[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-598791-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-598791-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","volume-8-issue-1-content-analysis-of-papers-submitted-to-communications-in-information-literacy-2014","Volume 8 - Issue 1 - Content Analysis of Papers Submitted to Communications in Information Literacy - 2014","","The article presents a content analysis of papers submitted to the open access journal Communications in Information Literacy during 2007–2013. Using a statistically significant sample, it examines manuscript submission characteristics, authorship patterns, reviewer evaluations, and editorial decisions, with special attention to major criticisms in reviews of rejected papers. Results are compared with earlier research, suggesting increased collaborative authorship and a shift toward more practice-based literature, alongside concerns about potential skill deterioration among LIS authors preparing scholarly papers.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/volume-8-issue-1-content-analysis-of-papers-submitted-to-communications-in-information-literacy-2014/598791/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/volume-8-issue-1-content-analysis-of-papers-submitted-to-communications-in-information-literacy-2014/598791.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"awa","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":30},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What journal and time span does the study analyze?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The study analyzes papers submitted to Communications in Information Literacy from 2007 through 2013.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"Which aspects of submissions does the author evaluate?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"It evaluates authorship and manuscript submission characteristics, reviewer evaluations, and editorial decisions, emphasizing criticisms in reviews of rejected papers.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What main trends do the findings suggest?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"The findings suggest a trend toward collaborative authorship and a possible move toward more practice-based literature, alongside indications of worsening skills needed for LIS scholarly paper preparation.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},598791,1792448553,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":30,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":117,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":103},3985747858093,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","Volume 8, Issue 1, 2014  \n[SPECIAL FEATURE]  \nCONTENT ANALYSIS OF PAPERS SUBMITTED TO COMMUNICATIONS IN INFORMATION LITERACY, 2007-2013  \nChristopher V. Hollister University at Buffalo  \nABSTRACT  \nThe author conducted a content analysis of papers submitted to the journal, Communications in Information Literacy, from the years 2007-2013. The purpose was to investigate and report on the overall quality characteristics of a statistically significant sample of papers submitted to a single-topic, open access, library and information science (LIS) journal. Characteristics of manuscript submissions, authorship, reviewer evaluations, and editorial decisions were illuminated to provide context; particular emphasis was given to the analysis of major criticisms found in reviewer evaluations of rejected papers. Overall results were compared to previously published research. The findings suggest a trend in favor of collaborative authorship, and a possible trend toward a more practice-based literature. The findings also suggest a possible deterioration in some of the skills that are required of LIS authors relative to the preparation of scholarly papers. The author discusses potential implications for authors and the disciplinary literature, recommends directions for future research, and where possible, provides recommendations for the benefit of the greater community of LIS scholars.  \nHollister, Content Analysis of Papers Submitted to CIL Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014  \nINTRODUCTION  \nIn a somewhat dated study concerning the quality and value of the professional journal literature, Hernon and Metoyer-Duran (1992) asserted the following: “If library and information science is to advance as a scholarly field, and further justify the position of its programs within college and university graduate schools, the quality of the research, theoretical, and scholarly literature of the field must increase” (p. 501) . Since the time of that assertion, the professional literature has evolved considerably; it has been expanded to accommodate new areas of research and practice, and it has been adapted to the wider possibilities of electronic publishing with a characteristically unique embrace of open access. Given these changes, and the current environment in which library practitioners and educators are increasingly pressured to demonstrate their value in more tangible ways, it would seem that Hernon and Metoyer-Duran’s contention relative to the literature is truer and even more poignant today.  \nPublished research on the actual quality and value of LIS journal literature is sparse. The studies devoted to this topic are variously noteworthy to the extent that they demonstrate a thread of relative inquiry, they provide some useful research methods, they include modestly representative samples, and they yield some potentially generalizable findings. However, these studies are also dated; none of them address the state of LIS journal literature as it pertains to recent disciplinary discourse, nordo they address the literature in the emergent context of an open access publishing environment. It should be recognized that the current literature does include numerous discussions of how authors might improve the quality and value  \nof their research and writing, but despite the fact that those works occasionally appear in peer-reviewed journals, they are primarily anecdotal or editorial in nature: that is, they are not research-based. For these reasons, the author of this paper devised a study in which the quality characteristics of actual LIS manuscript submissions could be illuminated. And for the purpose of this paper, the term “quality characteristic” is defined as a characteristic—in this instance, with scholarly papers—that can be identified and evaluated for the purpose of judging the overall quality and value relative to the greater body of professional literature. The objective of the study was to investigate and report on the ov","cbCaie2b92K0Z1A9","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaie2b92K0Z1A9","pdf",479101,"English","# Introduction\n## Research purpose and quality characteristics\n## Research questions and study focus\n# Method and positioning\n## Content analysis of reviewer evaluations\n## Rejected papers and reviewer-driven deficiencies\n## Related reviewer metrics","[{\"question\":\"What journal and time span does the study analyze?\",\"answer\":\"The study analyzes papers submitted to Communications in Information Literacy from 2007 through 2013.\"},{\"question\":\"Which aspects of submissions does the author evaluate?\",\"answer\":\"It evaluates authorship and manuscript submission characteristics, reviewer evaluations, and editorial decisions, emphasizing criticisms in reviews of rejected papers.\"},{\"question\":\"What main trends do the findings suggest?\",\"answer\":\"The findings suggest a trend toward collaborative authorship and a possible move toward more practice-based literature, alongside indications of worsening skills needed for LIS scholarly paper preparation.\"}]","Volume 8 - Issue 1 - Content Analysis of Papers Submitted to Communications in Information Literacy - 2014 | PDF",1792087604]