Search results

The purpose of this paper is to consider why and how a research culture might be established in an academic library and to describe and evaluate efforts to achieve this at the University of Northampton.

Contextualised within current literature on this topic, the paper examines the top-down and bottom-up approaches taken to facilitate practitioner research in one academic library.

The approaches taken have led to a significant increase in practitioner research activity from library staff, resulting in a variety of enhancements to library services; a number of innovative practices being shared with the professional community through conference presentations and publications; and consequent rise in profile and reputation for individuals, the department and the university.

The paper offers a wide range of ideas and practical suggestions for encouraging and facilitating practitioner research in an academic library. These include incorporating research activity into job descriptions and annual performance reviews; facilitating peer support for research; and providing competitive research awards, research training opportunities and funding for staff presenting at external events. Many of these require relatively little resource, yet offer significant benefit to those involved.

It is rare, and maybe unique in the UK, for an academic library to attempt to instil a research culture throughout its staff and to provide ongoing resources, activities and practical support for this. The many positive outcomes from this work demonstrate its success and value. The experiences described in this paper are transferable to other academic and research libraries and, if replicated, have the potential to increase librarians’ engagement in research activity, promote research-informed practice and stimulate interest in library and information research across the sector.

The present study aims to investigate the experience, contribution and opinions of users of respective institutional repositories (IRs) developed in India.

The survey method was used. The data collection tool was a web questionnaire, which was created with the help of software provided by surveymonkey.com

It was observed that 85.94 percent of respondents (154) were aware of the IR facility/service and 14.05 percent (26) were not aware of IR. More than half of the respondents, i.e. 52.43 percent (97), learned about the IR service through links provided on institutions' websites. About 36.21 percent of the respondents had not contributed to any type of repository, while 25.94 percent of respondents had contributed to their IR. A higher percentage (16.76 percent) of respondents felt it was an “easy and fast way to communicate research results”. The majority of the respondents, i.e. 113 (61.08 percent), were willing to deposit symposium/conference/seminar papers. The most important reason for contribution was found to be preservation of documents for the future. Peer review was very much acceptable as a quality control mechanism. More than half of the respondents (57.84 percent) wanted to provide open access without any barrier for their ideal repository.

Only users of the respective Indian institutional repositories are studied, and the findings are compared with other studies.

This is the first detailed study focusing on the users and their experience of institutional repositories.

The purpose of this paper is to examine perceived and factual realities of open access predators and further delve into usage patterns of predatory open access journals (OAJs) by researchers and its implication on quality assurance in Library and Information Science Research. It also investigates factors promoting use of these outlets, as well as authors’ perspectives on quality control for OAJs.

The paper reviewed available literature on OAJs and the proliferation of predatory journals. It also presents author’s viewpoint on the implication of using predatory journals for Library and Information Science Research in Nigeria.

The number of predatory publishers globally has grown rapidly from 18 in 2011 to 693 in 2015, whereas standalone journals increased from 126 to 507 in 2015. Library and information science (LIS) studies were published in some of the listed predatory journals by Jeffrey Beall, and this has reduced global recognition of LIS researchers in Nigeria. Upcoming authors were easily attracted to publishing their work in predatory journals because of fast review process, prompt publishing and quest for global visibility. Checking against plagiarism, ensuring quality control, increased awareness for non-use of predatory journals were some of the recommendations given.

It is clear that if LIS educators report their research in predatory OA outlets, individual and institutional reputation will be affected which may eventually lead to low ranking status of institutions. Nigerian universities low ranking status by several indices can be traced to the nonappearance or low scholarly literature published in reputable and respected journal outlets. Scholars with less quality studies will not be invited to feature as reviewers and international panelist in reputable thematic conferences and meetings neither can they be invited as external examiners in universities abroad.

This work is very valuable in evaluating the growth of predatory journals in Library and information Science Research in Nigeria. It provides distinctive ways to evaluating OAJs and how to identify and avoid predatory journals.