College and Research Libraries


Publishing in the Journal Literature 
of Library and Information Science: 
A Survey of Manuscript Review 
Processes and Acceptance 

Barbara J. Via 

The journal literature of library and information science is important be-
cause it not only enhances the ability of librarians to do their work, but 
also provides a major part of the scholarly underpinnings, both theoreti-
cal and applied, for the field. Many academic librarians are expected to 
publish in the journal literature as part of their faculty responsibilities. 
There is keen interest on the part of academic librarians in assessing 
the quality of library and information science journals, the methods used 
to review unsolicited manuscripts, and the acceptance rates for those 
manuscripts. This article reports on a survey of library and information 
science journal editors. The survey results show that thirty-four of the 
sixty-eight journals covered by the survey utilize some form of blind re-
view for unsolicited manuscripts. The proliferation of new journal titles in 
the field has meant that there are many more publishing outlets for po-
tential authors. This survey shows that the acceptance rates reported in 
earlier studies in 1978 and 1988 have risen for a majority of the journals 
reported in this study. 

rospective authors of articles in 
the field of library and infor-
mation science face a nearly 
overwhelming array of jour-

nals to which they might consider sub-
mitting manuscripts. However, informa-
tion on these journals-their aims and 
scope, their quality, and their manuscript 
review processes-sometimes is difficult 
to ascertain. Because promotion and ten-
ure decisions in academic libraries are 
often based partly on the perceived qual-
ity of the journals in which articles are 

published, it is important that academic 
librarians be well informed ?.bout the 
publication policies and practices of jour-
nals in the field. This paper reports on the 
results of a survey that investigated 
manuscript review processes, acceptance 
rates, and availability of instructions to 
authors for library and information sci-
ence journals. 

The proliferation of journal titles is not 
a new phenomenon. A quarter century 
ago, in an oft-quoted piece on the library 
press, Eric Moon, former editor of Library 

Barbara J. Via is Reference Coordinator and Bibliographer at the Thomas E. Dewey Graduate Library for 
Public Affairs and Policy at the University at Albany, State University of New York; e-mail: 
bv848@cnsvax.albany.edu . 

365 



366 College & Research Libraries 

Journal, provided a dismal picture of the 
state of library literature. He opened his 
article by stating: 

The deadliest disease afflicting the 
library press is proliferation. The 
kindest and most conservative esti-
mate I am able to bring myself to 
make is that there are at least three 
times as many library periodicals in 
this country as we can afford or are 
necessary. Perhaps the most con-
structive single thing that could be 
accomplished would be to persuade 
at least one in three publishers of a 
library periodical to cease publica-
tion.1 

It is obvious from a quick scan of the 
list of periodicals indexed by Library Lit-
erature in 1994 that Moon's suggestion 
about pruning the number of publishing 

This plethora of journals strains 
library budgets and most certainly 
spreads the limited number of 
quality articles among diffuse 
journals, many of which have very 
low circulation. 

outlets for library science literature has 
not been heeded. The appearance of many 
new titles in the late sixties and through 
the seventies is probably attributable in 
some part to the faculty status movement 
for academic librarians and its attendant 
"publish or perish" ethos. This prolifera-
tion continued into the eighties and nine-
ties. Indeed, the past fifteen years or so 
have seen a veritable explosion of new 
periodicals devoted to ever-narrower sub-
topics of library and information science. 

Moon's stated "evils" of the prolifera-
tion of periodicals still seem convincing. 
Specifically, he stated that the proliferation 
of journals: 

spreads too thinly the limited 
amount of good material; ... 

July 1996 

spreads too thinly the advertising 
support which otherwise could help 
sustain a smaller number of stronger 
... magazines; ... occasionally di-
verts into an obscure publication a 
piece of writing that deserves to 
reach a wider audience ... prolifera-
tion makes it possible for almost any-
thing on the topic of librarianship, no 
matter how appalling, to find its way 
into print. . .. 2 

In 1995, there are so many library/in-
formation science journals on the scene 
that in addition to journals devoted to 
reference services, there are journals de-
voted to music reference services, legal 
reference services, and medical reference 
services. Commercial publishers account 
for the majority of the recent multiplica-
tion of titles. In fact, one publisher has 
produced at least nineteen new journals 
dealing with various subtopics of library 
and information science since 1980. There 
are now journals devoted to college and 
undergraduate libraries, popular culture 
in libraries, public and access services in 
libraries, and primary and original works. 
This plethora of journals strains library 
budgets and most certainly spreads the 
limited number of quality articles among 
diffuse journals, many of which have very 
low circulation. W. Boyd Rayward states 
that "if there are too many journals, schol-
arly standards will fall as editors compete 
for a limited number of good articles and 
fill up their journals with the best of what 

· remains." 3 

Assessing the Quality of Journals 
As it seems likely that in the near future 
the number of journals will not diminish, 
it is critical that prospective authors care-
fully consider where to submit their 
manuscripts. They need to have a clear 
idea of the scope of the journals in the 
field, the likely readership, and the pro-
cess used by the journals to review unso-
licited manuscripts. The ranking of li-
brary and information science journals 



(reported by John Budd; Belen Altuna 
Esteibar and F.W. Lancaster; David F. Kohl 
and Charles H. Davis; Renee Tjoumas and 
Virgil L.P. Blake; and Mary T. Kim) should 
be considered when deciding to submit 
to a given journa1.4 

Various authors (including Jesse Shera; 
Kohl and Davis; and Stuart Glogoff) have 
defined a "core" group of library and in-
formation science journals.5 However, 
even within this core group, there is great 
variation on how manuscripts are re-
viewed. In fact, Library Trends, which con-
sistently appears high on ranked lists of 
journals for the field, solicits all manu-
scripts and therefore does not get in-
cluded in lists of refereed journals. 

For prospective writers employed in 
academic libraries, especially those with 
faculty status, it is often the refereed lit-
erature that holds the most weight in 
terms of tenure and promotion, and rank. 
The refereed journal is widely considered 
the appropriate outlet for scholarship. 
The referee process is meant to provide 
an unbiased, expert review of the meth-
odology, arguments, presentation, and 
conclusions offered in a research paper. In 
her book on the editing of journals and 
newsletters, Josephine Lyders describes 
refereed journals as "intended to improve 
the literature of the field through broader 
participation in the publishing of new 
ideas and new material. ... Refereed jour-
nals seek to encourage better scholarship, 
which is of obvious value to a profession."6 

A noteworthy review of the literature 
on refereeing has recently appeared in the 
Annual Review of Information Science and 
Technology. In that review, Margaret Stieg 
Dalton discusses the role of refereeing, its 
history, its standards, criticisms of the ref-
eree process, and prospects for the future 
in light of the rapid evolution of electronic 
publishing. Dalton concludes her review 
by stating that electronic publishing is 
changing scholarly publishing and that 
"there is a good chance that refereeing 
will no longer play the major role that it 
has in publishing." 7 Until the scholarly 

Publishing in the Journal Literature 367 

corninunity begins to adjust its view of 
the refereed journal as the benchmark of 
scholarly publishing, tenure and promo-
tion committees in universities and col-
leges will continue to judge the quality of 
journals at least partly on whether a ref-
eree process is employed for manuscript 
review. It is therefore critical that these com-
mittees have accurate information upon 
which to base their evaluations of journal 
titles. In studies such as Budd's and Kim's, 
which have used measurable factors such 
as citation statistics to evaluate journals, the 
most heavily cited journals are, for the most 
part, those that utilize some sort of referee 
process (broadly defined to include those 
using blind review by editorial board 
members). 8 Further, the majority of the 
journals that are given highest-perceived 
prestige rankings by library school deans 
and ARL directors as reported by Kohl and 
Davis, are those that utilize some form of 
blind review.9 Daniel O'Connor and Phyllis 
Van Orden, writing in their 1978 article on 
publishing opportunities for librarians, 
state: "Although refereeing does not guar-
antee the production of quality manu-
scripts, it does inject independence and im-
partiality into the selection process. Ideally, 
a referee is an outside expert who judges 
anonymous manuscripts for their intrin-
sic worth." 10 

Misinformation on whether given jour-
nals are refereed or not abounds. For in-
stance, Wrich's Infernational Periodicals Di-
rectory indicates whether a journal is refer-
eed by the phrase "Refereed Serial" at the 
end of an entry.U However, several jour-
nals listed in the 1994/95 edition of Wrich's 
as "refereed" do not qualify as refereed. 
For example, The Acquisitions Librarian and 
The Reference Librarian, both of which ac-
cept only solicited articles, are listed in 
Wrich's as refereed journals. Conversely, 
several journals that do employ a blind 
referee process, including American Archi-
vist, College & Research Libraries, Govern-
ment Information Quarterly, Library Resources 
& Technical Services, and Libraries & Culture, 
are not listed as refereed in Wrich's. 12 In an 



368 College & Research Libraries July 1996 

TABLE I 
Manuscript Acceptance Rates 

Journal Title % of feature art. # of unsolic. % of unsolic . 
publ. from mss. rec'd. mss. accepted · 

unsolic. mss. (1994) (1994) 

Acquisitions Librarian 
Against the Grain 
American Archivist 
American Libraries 
Art Documentation 
The Bottom Line 
Bulletin of the Medical Library Assn. 
Canadian Journal of Info. & Lib. Science 
Catholic Library World 
CD-ROM Professional 
Collection Building 
Collection Management 
College & Research Libraries 
Database 
Government Information Quarterly 
Hom Book Magazine 
Information Processing & Management 
Information Services & Use 
Information Technology & Libraries 
Int'l. Information & Library Review 
Int'l. Journal of Micrographics & 

Optical Technology 
Journal of Academic Librarianship 
Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship 
Journal of Educ. for Lib. & Info. Science 
Journal of Government Information 
Journal of Information Ethics 
Journal of Information Science 
Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document 

Delivery & Information Supply 
Journal of Library Administration 
Journal of Religious & Theological Inform. 
Journal of the Amer. Soc. for Info. Science 
Journal of Youth Services in Libraries 
Judaica Librarianship 

annual guide to library periodicals by 
Molly Skeen, entries indicate whether a 
journal is refereed. 13 Several titles listed as 
refereed in that guide did not indicate the 
use of a referee process in answers to the 
survey reported here. Examples include 
The Bottom Line, The International Journal of 

0% NA NA 
5-10 15 83% 

75 30 50 
90 750 7 
33 5-6 75 

c.25 14 33 
50 40 75 
66 12 25 
20 7 28.5 
10 40-60 <10 

0-100 20 60 
0-5 7 50 
100 100 35-40 
10 unavailable 25 
25 20 50 

0-10 c. 50 10 
100 95 40-50 
25 12 60 
100 20 70 
100 55 40 
80 12 90 

100 110 45 
100 unavailable unavailable 
100 14 20 
60 60 35 

varies unavailable unavailable 
80 c. 60 c. 60 
70 50 75 

10 25 25 
50 10 6 
100 84 65 
50 21 57 

varies 40 90 
(cont. on next page) 

Micrographics and Optical Technology, and 
Popular Culture in Libraries. 

In a recent monograph, Guide to Publish-
ing Opportunities for Librarians, Carol F. 
Schroeder and Gloria Roberson define a 
refereed journal as "one in which submitted 
manuscripts are evaluated by an indepen-



Publishing in the Journal Literature 369 

TABLE 1 cont. 
Manuscri~t Acce~tance Rates 

Journal Title % of feature art. # of unsolic. % of unsolic. 
publ. from mss. rec'd. mss. accepted 

unsolic. mss. (1994) (1994) 

Libraries & Culture 
Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 
Library Administration and Management 
Library & Archival Security 
Library & Information Science Research 
Library Hi Tech 
Library Mosaics 
Library Quarterly 
Library Resources & Technical Services 
Library Trends 
Medical Reference Services Quarterly . 
Microcomputers for Information Mgt. 
Microform Review 
Music Reference Services Quarterly 
Notes: Quar. J. of the Music Lib. Assn. 
Online 
Popular Culture in Libraries 
Primary Sources & Original Works 
Public Libraries 
Public Library Quarterly 
Public & Access Services Quarterly 
Rare Books & Manuscripts Librarianship 
Reference Librarian 
Research Strategies 
RSR: Reference Services Review 
RQ 
Resource Sharing and Inform. Networks 
Rural Libraries 
School Library Journal 
School Library Media Quarterly 
Science & Technology Libraries 
Serials Review 
Special Libraries 
Urban Academic Librarian 
Voice of Youth Advocates 

dent expert or a panel of experts. The re-
viewers evaluating the manuscript may be 
members of the journals' editorial board, 
or external reviewers, or a combination of 
both." 14 The list of refereed journals pro-
vided in the book includes several titles 
that did not indicate on the survey reported 
here that they employ a referee process in 

100% 26 58% 
10 20 40 
50 60 50 

c. 80 13 85 
100 50 50 
10 75-100 6-7 

100 46 26 
100 46 26 
90 38 83 
0 NA NA 
75 15 73 
75 NA c.60 

25-35 6-8 c. 100 
c. 25 5-6 100 
varies 9 33 

10 10 5 
25 c.20 25 
25 5 40 

75-100 30 56 
75 10 90 

60-70 20 66.6 
50-60 6-8 100 

0 NA NA 
100 22 68.2 
75 20 70 
100 40 66 
50 14 80 
1 3 c.20 
10 284 11 
60 c.60 c.20 

c. 75 20-30 c. 50 
66.6 18 80 
85 34 61 
50 6 66 
100 15-20 85 

their review of manuscripts. These titles in-
clude The Bottom Line, Collection Building, 
and The International Journal of Micrograph-
ics and Optical Technology. 

There is debate in the literature about 
what criteria must be met in order for a 
journal to be labelled "refereed," but sev-
eral common criteria are included in 



370 College & Research Libraries 

many authors' lists of basic requirements. 
Josephine Lyders notes that refereed jour-
nals in the field of library science do have 
common characteristics in their review 
processes. In her book on newsletter and 
journal editing, Lyders lists the criteria 
adopted by Journal of Youth Services in Li-
braries when it became a refereed periodi-
cal in 1989. They include the following: 
guidelines for authors are published regu-
larly; the editor acknowledges receipt of 
a manuscript within two weeks; the 
author's name is not to appear on the 
manuscript; referees will have a written 
job description; the editor, with help from 
others, identifies referees; referees are in-
vited to serve by the editor and are re-

There is debate in the literature 
about what criteria must be met in 
order for a journal to be labelled 
"refereed," but several common 
criteria are included in many 
authors' lists of basic requirements. 

quested to respond in writing; two or 
more people in addition to the editor re-
view each manuscript; reviewing is 
double-blind; referees use the evaluation 
form designed by the editor; the editor re-
spects recommendations of referees but 
handles the final publication decision; 
turnaround time for the referee's response 
to the editor is normally four weeks; the 
editor excerpts and/ or summarizes refer-
ees' evaluations and sends them to the 
author with the letter about the decision 
on publication; turnaround time from re-
ceipt of the manuscript to author notifica-
tion about the decision on publication is 
up to ten weeks; referees do not have a 
defined term-length of service depends 
on willingness and ability; and the names 
of referees are published once in each vol-
ume of the journal.15 

The Survey 
This study attempted to gain information 
on the manuscript acceptance rates and 

July 1996 

the review processes for eighty-seven li-
brary and information science journals. 
The survey was designed to update and 
expand the information provided by 
Budd in 1988 and by O'Connor and Van 
Orden in 1978.16 The author modeled the 
survey questionnaire on data provided in 
Budd's report. The journals included in 
the study are all English language, and 
nearly all are published in the United 
States. Specifically excluded were local or 
regional publications, and those pub-
lications that consist largely of staff-
written news stories about products 
and services. There are sixty-eight jour-
nals included in this report. The re-
sponse rate was 80 percent (seventy 
completed surveys of eighty-seven solic-
ited). Two responding journals are ex-
cluded from the report. One journal edi-
tor completed the survey but suggested 
that the journal was not really suited to 
the study because of its being a newsstand 
type of publication. The editor of Wilson 
Library Bulletin completed the survey, but 
the journal ceased publication with the 
June 1995 issue. 

Nearly all the journals included in this 
survey are indexed by Library Literature, 
the major U.S. indexing tool for library 
and information science journals. Index-
ing coverage is extremely important in 
ensuring a wide audience for professional 
and scholarly journals. The journal start 
dates are of interest in light of Moon's 
exhortation in 1969 that fewer library sci-
ence journals were needed. Forty-eight of 
the sixty-eight titles included in this re-
port began publication after Moon's 1969 
article appeared. Information on number 
of manuscripts received and acceptance 
rates is reported in table 1. Editors re-
ported data on numbers of manuscripts 
received and acceptance rates for calen-
dar year 1994. A comparison with Budd's 
1988 survey findings is shown in table 2. 
This table shows that for the majority of 
the journals covered by both Budd's sur-
vey and the current survey, the number 
of unsolicited manuscripts received by 



Publishing in the Journal Literature 371 

Journal Title 

TABLE2 
Comparison of Manuscript Acceptance Rates 

(Budd and Via Surveys) 

Budd# of Via# of Budd% Via% 
Unsolic. Mss. Unsolic. Mss. Unsolic. Mss. Unsolic. Mss. 

Received Received Accepted Accepted 

American Libraries 150-200 750 8-13% 7% 
Bull. of the Med. Lib. Assn. 90 40 44 75 
Catholic Library World 30 7 33 28.5 
Collection Building 50 20 40 60 
College & Research Libraries 100 100 35 35-40 
Information Processing & 85 95 29 40-50 

Management 
Information Tech. & Libs. 75-100 20 c. 60 70 
Journal of Academic 100-150 110 13-30 45 

Librarianship 
Journal of Educ. for Library 45-55 14 29-44 20 

& Information Science 
Journal of Government 20 60 60 35 

Information* 
Journal of the American 75 84 67 65 

Society for Information Sci. 
Journal of Youth Services 50-60 21 25-60 57 

& Libraries 
Libraries & Culture** 45 26 36 58 
Library & Archival Security 6-10 13 30-83 85 
Library & Information 30-40 50 30-53 50 

Science Research 
Library Quarterly c. 54 46 24 26 
Library Resources 41 38 32 83 

& Technical Services 
Medical Reference Services 12 15 42 73 

Quarterly 
Microform Review 3 6-8 100 100 
Online 60 10 33 5 
Public Libraries c: 40 30 20 56 
Public Library Quarterly 30 10 67 90 
RSR : Reference Services Review 10-20 20 50-100 70 
Research Strategies 75 22 32 68.2 
Resource Sharing and 10-15 14 c.90 80 

Information Networks 
RQ 58 40 31 66 
School Library Journal 300 284 10 11 
School Library Media Quarterly 35 c. 60 38-43 c.20 
Science & Technology Libraries 5-10 20-30 40-100 50 
Special Libraries 25 34 48-52 61 

*Title at the time of Budd's survey was Government Publications Review. 
**Title at the time of Budd's survey was Journal of Library History. 



372 College & Research Libraries July 1996 

TABLE3 
Comparison of Manuscript Acceptance Rates 
(O'Connor & Van Orden~ and Via Surveis} 

Journal Title O'Connor & Via# of O'Connor & Via% of 
Van Orden# Unsolic. Van Orden% Unsolic. 

Unsolic. Mss. Mss. Unsolic. Mss. 
Received Received Accepted Accepted 

American Archivist 40 30 50 50 
American Libraries 200 750 5 7 
Bulletin of the Medical Library 95 40 50 75 

Association 
Catholic Library World 30 7 20 28.5 
College & Research Libraries 135 100 25 35-40 
Hom Book Magazine 100 c. 50 10 10 
Information Processing & 70 95 60 40-50 

Management 
Information Technology & Libraries* 50 20 40 70 
Inter. Journal of Micrographics 15 12 95 90 

& Optical Technology+ 
Journal of Academic Librarianship 150 110 24 45 
Journal of Education for Library 150 14 10 20 

& Information Sciencet 
Journal of the Amer. Society for 75 84 50 65 

Information Science 
Journal of Youth Services in Libs. :l: 50 21 13 57 
Libraries & Culture§ 55 26 30 58 
Library Quarterly 85 46 15 26 
Library Res. & Tech. Services 40 38 50 83 
Microform Review 10 6-8 80 100 
Notes 14 9 40 33 
RQ 100 40 20 66 
School Library Journal 300 284 10 11 
School Library Media Quarterly# 20 c.60 3 20 
Special Libraries 170 34 49 61 

*Title (at the time of O'Connor & Van Orden 's survey) was Journal of Library Automation. 
+Title was Journal of Micrographics. 
tTitle was Journal of Education for Librarians hip. 
:!:Title was Top of the News. 
§Title was Journal of Library History, Philosophy and Comparative Librarianship. 
~itle was School Media Quarterly. 

individual journals has decreased since 
Budd's report, whereas acceptance rates 
have risen. This finding seems to support 
the idea that the continuing expansion 
of new journal titles has meant that au-
thors have many more choices of publish-
ing outlets. This may be a contributing 

factor to the higher acceptance rates for 
unsolicited manuscripts. Another factor 
for lower submission rates could be the 
rapid phenomenon of electronic com-
munication, including listservs, e-jour-
nals, and other outlets for professional 
writing. 



A comparison of twenty-two titles in-
cluded in the present study and the 1978 
study by O'Connor and Van Orden is pre-
sented in table 3. This table shows a 
marked difference in numbers of manu-
scripts submitted and their acceptance 
rates between the 1978 survey and the 
present one. Interestingly, for a number 
of the refereed titles covered by both the 
O'Connor and Van Orden study and the 
present survey, the decline in numbers of 
manuscripts submitted and the rise in ac-
ceptance rates is notable. Bulletin of the 
Medical Library Association, College & Re-
search Libraries, Information Technology & 
Libraries, Journal of Academic Librarianship, 
Journal of Education for Library & Informa-
tion Science, Libraries & Culture, Library 
Quarterly, Library Resources & Technical 
Services, RQ, School Library Media Quar-
terly, and Special Libraries all show a de-
crease in numbers of manuscripts re-
ceived and an increase in the acceptance 
rate of unsolicited articles between the 
1978 survey and the present one. 

The various methods that journals em-
ploy to review manuscripts are displayed 
in table 4. The information in table 4 
shows that a large number of library and 
information science journals employ 
some type of referee process. The journals 
that utilize a blind external review pro-
cess would only include those journals 
listed under the category "External refer-
ees who do not know the author's name 
decide." (Twenty-seven journals fit that 
criterion in this study.) However, it is cer-
tainly worth noting that the instructions 
to authors provided by some of the most 
prestigious journals in the field indicate 
that manuscript review is blind, but is 
most often performed by members of the 
editorial board, rather than external re-
viewers. 17 Presumably, editorial board 
members are chosen for their expertise in 
the field, are well versed in the aims and 
scope of a given journal, and are well 
qualified to judge manuscripts where 
author names are removed. There are 
advantages for editors in having edito-

Publishing in the Journal Literature 373 

rial board members review manuscripts, 
including sharing a vision of the purpose 
of a given journal, preferred writing style, 
and timeliness of the review process. If 
the term refereed journal is more broadly 
defined to include blind review by edito-
rial board members (six titles in this 
study), then thirty-three of the sixty-eight 
journals covered by this survey could be 
considered refereed. 

It is important that journal editors pro-
vide prospective authors with a clear 
statement of the scope and aims of a par-
ticular journal, and with instructions to 
authors that include a detailed descrip-
tion of the manuscript review process. 
This information should be published 
within the pages of each journal at least 
once for each volume. The frequent pub-
lication of this information is mutually 
beneficial for editors and prospective 
authors. Inclusion of this material in a 
journal should prevent editors from 
having to review at least some pieces 
that either are clearly out of scope or 
do not conform to the journal's stylis-
tic requirements. For prospective au-
thors, such information can save a lot of 
time and frustration. The majority of jour-
nals (fifty-two of sixty-eight) included in 
this study do provide at least some type 
of instruction to authors within the jour-
nal itself. Unfortunately, some of these in-
structions are neither very detailed nor 
very helpful. For example, simply stating 
that "all manuscripts are refereed" with-
out any explanation of the process is not 
really useful. Or stating that a ''blind" 
process is used, but not indicating that 
blind copies must be submitted with a 
separate author I title page seems less 
than helpful. Journals that include clear, 
complete instructions to authors and that 
could serve as examples for editors of 
other journals to emulate include: Ameri-
can Archivist, College & Research Libraries, 
Government Information Quarterly, Journal 
of Academic Librarianship, Journal of Edu-
cation for Library and Information Science, 
andRQ. 



374 College & Research Libraries July 1996 

TABLE4 
Methods of Manuscript Review 

Journal Solicits All Manuscripts 
Acquisitions Librarian 
Library Trends 
Reference Librarian 

Journal Accepts Unsolicited 
Manuscripts 

• Editor alone decides 
The Bottom Line 
International Journal of Microgra-

phics and Optical Technology 
Journal of Information Ethics 
Microform Review 
Public Library Quarterly 
Voice of Youth Advocates 

• Editor decides with other staff 
American Libraries 
CD-ROM Professional 
The Horn Book Magazine 
Library Administration and 

Management 
Library Mosaics 
Popular Culture in Libraries 
Rural Libraries 
School Library Journal 

• Editor and editorial board decide 
Bulletin of the Medical Library Assoc.* 
Collection Building 
Journal of Business & Finance 

Librarians hip* 
Journal of Library Administration 
Library & Archival Security 
Medical Reference Services Quarterly* 
Music Reference Services Quarterly 
Public & Access Services Quarterly 
RSR: Reference Services Review* 
Research Strategies* 
Science & Technology Libraries 
Special Libraries* 

Journal of the Amer. Soc. for Inf Science 
Judaica Librarianship 

• External referees who do not know the 
author's name decide 

American Archivist 
Art Documentation 
Canadian Journal of Inf & Library 

Science 
Catholic Library Worldt 
Collection Managementt 
College & Research Libraries* 
Government Information Quarterly 
Information Services & Uset.§ 
Information Technology & Libraries 
International Information & Library Rev. t.+.§ 
Journal of Academic Librarianship 
Journal of Educ. for Library & Inf Sci. t 
Journal of Government Information 
Journal of Religious & Theological 

Informationt 
Journal of Youth Services in Libraries 
Libraries & Culture 
Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theoryt 
Library & Information Science Research* 
Library Quarterly*·t·* 
Library Resources & Technical Services* ·* 
Microcomputers for Information 

Management* 
Primary Sources & Original Works* 
Rare Books and Manuscripts Librarianship 
RQ 
School Library Media Quarterly 
Serials Review*'* 
Urban Academic Librarian 

• Combination of methods are used 
Database. 
Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document 

Delivery & Information Supply 
Library Hi Tech 

• External referees who know the author's name Online 
decide 

Against the Grain 
Information Processing & Management 
Journal of Information Science 

Notes 
Public Libraries*·§ • 
Resource Sharing and Information Networks 

*Review is blind, but may be by a combination of editorial board members and external reviewers. 
tsome manuscripts may be rejected by the editor without being sent for review if out of scope or poorly written. 
*Editor (sometimes with editorial board) makes final decision based on reviewers recommendations. 
§Editor occasionally accepts a manuscript w/o external review. 



' 
Conclusions 
The variety of responses received to the 
questionnaire raised issues that had not 
been anticipated. For example, there 
are journal editors who indicate they 
use a referee process but note that they 
are not always consistent in their re-
view. For example, one editor commented: 
"Some are obviously of high enough qual-
ity for me to decide." Another editor stated: 
"If a well-known author sends us some-
thing time sensitive we will use [it], but 
this is done sparingly." Another jour-
nal uses various methods of review, 
depending on the topic, type of article, 
etc. The problem with this type of in-
consistency is that an author in his or 
her vita may list a given article as be-
ing in a refereed journal when, in fact, 
the article may not have been subjected 
to a referee process. 

Even when a journal consistently 
employs a referee process, there are 
other concerns. Glogoff, reporting on 
his survey of referees for scholarly jour-
nals in librarianship, found that for 50 
percent of the referees, no evaluation 
criteria form was provided for manu-
script review. 18 Another concern is that 
although articles appearing in refereed 
journals are often given more weight 
when being judged by peer review bod-
ies in academic libraries, these articles 
do not necessarily qualify as research 
articles. A study by Lois Buttlar 
showed that the majority of article s 
published in even the core journals for 
the field are not research based. In her 
analysis, Buttlar found that in the six-
teen journals she studied, all of which 
publish at least some research-based 
pieces, 1,725 articles were published 
between January 1987 and June 1989, 
but only 500 met Buttlar's criteria for 
the research-based category. Buttlar de-
fined a research-based article as follows : 

one in which a formal research 
methodology was used in order to 
collect and/ or analyze data (e.g., 

Publishing in the Journal Literature 375 

survey or interview, experiment, 
content analysis, statistical analysis 
of existing data, development of lin-
ear programming or other math-
ematical model, case study, histori-
cal study with extensive primary 
and secondary sources, citation 
analysis or bibliometrics, and an 
observation/ field study) as op-
posed to an opinion paper, descrip-
tion of the status quo, editorial, book 
review, or news/announcements. 19 

Prospective authors in the field of li-
brary and information science would be 
wise to carefully review manuscript sub-
mission information for a given journal 
before submitting a piece of writing. If an 
author's goal is to communicate and to 
have a wide audience for the work, he or 
she should consider the journal's index-
ing coverage, citation ranking, and per-
ceived prestige. First-time authors could 
gain valuable insight by reading an edi-
torial in the Bulletin of the Medical Library 
Association titled "Why Authors Fail." In 
it, Trudy K. Landwirth gives an analysis 
of referee criticisms for manuscripts re-
jected betweenApril1988 and June 1990.20 

Also, an article by editor Beryl K. Smith, 
in Art Documentation, provides much 
helpful advice to budding authors. 21 

The survey reported on here, as well 
as earlier surveys, provides evidence that 
manuscript review processes for journals 
in the field of library and information sci-
ence are difficult to describe consistently 
and reliably. An interesting recent article 
by William K. Black and Joan M. Leysen 
stresses the need for clear performance 
criteria for academic librarians. In an ap-
pendix to their article, they provide some 
useful factors to consider in judging the 
merit of publications by library faculty. 
Acceptance of a given work through a 
referee process is but one of twenty-two 
factors listed. 22 

Perhaps it is time for academics to' re-
think the way that scholarly writing is 
evaluated in terms of faculty promotion 



376 College & Research Libraries I July 1996 

and tenure decisions. The appearance of 
an article in an externally refereed jour-
nal should be but one of many factors con-
sidered in evaluating the published work. 
The quality of a given piece of writing, 

its contribution to the knowledge base of 
the field, its readability, its timeliness, and 
its accessibility through indexing cover-
age are among the factors that should be 
considered. 

Notes 

1. Eric Moon, "The Library Press," Library Journal94 (Nov. 15, 1969): 4104. 
2.1bid. 
3. W. Boyd Rayward, "Scholarly Publishing in Journals of Library and Information Science," 

Australian Library Journal39 (May 1990): 132-33. 
4. John M. Budd, "The Literature of Academic Libraries: An Analysis," College & Research 

Libraries 52 (May 1991): 290-95; Belen Altuna Esteiber and F. W. Lancaster, "Ranking of Journals 
in Library and Information Science by Research and Teaching Relatedness," Serials Librarian 23 
(1992): 1-10; David F. Kohl and Charles H. Davis, "Ratings of Journals by ARL Library Directors 
and Deans of Library and Information Science Schools," College & Research Libraries 46 (Jan. 
1985): 40-47; Renee Tjoumas and Virgil L.P. Blake, "Faculty Perceptions of the Professional Jour-
nal Literature: Quo Vadis?" Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 33 (summer 
1992): 173-94; Mary T. Kim, "A Comparison of Three Measures of Journal Status: Influence 
Weight, Importance-Index, and Measure of Standing," Library & Information Science Research 14 
(Jan./Mar. 1992): 75-96; Mary T. Kim, "Ranking of Journals in Library and Information Science: 
A Comparison of Perceptual and Citations-based Measures," College & Research Libraries 52 (Jan. 
1991): 24-37. 

5. Jesse H. Shera, Introduction to Library Science (Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1976), 
131-35; David F. Kohl and Charles H. Davis, "Ratings of Journals," 41; Stuart Glogoff, "Review-
ing the Gatekeepers: A Survey of Referees of Library Journals," Journal of the American Society for 
Information Science 39 (Nov. 1988): 401 

6. Josette Anne Lyders, Journal and Newsletter Editing (Littleton Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 
1993): 89. 

7. Margaret Stieg Dalton, "Refereeing of Sch9larly Works for Primary Publishing," Annual 
Review of Information Science and Technology 30 (1995): 239. 

8. Budd, "The Literature of Academic Libraries," 293; Kim, "Ranking of Journals," 28. 
9. Kohl and Davis, "Ratings of Journals," 40-47. 
10. Daniel O'Connor and Phyllis Van Orden, "Getting into Print," College & Research Libraries 

39 (Sept. 1978): 393. 
11. Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory (New Providence, N.J.: R. R. Bowker, 1994). 
12. Ibid. 
13. Molly Skeen, Library Periodicals: An Annual Guide for Subscribers, Authors, and Publicists 

(Alameda, Calif.: Periodical Guides Pub., 1994). 
14. Carol F. Schroeder and Gloria Roberson, Guide to Publishing Opportunities for Librarians 

(New York: Haworth Pr., 1995), 211 . 
15. Lyders, Journal and Newsletter Editing, 90-91. 
16. John Budd, "Publication in Library & Information Science: The State of the Literature," 

Library Journal113 (Sept. 1, 1988): 125-31; O'Connor and Van Orden, "Getting into Print," 389-
96. 

17. "About College & Research Libraries," College & Research Libraries 56 (Jan. 1995): 92. 
18. Glogoff, "Reviewing the Gatekeepers," 405. 
19. Lois Buttlar, "Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature: Content and Authorship," Col-

lege & Research Libraries 52 (Jan. 1991): 40-41. 
20. Trudy K. Landwirth, "Why Authors Fail," Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 79 

(July 1991): 337-38. 
21. Beryl K. Smith, "The Journal Article-Conception to Publication," Art Documentation (win-

ter 1993): 159-62. 
22. William K. Black and Joan M. Leysen, "Scholarship and the Academic Librarian," College 

& Research Libraries 55 (May 1994): 240-41.