Search results

Discusses the changing relationships between information professionals – vendors, database producers, searchers – and end‐users, during the last three decades. Most of the time, the industry was quite vague as to who exactly the end‐users were, and consequently several different definitions were used to describe the target audience of online information systems. The needs and capabilities of the end‐user were measured conveniently through the reactions of libraries’ and information centres’ personnel who were not always the most suitable sources. The concept of the “end‐user” is examined from the beginning of the online industry in the 1970s through the menu driven systems of the 1980s and the role of the compact disk in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The paper's aim is to point out trends in scholarly communication – both some of the main advantages and the yet unsolved problems that technology – swift communication lines, digitalization and the web – brought into one of the most important activities of academic life: the reading – writing – publishing cycle.

The different stages, which eventually give birth to a scientific paper, are described here as thinking – (experimenting) – reading – writing – publishing, and analyzed from handwritten to print to digital texts, with an emphasis on the revolutionary changes that scholarly publishing is experiencing.

Thanks to computerization, hypertext and the web, academic life enjoys swift and effortless communication, ease of writing, rapid publishing, almost unlimited access, but there are several uncalled for developments as well.

The new technologies lack a convenient way of writing‐while‐reading, enhance plagiarism, eliminate traditional archiving methods without offering a satisfactory new substitute (presently) and give rise to a call for a revised way of citation, together with new ways of archiving and storing.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Tenn. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

This paper seeks to provide a solution for teaching comprehensive information literacy instruction when time is limited during one‐shot library instruction sessions. It aims to focus on one technique to solve this dilemma – the creation of a multi‐media tutorial: Library 101: Introduction to Research. The paper aims to educate librarians of the many technological tools, which could be employed to enrich library instruction.

Using the Oakleaf Information Literacy Instruction Assessment Cycle (ILIAC), librarians gathered assessment data and determined student research skill deficits in Fall 2009. To address knowledge gaps, the authors systematically designed a multi‐media tutorial with ten tools.

The paper finds that the tutorial identified students' areas of weakness prior to library instruction. As a result, librarians could focus on identified topics during the session and increase student learning. Annual re‐evaluation of the tools and data are needed in order to update the program and ensure student learning occurs.

The limitations of the creation process include incomplete software evaluation early in the process, learning how to collaborate with different project management styles, developing a realistic timeline, and the need for a robust assessment management system to collect data. The effectiveness of this tutorial needs more empirical evaluation.

The paper may help inform those planning to create a tutorial by suggesting useful, low‐cost tools for its creation and determining how to incorporate student learning outcomes and assessment into asynchronous instruction.

This paper fulfills an identified need to determine students' knowledge gaps through learning outcome assessment and respond to these gaps with asynchronous instruction methods.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.