Author Guidelines
- 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 decided by the appropriate editor after the double blind peer review is completed. The aim is to have papers reviewed within 2 months of receipt.
- Please note: Beginning December 7, 2009, all submissions to EBLIP should be in APA style.
ARTICLES
Papers are welcomed on all areas of EBL/EBP including:
• EBL application
• Qualitative and quantitative research
• Management and Administration issues related to EBP
• Research Tools (statistics, data collection methods, etc.)
• Collaborative and InterProfessional EBP
• Research education in library schools
• Evidence-Based Practices from other disciplines applicable to EBL
• Harnessing evidence to support new innovations
• Developing and applying evidence based tools
• Future prospects for the evidenced based information profession
• Maximizing the value and impact of our information services
Submissions should include:
- A structured abstract (250-500 words) using the following headings:
- Objective
- Methods
- Results
- Conclusions
See: Bayley, Liz and Jonathan D. Eldredge. The Structured Abstract: An Essential Tool for Researchers MLA Research Section, http://research.mlanet.org/structured_abstract.html. Last accessed May 5, 2005.
- 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 your work fits in)
- Aims (Aims of the paper/research)
- Methods (How the study was conducted – this shouldn’t be too descriptive but it should provide enough information for someone to replicate your study)
- Results (The main findings from your study should be presented clearly and concisely)
- Discussion (A discussion of the findings from your study – set in the context of the wider literature or issues arising from your study. Note any problems or limitations with your study and how these could have affected your results and how they could be avoided in future studies)
- Conclusions (A summary of what you have undertaken and what you have discovered – this should not contain any new information)
- Articles may be up to 5000 words in length.
REVIEW ARTICLES
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 on 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., and 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.
EBLIP welcomes review articles of up to 10,000 words 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.
Reviews should include a structured abstract and 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 your study)
- Results (The main findings from your 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 your study and how these could have affected your results and how they could be avoided in future studies)
- Conclusions (A summary of what you have undertaken and what you have discovered – including the implications for practice, and any further research needed)
EVIDENCE SUMMARIES
Evidence Summaries follow a structured format 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 Editor (Evidence Summaries).
USING EVIDENCE IN PRACTICE
Submissions to this section of EBLIP should be brief reports of LIS practitioners' use of evidence to assist with decision making. This is a non-peer reviewed section. Submissions should be approximately 1500 words in length, and outline the following:
Setting -- describe the practice setting where the use of evidence took place. Things to note include type of institution, type of users, environment, country, 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?
CLASSICS
Similar to Evidence Summaries, but focusing on an older research study that has stood the test of time, Classics follow a structured format. 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).
COMMENTARIES
Commentaries are opinion pieces on a topic related to evidence based practice. They should be approximately 1500-3000 words in length. This is a non-peer reviewed section.
------------------------
GUIDANCE
Guidance on academic writing can be found at
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/
See also the following publications:
Singer Gordon, Rachel. The Librarian's Guide to Writing for Publication. Lanham, Md.:Scarecrow Press, 2004.
Pickard, Alison Jane. Research Methods in Information. London: Facet, 2007.
Crawford, Walt. First Have Something to Say: Writing for the Library Profession. Chicago: American Library Association, 2003.
Hall, George M. How to Write a Paper. London: BMJ Books, 1998.
Guidance on APA style can be found in:
American Psychological Association. (2009).Publication Manual of the Americal Psychological Association. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
See also:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
http://www.apastyle.org/learn/faqs/index.aspx