Editorial

Citation

Mitchell, E. and Watstein, B. (2007), "Editorial", Reference Services Review, Vol. 35 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/rsr.2007.24035baa.001

Editorial

It has been more than a year, or a volume-plus, since we assumed co-editorship of Reference Services Review (RSR). We were particularly fortunate in our new roles for several reasons. First, we acknowledge the diverse editorial contributions and leadership of our predecessor, Dr Ilene Rockman. There is no question but that her vision, dedication, and perseverance both distinguished and enriched the journal in unique ways, leaving us with both a legacy and a challenge. But, there are other factors that helped us to transit to our new roles as co-editors. The journal has long benefited from an active, engaged and committed Board. The journal has also long been distinguished by distinct editorial aims and objectives, aims and objectives that continue to set it apart it from other journals. Additionally, the journal has a dedicated readership, readers who turn to RSR to expand their knowledge or find illustrations of “good practice”. And, the journal has long attracted authors who, through their rich contributions, demonstrate originality of theory, practice or application, or share original case studies with their colleagues. Finally, we note that as concerns reference services, there is no shortage of desirable subjects, perspectives and treatments.

So, more than a year has passed since we “bellied up to the bar” and took that first swig. Despite the challenges of bi-coastal communications, different time zones and work styles, we are energized (when not exhausted) by the constant contact with authors who demonstrate initiative, creativity, scholarship, and commitment through the articles they submit for our consideration. Too, we are inspired and invigorated by the contributions of an excellent Editorial Board of movers, shakers, and admirably critical professionals who help shape and hone the journal’s contents, fitting even eleventh hour calls for reviewers into their already tight schedules. The process of putting together each issue introduces us to librarians who clearly are creating the future of our profession and our institutions through their work, their research, and their willingness and ability to capture and share their experiences and their findings through the written word.

In the past few issues, we saw (and hope you did, too) some changes. You will see several new names on the Editorial Board, which strengthens our geographic coverage and broadens and deepens the pool of expertise for reviewing and prospecting for articles. In the coming year we aspire to add members who can strengthen our international perspective and others from more diverse types of institutions. How does one become involved on an editorial board? All of our new members gained experience by volunteering as reviewers for manuscripts in their areas of expertise!

We have also worked to clarify and strengthen the role and work of the Editorial Board. In addition to reading manuscripts and providing thorough and constructive feedback to authors (our process calls for at least a double-blind review for each article), Board members are invited to attend working breakfast meetings (held at ALA annual and midwinter) where the most exhilarating segment is a free-wheeling brainstorm of hot topics and emerging issues. If you look at the list of Board members, it becomes immediately evident that through this conversation we tap into the innermost thoughts and far-reaching visions of some of the true luminaries in our field! Through our Board members, and their own varied and far-flung areas of interest and involvement, we prospect broadly for topics and authors to include in future issues of the journal. Board members are encouraged to develop theme and “mini-theme” issues for the journal, in which we devote a more substantial amount of coverage to thorough explorations of topics and issues.

Speaking of theme and mini theme issues, this is another area that we have been focusing on over the past year+. While a good number of articles are submitted “over the transom,” unsolicited, we find that we can shape the coverage of a topic more aggressively by either soliciting authors directly or through the influence of a guest editor who enjoys the opportunity to pull together several pieces that surround a topic. In this issue, for example, we include two articles on information commons. These articles continue a mini-theme on this topic published in Volume 34 Number 2. In this earlier issue we included three articles on the commons environment, accompanied by a conceptual frame. With these additional articles, we continue the conversation.

Interviews represent yet another change we have introduced. It is true that interviews are not refereed in the same manner as other manuscripts. Nonetheless, we believe that the interview format, used selectively, has value; here, we have the opportunity to profile key players, to explore critical issues, and to allow our readers to benefit from, in essence, being part of a conversation. Interviews bring the voices of those at the center of emerging issues more directly to the pages of our journal. During the past year+ we have covered several topics by way of interviews, including, for example bibliographic services and Second Life. In what might be considered a variation on the format, we have also created an opportunity to listen to invited readers reflect on various issues of the day. For example, in Volume 34 Number 3 RSR readers responded to future scenarios distributed to Taiga Forum participants in March 2006. We remain committed to contributions that enrich reference knowledge and advance reference and instructional services, and we believe that interviews and their variations provide options for realizing this aspiration.

So, how are we doing? To what extent is RSR relevant to you? Do you turn to RSR to enrich your reference knowledge? Does the journal help you keep abreast of emerging topics? Are there aspects of reference functions you would like to see covered, and have not seen covered? Have you been exposed to key thinkers? To new authors? We have, as we have said, bellied up to the bar and taken the first swig. Journal status and development are in our hands as much as they are in yours – our readers. We sincerely welcome your feedback!

Eleanor Mitchell, Barbara Watstein