Author guidance

Holding your hand (just a little): guidance for novice authors

This guidance note attempts to cover the three formats an article may take. However, the focus is on the practice-based article, as the primary purpose of the journal is to nurture and grow young researchers by providing a space to share their practice - a place of comfort from which to launch their researcher-librarian trajectory.

First, a practice article, must not be purely descriptive. It should be supported by, and/or engage critically with, the literature. The article must provide an analytical reflection on the service or practice, addressing what was done well, what requires improvement, and what the authors recommend as best practice. Where financial constraints constitute a stumbling block, these should be clearly articulated.

Secondly, a research article, must be grounded in an explicit research paradigm and include a clear methodology, data collection process, analysis, discussion, and conclusion. 

Finally, a literature review. This, too, must be analytical rather than descriptive, identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature and highlighting areas that require further attention or development. 

Guidance for PRACTICE ARTICLE

Writing an article in a Library and Information Science practice journal provides a structured means to critically examine a professional service or practice in response to an identified problem, gap, or institutional need. Such articles situate a specific service within its organisational and sectoral context, demonstrate its relevance to the profession, and engage the literature to frame assumptions, constraints, and competing approaches. By moving beyond description to analysis, the article evaluates purpose, design, implementation, effectiveness, and limitations, including financial, staffing, and systemic constraints. This reflective and evidence-informed approach enables authors to articulate lessons learned, assess alignment with or divergence from the literature, and offer context-sensitive recommendations that contribute to professional knowledge, service improvement, and the articulation of best practice in LIS.

Introduction: guiding questions

The introduction of a practice article establishes the context and problem that prompted the practice (service), explains its relevance to the profession, and situates it within broader institutional or sectoral challenges. It clearly states the purpose and scope of the article, briefly signals the practice-based framing, and outlines what the reader can expect in the sections that follow.

Note: the author needs to be discerning when addressing the questions below while drafting the respective section of the manuscript – this would include the author addressing only one or two of the questions.

  • What service, intervention, or practice is being examined, and in what institutional or professional context was it implemented?
  • What problem, gap, or need prompted the development or review of this practice?
  • Why is this practice significant for the profession, sector, or community it serves?
  • What assumptions, constraints, or contextual factors (institutional, financial, policy-related, or systemic) shaped the practice?
  • What is the purpose of the article: evaluation, reflection, improvement, or recommendation of best practice?
  • What are the key questions or focal issues guiding the analysis of the practice?
  • What is the scope and limitation of the practice being discussed (e.g. scale, timeframe, stakeholders involved)?

Literature review: guiding questions

The purpose of a literature review is to establish context, identify gaps and debates, avoid duplication, and position your work within existing knowledge, while justifying its originality, relevance, and contribution.

  • What bodies of literature are relevant to this practice (e.g. professional practice, policy, theory, models, or comparable case studies)?
  • How does existing literature conceptualise or frame this type of service or practice?
  • What dominant approaches, models, or best practices are identified in the literature?
  • What critiques, limitations, or debates exist within the literature regarding these approaches?
  • What evidence exists on the effectiveness, sustainability, or impact of similar practices?
  • How does the literature address resource constraints, including financial, staffing, or infrastructural limitations?
  • What gaps or underexplored areas in the literature does this practice engage with or expose?
  • How does the literature inform the evaluative criteria used to assess what worked well and what requires improvement?
  • In what ways does the current practice align with, adapt, challenge, or extend the literature?
  • How does engagement with the literature justify the relevance and contribution of this practice article?

Analysis of the service or practice: guiding questions

Note that an analysis is necessary to move beyond description; it allows the author to critically assess the effectiveness and limitations of the practice (or service), demonstrate its value and impact, and generate evidence-informed insights that can guide improvement and inform best practice in LIS contexts.

Keep the review of the literature on your radar all the time and dip into it to support/corroborate assertions and such.

Purpose and design

  • What were the founding objectives of the practice (or service), and to what extent were they achieved?
  • How was the practice (or service) designed, and what professional, or policy frameworks informed its design?
  • Which user needs or institutional priorities did the service seek to address, and how were these identified?

Implementation and delivery

  • How was the practice (or service) implemented, and where did implementation diverge from the original plan, or did it divert?
  • What roles did different stakeholders (e.g. staff, users, partners) play in delivering the practice (or service)?
  • What operational processes worked effectively, and why?
  • What challenges emerged during implementation, and how were they addressed?

Performance and effectiveness

  • What evidence is available to assess the effectiveness or impact of the service (e.g. usage data, feedback, outcomes)?
  • To what extent did the service meet user expectations or improve user experience?
  • What indicators were used (formally or informally) to judge success (partial of complete) or failure (partial)?

Constraints and limitations

  • What constraints affected the scope, quality, or sustainability of the service? – finance, staffing, skills, infrastructure, or time limitations
  • What trade-offs were made due to resource constraints, and with what consequences?

Critical reflection

  • What aspects of the service were particularly successful, and what factors contributed to this success?
  • What aspects of the service underperformed or failed to meet expectations, and why?
  • How do these strengths and weaknesses compare with those reported in the literature? 

Improvement and best practice

  • What changes or refinements are necessary to improve the service?
  • What aspects of the service are context-dependent and may not be transferable?
  • Which elements of the service can be recommended as best practice, and under what conditions?
  • What lessons learned would be most valuable to other practitioners implementing similar services?

Guidance for RESEARCH ARTICLE

Introduction

Provide the background and context for the paper, clearly explaining why the work was undertaken and the significance of the study and the rationale for conducting the study.

Literature Review

Present an overview of relevant literature, summarising key prior work. Identify gaps, limitations, or areas of debate in the existing body of knowledge and clearly indicate how the article responds to or advances this scholarship.

Aim/s

State the aims or objectives of the paper. Where relevant, include the research question(s) or focus areas that frame the work.

Method/s

Describe how the study was conducted. This section should provide sufficient detail to ensure transparency and enable replication, including how data or sources were identified, selected, and analysed. The description should be clear and focused, avoiding unnecessary detail.

Results

Present the main findings clearly and concisely. This may include empirical results, thematic analyses, or synthesized insights derived from the literature.

Discussion

Interpret the findings in relation to the wider literature or broader issues arising from the work. Discuss limitations, potential biases, or methodological challenges, and consider how these may have influenced the results and how they could be addressed in future work.

Conclusion

Summarise what was undertaken and what was discovered. No new information should be introduced. The conclusion should reflect on how the aims of the paper were achieved and, where appropriate, outline implications for practice and directions for further research.

Item

Practice article

Research article

Primary goal

Improve practice

Advance knowledge

Evidence

Reflective and evaluative

Empirical and systematic

Literature

Selective

Comprehensive

Theory

Not necessary

Expected

Impact

Practical

Conceptual and generalisable

Focus

Usefulness

Rigour and originality

 

Guidance for LITERATURE REVIEW ARTICLE

A literature review article in an LIS practice journal synthesises and critically analyses existing scholarship to inform, evaluate, and improve professional services or practices. Its purpose is not to summarise literature exhaustively, but to interrogate how current evidence, models, and debates shape practice, expose gaps or constraints, and provide actionable insights for practitioners operating in real-world institutional contexts.

  1. Introduction: framing the practice problem

The introduction should establish why the review is necessary for practice, not merely for theory.

  • Clearly identify the service, intervention, or area of practice under review and its relevance to LIS.
  • Articulate the problem, gap, or tension in practice that prompted the review (e.g. inconsistent models, resource constraints, unclear impact).
  • Situate the issue within broader institutional, sectoral, or systemic contexts.
  • State the purpose and scope of the review (e.g. inform service design, identify best practice).
  • Indicate the practice-based lens and outline how the article is structured.
  1. Literature review: analytical engagement

The literature review section should be the core of the article, demonstrating critical synthesis rather than description.

          Defining the literature base

  • Identify relevant bodies of literature (professional practice, policy, theory, frameworks, case studies).
  • Justify inclusion and exclusion criteria in relation to practice relevanceConceptual and practice frameworks
  • Analyse how the literature conceptualises or frames the service or practice.
  • Identify dominant models, typologies, or approaches used in LIS and adjacent fields.Critical evaluation of approaches
  • Examine strengths, limitations, and debates surrounding existing models.
  • Highlight areas of consensus, contradiction, or unresolved tension.

         Evidence of effectiveness and impact

  • Assess what evidence exists regarding outcomes, sustainability, and user impact.
  • Distinguish between aspirational claims and empirically supported practices.

         Constraints and context

  • Analyse how the literature addresses financial, staffing, infrastructural, and policy constraints.
  • Pay attention to context—particularly under-represented or resource-constrained settings.

          Gaps and underexplored areas

  • Identify gaps, silences, or limitations in the literature that affect practice.
  • Explicitly link these gaps to challenges faced by practitioners.
  1. Practice-facing synthesis and implications

Rather than a traditional “discussion,” practice journals expect a practice-oriented synthesis.

  • Draw together insights that inform service design, evaluation, or improvement.
  • Propose evaluative criteria or principles derived from the literature.
  • Identify which practices are transferable and which are context-dependent.
  • Clarify how the literature can guide decision-making under real constraints.
  1. Contribution to practice

Conclude by clearly articulating the article’s value to the profession.

  • Explain how the review advances understanding of the practice area.
  • Identify implications for practitioners, managers, and policy-makers.
  • Indicate how the review can support evidence-informed, equitable, and sustainable LIS services.
  • Where appropriate, signal areas for future research or practice-based inquiry. 
  1. Conclusion

The conclusion synthesises the analysis into clear, practice-relevant insights that extend beyond description or critique. It draws together key findings, reflects on their implications for professional services and practice, and translates evidence and reflection into actionable guidance. In a practice-focused article, the conclusion reinforces the value of the analysis by articulating lessons learned, acknowledging limitations and contextual constraints, and identifying realistic directions for improvement or future development. This ensures the article contributes meaningfully to professional knowledge, supports evidence-informed decision-making, and advances best practice within the LIS community.

Consulted: