No abstract

Two weeks prior to the 2017 ALA Annual Conference in Orlando, Florida, a hate-inspired mass murder occurred at the city’s Pulse night club. As a response to this horrific event, many meetings, discussions, and programs in Orlando refocused to the discuss diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts of ALA. The shock and horror of this tragedy gave more immediacy to initiatives already underway in ALA, and it inspired ACRL’s Publications Coordinating Committee (PCC) to make efforts to better integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion into the committee’s 2016 to 2017 work plan. This was but one small way for the ACRL publications to contribute to a positive environment, and to denounce the kind of hateful thoughts and heinous actions taken by many individuals in our country who continue to marginalize and oppress people and their communities.

describes several principles for appropriate use of information, including "Information has value." "Information has value" in operation means giving credit to the original ideas of authors and recognizing "the skills, time, and effort needed to produce knowledge." College & Research Libraries wants to align itself with this principle by creating transparency around which authors contribute what valuable roles to its publications. Given the increasing number of coauthored articles in scholarly publishing, teasing apart who is responsible for what is a growing task in the evaluation of scholarly work. The journal, its editors, and the editorial board are making a concerted effort to model these values, while still maintaining high standards and impartiality. We are also seeking to evolve the journal and be responsive to the climate around ethics, bias, and openness-and the editorial board members have been heavily engaged in this effort. Hand in hand with this priority to bring transparency to the reviewer process and decision making, there has also been discussion about how to advocate for more transparency in author roles and assigning credit. From my perspective as editor, more clarity and openness around the contributors to paper submissions may provide a better understanding of the project described, but also a more accurate picture of how individuals contributed. Having a model that is more inclusive about contributor roles and the expectations of authorship would also minimize the questions or issues that periodically arise with submissions. I have discussed some of these issues and the potential solutions in previous editorials. 1 Adoption of author role guidelines can only encourage more thoughtful discussion with authors that will reduce the possibility of confusion or conflict.Authorship, contributorship, and acknowledgements are more controversial than might be assumed. In higher education, authorship has long been the currency for promotion and has prompted issues from author disputes to accusations of research misconduct. Authorship seems very finite-and in some views, plays to the elitism and marginalization that has become a widespread complaint in academia.Following the ongoing discussion that the Board has had about transparency and authorship, there was recently a decision to jump into the author role issue more actively. The CRediT taxonomy 2 has been at the center of many conversations (including a high-level recognition from NISO 3 ) and was used as the jumpoff point for this effort. The Consortia Advancing

An effective abstract is 75 to 100 words and should include the background and motivation for the study. It should also articulate a problem statement and describe the methodology, quantitative or qualitative, that was used in the research. It should briefly mention results and allude to the discussion and outcome. Lastly, it should convey the implications to professional research and/or practice. Note: there should be a separate file with the title page including author information (Name, Affiliation, Email and contact information and any acknowledgements). Please do not include this information in the paper submission as it may reveal identifying information and undermine the blind peer review.

Innovation, specifically innovation in information technology and computing systems, has, in my mind, changed the world more quickly than any other type of innovation we've seen. Whether or not it has improved the world may be subject to debate, but it has definitely sped the rate of change to a pace that is hard to fathom. One of the most beneficial aspects of information technology is not just the access to information itself but the fact that it gives everyone a voice (provided they have the access in terms of infrastructure and a political climate that allows civil liberties). Certainly there are plenty of examples where social media has promoted discourse on equity and democracy, shared governance, and social justice, and has driven public opinion and even public policy to be more democratic. Thinking about libraries and their place in providing access to this information, technology innovations have removed the bindings from the traditional books previously housed in our libraries by allowing information to be free from the format and the physical and temporal limitations. Ebooks, or more broadly, electronic information, provide access regardless of the physical location of the reader. Yet, there are still plenty of issues of equity in terms of access to technology or filtering of information by government entities, information conglomerates, corporate and political interests, and foreign powers.