EBLIP is a peer reviewed, open access journal published quarterly by the University of Alberta Learning Services, using the OJS Software. The purpose of the journal is to provide a forum for librarians and other information professionals to discover research that may contribute to decision making in professional practice. EBLIP publishes original research and commentary on the topic of evidence based library and information practice, as well as reviews of previously published research (evidence summaries) on a wide number of topics.
2006-2008 Lindsay Glynn, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
2009-2011 Denise Koufogiannakis, University Alberta, Canada
2011-2014 Alison Brettle, University of Salford, United Kingdom
2014-2020 Lorie Kloda, Concordia University, Canada
EBLIP Editorial Team
Rachel Hinrichs, Production Editor
Editorial policy and ethics
Peer Review Process
All research articles, feature articles, review articles, classics, and evidence summary submissions are reviewed by two peer reviewers using a double blind reviewing process. This includes submissions from the editors or from reviewers. Care is taken to ensure that submissions are reviewed by members of the team with knowledge of the subject area but who do not have a conflict of interest (see Review Guidelines).
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice began its quarterly publication schedule in March 2006. Issues are released on the 15th of March, June, September, and December.
Copyright and Licensing - Open Access Policy
This journal provides open access to all of its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. As such, copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors, under the terms of the Creative Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. Such access is associated with increased readership and increased citation of an author's work. For more information on this approach, see the Public Knowledge Project, the Directory of Open Access Journals, or the Budapest Open Access Initiative.
There are no article processing charges for publishing in Evidence Based Library and Information Practice.
EBLIP is indexed by Library Literature & Information Science Full Text; Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts (LISTA); Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA); SCOPUS; Emerging Sources Citation Index, and The Informed Librarian Online. Individual articles are searchable in the Directory of Open Access Journals.
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice - ISSN 1715-720X.
Journal Archiving and Digital Preservation
EBLIP participates in the CLOCKSS Archive. The CLOCKSS system has permission to ingest, preserve, and serve this Archival Unit.
EBLIP is also archived by the COPPUL Private LOCKSS Network and the PKP Private LOCKSS Network.
Instruction pour les auteurs
Instructions for Authors
The journal is published quarterly, on the 15th of March, June, September, and December. The Editorial Board welcomes submissions throughout the year. The journal aims to provide rapid turnaround for manuscripts requiring peer review (i.e., three months) but cannot guarantee publication in a particular issue.
- The editors are responsible for final decisions regarding publication and reserve the right to edit for brevity, clarity, and consistency of style.
- A final decision to publish or not is made by the appropriate editor after the anonymous peer review is completed.
- All submissions to peer reviewed sections (Research Articles, Reviews, Features, Evidence Summaries, and Classics) should be fully anonymized in preparation for peer review. See Ensuring an Anonymous Review for more information.
- All submissions to EBLIP should adhere to the guidelines set forth in the EBLIP Publication Manual and the American Psychological Association (APA) Style Guide, 7th edition.
- All authors should ensure that their user profile includes information on their affiliation and position title.
Submissions are welcomed on all areas of evidence based librarianship including:
- Application of evidence based librarianship
- Collaborative and inter-professional evidence-based practice
- Developing and applying evidence based tools
- Evidence based practices from other disciplines applicable to library and information practice
- Future prospects for the evidenced based information profession
- Harnessing evidence to support new innovations
- Management and administration issues related to evidence based librarianship
- Maximizing the value and impact of information services
- Research on education in library and information studies programs
- Research tools (statistics, data collection methods, etc.)
Submissions should report on research conducted using rigorous qualitative or quantitative methods, which should be described in appropriate detail as part of the article. Submissions reporting on survey research should include a copy of the data collection instrument as an appendix. Submissions using a case study approach should include a description of how the case study can be generalized to other situations.
Submissions should include:
- A structured abstract (250-500 words) using the following headings:
- Research articles should be written in a formal/academic style using the following headings as appropriate:
- Introduction: Background and introduction to the paper and why the work was carried out.
- Literature Review: An overview of relevant literature, summarising previous work in the area and highlighting the gaps and where this work fits in.
- Aims: Aims of the paper/research—it is useful to include the research question(s) used to frame the research study.
- Methods: How the study was conducted—this should provide enough information for someone to replicate the study such as how the data were collected and analyzed.
- Results: The main findings from the study should be presented clearly and concisely.
- Discussion: A discussion of the findings from the study set in the context of the wider literature or issues arising from the study. Note any problems or limitations with the study, how these could have affected your results, and how they could be avoided in future studies.
- Conclusion: A summary of what was undertaken and what was discovered – this should not contain any new information but rather describe how the aims of the study were achieved.
- Research articles may be up to 5000 words in length, excluding references, tables, figures, and any appendices. A paper presenting extensive and rigorous qualitative analysis may be considered even if it exceeds the word count limit. Please check with the Associate Editors (Research Articles) if you are interested in submitting a research paper manuscript that is longer than 5000 words.
Review articles provide a way for librarians to obtain an overview of the evidence on a particular topic, and stay current with the literature. Reviews may take several different forms, including an overview, systematic review, meta-analysis, literature review, state-of-the-art review, or umbrella review, among others. For a detailed explanation of the types of reviews possible, please consult: Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
EBLIP welcomes review articles on topics of relevance to practitioners in library and information studies. We are particularly interested in reviews which contain information on the state of research on a particular topic.
Submissions should include:
- A structured abstract (250-500 words) using the following headings:
- Review articles should be written in a formal/academic style using the following headings as appropriate:
- Introduction: Background and introduction to the paper and why the work was carried out
- Aims: Aims/objectives of the paper.
- Methods: How the review was conducted—this shouldn’t be too descriptive but it should provide enough information for someone to replicate the study.
- Results: The main findings from the review of the literature on a topic should be presented clearly and concisely.
- Discussion: A discussion of the findings from your review. Note any problems or limitations with the study and how these could have affected the results and how they could be avoided in future studies.
- Conclusion: A summary of what was undertaken and what was discovered, including the implications for practice and any further research needed.
- Review articles may be up to 10,000 words in length, excluding references, tables, figures, and any appendices.
USING EVIDENCE IN PRACTICE
Submissions to this section of EBLIP should be brief reports of library and information practitioners' use of evidence to assist with decision making.
Submissions should include:
- No abstract is required
- The text of the manuscript should outline the following with headings:
- Setting: Describe the practice setting where the use of evidence took place. Things to note include type of institution, type of users, environment, country, and service currently being offered that you are focusing on.
- Problem: Describe the problem that arose to make you question the service you were offering. Why did you think there might be a better way to do things?
- Evidence: Give an overview of the evidence you used to assist with your decision making. This could be evidence from the research literature or local data you compiled. How was the evidence located or collected? Why was this evidence compelling? What did it tell you and why did you believe it? Why did you use this evidence?
- Implementation: Describe how you implemented a change based on the evidence you found. Provide practical details of what it meant to implement this change
- Outcome: What was the result of your implemented changes? What impact did the changes have? Were the changes successful or not?
- Reflection: Reflect on the process of trying to implement change in your practice by using evidence. Was this a difficult process or fairly straightforward? Did you encounter any obstacles? What would you do differently next time?
- Submissions should be approximately 1500 words in length, excluding any references, tables, and figures.
Commentaries are opinion pieces on a topic related to evidence based practice. They should be approximately 1500-3000 words in length.
Evidence Summaries follow a structured format and are written by a team of writers under the direction of the Associate Editor for this section. If you are interested in writing evidence summaries, or would like to suggest a research article to be reviewed, please contact the Associate Editors (Evidence Summaries). Author guidelines for Evidence Summaries are made available by request.
Classic reviews showcase publications that significantly changed library and information practice. Classics often have an enduring legacy even when most contemporary practitioners no longer reference these works specifically. Reviewers should organize their reviews into two major parts: the Abstract and the Commentary as described below. If you are interested in suggesting a research article that should be featured as a Classic, or are interested in writing a Classic review, please contact the Associate Editor (Classics and Reviews).
Submissions should include:
- Abstract. Reviewers should summarize the classic concisely using standard structured abstract headings with the following recommended yet not strictly-enforced word count:
- Objective (15-35 words)
- Design (1-6 words)
- Setting (10-30 words)
- Subjects (30-60 words)
- Methods (80-170 words)
- Main Results (80-200 words)
- Conclusion (20-45 words)
- Commentary. The reviewer should begin the commentary by providing the context at the time of the publication. This section should describe existing professional practices and any previous research inquiries related to the subject of the classics. Articles should be written in a formal/academic style and attempt to answer the following core questions:
- How did this work influence subsequent applied research?
- Is there anything that we can learn from the author’s approach that might guide today’s applied research?
- Why did this work become a classic?
- Classics articles are typically between 1,000 and 2,500 words in length, excluding references, tables, figures, and any appendices.
RESEARCH IN PRACTICE
The Research in Practice column is typically written by a columnist. For those interested in submitting as a guest author, please contact the Editor-in-Chief.
Features appear in select journal issues and feature a theme or conference/symposium. Features typically have one or more guest editors, and include papers in various categories—research articles, review articles, commentaries, and editorials. Features are scheduled in advance and contributors are usually invited directly to submit manuscripts for consideration. For those interested in editing a feature or suggesting a theme, please contact the Editor-in-Chief.
News items can be submitted through the online journal system or emailed directly to the Editor-in-Chief who reserves the right to make final publishing and editorial decisions. Deadlines for including a news item in a particular issue are 30 days prior to the issues publication date (March 15, June 15, September 15, December 15).
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letters can be submitted through the online journal system or emailed directly to the Editor in Chief who will decide whether to publish the letter or respond privately. Letters will only be considered for publication if they are within the scope of the journal and/or relevant to a recent EBLIP publication. Deadlines for including a letter in a particular issue is 30 days prior to the issues publication date (March 15, June 15, September 15, December 15).
An ORCID is a digital identifier that distinguishes authors from others, and EBLIP recommends that all authors register for an ORCID identifier. ORCiD numbers for each author will be included in an article’s author list.
CRediT is a means of recognizing the different roles of authorship, which has been developed by the Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information (CASRAI) to provide a standardized taxonomy of contributor roles. In the interests of promoting transparency in research and scholarship, EBLIP joins many other scholarly journals in adopting the CRediT standard.
An Author Contributions statement will be requested from authors of research articles, review articles, and using evidence in practice articles upon acceptance of the submission. All authors should discuss and agree upon their contributions before submitting this information to EBLIP, and the listed roles should accurately reflect contributions to the work. Individuals whose contributions do not warrant authorship may be recognized in an Acknowledgements section at the end of the paper. Single-author papers do not require an Author Contributions statement.
The 14 contributor roles are detailed at https://casrai.org/credit/. Individual contributors can be assigned multiple roles, and a given role can be assigned to multiple contributors. The optional degree of contribution qualifiers (lead, supporting, equal) will also be accepted in EBLIP; these are described on the CASRAI website under the “How to Implement CRediT” tab.
The Author Contributions statement will be placed at the end of the text before the References, and will be formatted with each author name followed by a list of the appropriate contributor roles, as illustrated in the following examples:
Zhang Lee: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software Aditi Singh: Data curation, Writing - original draft Neeru Acharya: Visualization, Investigation Noel Jenson: Supervision Vijay Kumar: Software, Validation Caryn Dillon: Writing - review & editing
Example 2 (illustrating optional degrees of contribution)
Pierro Correia: Writing - review & editing (equal) Anna Berkowitz: Conceptualization (lead), Writing - original draft (lead), Formal analysis (lead), Writing - review & editing (equal) Yolanda Roberto: Software (lead), Writing - review & editing (equal) Takaaki Yamada: Methodology (lead), Writing - review & editing (equal) Qian Wu: Conceptualization (supporting), Writing - original draft (supporting), Writing - review & editing (equal)
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (EBLIP) provides open access to all of its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. In addition to making all articles available, the journal also promotes open data, that is, the availability of research data underpinning research published in the journal.
At EBLIP, we believe that sharing research data advances research and promotes evidence-based library and information practice. Data sharing has several benefits:
- Making publicly-funded research data available to all
- Encouraging collaboration among researchers
- Enabling the reproducibility and verification of data
- Optimizing the use and re-use of existing data for further research
- Supporting new research questions, investigations, and interpretations of data
- Providing transparency in research and safeguarding against misconduct
Authors submitting their research to EBLIP are encouraged to deposit, cite, and link to their data using the following guidelines:
- Authors are responsible for ensuring that appropriate ethical considerations and permissions have been obtained prior to depositing the data. If necessary, data should be cleaned to ensure confidentiality of human participants is protected.
- Types of data which may be included with the deposit include but are not limited to: raw data, processed data, algorithms, protocols, and software.
- It is recommended to use non-proprietary, unencrypted, uncompressed formats. Best practices for data file formats are available from Cornell University, Stanford University, as well as the Library of Congress.
- Data should be deposited at the time the manuscript is submitted. Data files may be uploaded to the Online Journal System in the Data Set At the time the manuscript is accepted for publication in EBLIP, the editor will deposit the data file in the University of Alberta’s instance of Dataverse and it will be assigned a DOI for use in the citation.
- If depositing the data with the journal for hosting internally is not feasible (e.g., if there is a competing requirement from a funding agency), data should be deposited in a public repository and a citation provided including a persistent identifier.
- In cases where the data sets are already available in a public repository at the time of manuscript submission, a citation should be provided including a persistent identifier.
- Metadata should be included with the deposit. A README file should contain supporting documentation necessary to help with interpretation of the data, e.g., the codebook. Guidelines for creating README files are available from Cornell University and University of Southampton.
- The citation should include a DOI and follow the EBLIP Publishing Manual regarding the data citation style. The format adheres to that proposed by the FORCE11 Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles. For example:
Author(s). (Year). Dataset title. Data repository or archive, version, DOI.
- A data availability statement will be included with the article upon publication. Alternatively, a statement on availability of the data (e.g., through contacting the author or a third party) may be included.
- Peer review of the research data is not required. If the data are submitted at the time of the manuscript, they may be consulted by the peer reviewers during the review process.
- The author(s) willingness to deposit data does not affect a submission’s consideration or acceptance for publication in the journal.
- Data should be made available without restriction at the time the article is published.
Dr. Ann Medaille, Editor-in-Chief, University of Nevada, Reno, United States
Erin Owens, Associate Editor (Research Articles), Sam Houston State University, United States
Dr. Lisl Zach, Associate Editor (Research Articles), United States
Jane Schmidt, Associate Editor (Classics & Reviews), Ryerson University, Canada
Dr. Stephanie Krueger, Associate Editor (Evidence Summaries), National Library of Technology, Czech Republic
Dr. Christina L. Wissinger, Associate Editor (Evidence Summaries), Pennsylvania State University, United States
Rachel Hinrichs, Production Editor, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, United States
Melissa Cober, Editorial Intern, University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States
Lindsay J. Alcock, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
Dr. Alison Brettle, University of Salford, United Kingdom
Michelle Dunaway, Wayne State University, United States
Dr. Lorie Kloda, Concordia University, Canada
Dr. Denise Koufogiannakis, University of Alberta, Canada
Heather Pretty, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
Samantha Sheplawy, University of Alberta, Canada
Kimberly MacKenzie, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
Kate Shore, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada