activity involving statistics.”

Find them here:

Posted in Tips for new faculty, Tools: Professional Development, Writing. Comments Off on Would you like to write a survey?