Pub Date : 2025-08-20DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103121
Adam Clemons
As academic libraries seek to expand support for digital scholarship, soliciting input from users is critical. Traditional strategies for assessing user needs and expectations have assumed shared understandings across academic disciplines about how digital scholarship is used and defined, leading to evaluation methods that target user groups based on status rather than disciplinary affiliation. While this traditional approach has provided useful feedback to libraries, the results are not always accurate and dependable. To address this issue, the following paper reports on a discipline-specific approach to assessing user needs and expectations that accounts for disciplinary-differences in how digital scholarship is used and understood. The results, which are more accurate and dependable, can be used to address discipline-specific user needs while also facilitating better engagement with targeted user groups to facilitate and develop new and improved library digital scholarship services, resulting in increased user interest and participation.
{"title":"Navigating a house with many rooms: A discipline-based approach to assessing digital scholarship","authors":"Adam Clemons","doi":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103121","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103121","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As academic libraries seek to expand support for digital scholarship, soliciting input from users is critical. Traditional strategies for assessing user needs and expectations have assumed shared understandings across academic disciplines about how digital scholarship is used and defined, leading to evaluation methods that target user groups based on status rather than disciplinary affiliation. While this traditional approach has provided useful feedback to libraries, the results are not always accurate and dependable. To address this issue, the following paper reports on a discipline-specific approach to assessing user needs and expectations that accounts for disciplinary-differences in how digital scholarship is used and understood. The results, which are more accurate and dependable, can be used to address discipline-specific user needs while also facilitating better engagement with targeted user groups to facilitate and develop new and improved library digital scholarship services, resulting in increased user interest and participation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47762,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Librarianship","volume":"51 5","pages":"Article 103121"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144863973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more embedded in academic and professional settings, assessing and improving AI literacy among current and future information professionals is increasingly important. However, research in this area within Library and Information Science (LIS) remains exploratory, and more evidence is needed to guide training and curriculum design. This study assesses AI literacy among LIS students and librarians, highlighting key areas and groups for targeted training.
To this end, the AILIS 1.0 questionnaire was developed from existing AI literacy tools in higher education and adapted to the LIS context with expert input. It was administered to 163 respondents at the Complutense University of Madrid (Spain). Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were used to examine gender and group differences. To further validate the findings, three focus groups with LIS undergraduates were conducted.
Functioning, Ethics, and Evaluation emerged as core dimensions of AI literacy. Functioning scores correlated strongly with all other dimensions except self-assessed Usage. Overall, library professionals outperformed students, particularly in Ethics and Usage. However, students, especially first-years, reported higher self-efficacy despite lower performance, indicating a tendency to overestimate their AI literacy, as confirmed by focus groups.
The research underscores the need for educational strategies in AI literacy and greater involvement of educators and professionals. The higher AI literacy shown by librarians should encourage professionals to take more active roles in AI literacy training. Finally, results highlight the potential of AILIS 1.0 as a diagnostic tool, but also as a framework to evaluate AI literacy within LIS.
{"title":"AILIS 1.0: A new framework to measure AI literacy in library and information science (LIS)","authors":"Michela Montesi , Belén Álvarez Bornstein , Núria Bautista Puig , Manuel Blázquez Ochando , Alicia Sánchez Díez","doi":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103118","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103118","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more embedded in academic and professional settings, assessing and improving AI literacy among current and future information professionals is increasingly important. However, research in this area within Library and Information Science (LIS) remains exploratory, and more evidence is needed to guide training and curriculum design. This study assesses AI literacy among LIS students and librarians, highlighting key areas and groups for targeted training.</div><div>To this end, the AILIS 1.0 questionnaire was developed from existing AI literacy tools in higher education and adapted to the LIS context with expert input. It was administered to 163 respondents at the Complutense University of Madrid (Spain). Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were used to examine gender and group differences. To further validate the findings, three focus groups with LIS undergraduates were conducted.</div><div>Functioning, Ethics, and Evaluation emerged as core dimensions of AI literacy. Functioning scores correlated strongly with all other dimensions except self-assessed Usage. Overall, library professionals outperformed students, particularly in Ethics and Usage. However, students, especially first-years, reported higher self-efficacy despite lower performance, indicating a tendency to overestimate their AI literacy, as confirmed by focus groups.</div><div>The research underscores the need for educational strategies in AI literacy and greater involvement of educators and professionals. The higher AI literacy shown by librarians should encourage professionals to take more active roles in AI literacy training. Finally, results highlight the potential of AILIS 1.0 as a diagnostic tool, but also as a framework to evaluate AI literacy within LIS.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47762,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Librarianship","volume":"51 5","pages":"Article 103118"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144852036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-08-16DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103122
Aint Thin Zar Kyaw , Lihong Zhou
This study investigates the prioritisation of RDMS requirements from multi-stakeholder perspectives in Myanmar university libraries, employing the KANO model across four themes: RDM planning, research data collection, research data processing and analysis, and research data preservation and sharing. Data was collected from multi-stakeholders who are in four major university libraries in Myanmar, which are geographically distributed and research incentive nature. The findings reveal that all requirements vary in different priority level from multi-stakeholder perspectives. Six requirements were classified as “one-dimensional (O),” one as “attractive (A),” and the remaining as “indifferent (I).” Top priority requirements include specific and explicit RDM guidelines, access to open data resources, user-friendly access, information retrieval systems training, access to data analysis applications and secure research data storage methods. The study provides a framework for prioritising RDMS requirements based on multi-stakeholder perspectives, offering valuable insights for Myanmar university libraries and other developing areas initiating RDMS implementation. The results also have a global impact, informing the development of research support services and strategies for resource allocation within RDMS.
{"title":"User requirements prioritisation for research data management services (RDMS) in Myanmar university libraries: Multi-stakeholder perspectives using the KANO model","authors":"Aint Thin Zar Kyaw , Lihong Zhou","doi":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103122","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103122","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study investigates the prioritisation of RDMS requirements from multi-stakeholder perspectives in Myanmar university libraries, employing the KANO model across four themes: RDM planning, research data collection, research data processing and analysis, and research data preservation and sharing. Data was collected from multi-stakeholders who are in four major university libraries in Myanmar, which are geographically distributed and research incentive nature. The findings reveal that all requirements vary in different priority level from multi-stakeholder perspectives. Six requirements were classified as “one-dimensional (O),” one as “attractive (A),” and the remaining as “indifferent (I).” Top priority requirements include specific and explicit RDM guidelines, access to open data resources, user-friendly access, information retrieval systems training, access to data analysis applications and secure research data storage methods. The study provides a framework for prioritising RDMS requirements based on multi-stakeholder perspectives, offering valuable insights for Myanmar university libraries and other developing areas initiating RDMS implementation. The results also have a global impact, informing the development of research support services and strategies for resource allocation within RDMS.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47762,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Librarianship","volume":"51 5","pages":"Article 103122"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144852037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-08-15DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103120
A.R. Arya Asok , R.V. Rekha
Digitization in higher education has opened up exciting opportunities for easy access to a multitude of knowledge sources. These information centers are currently mostly distributed through educational websites. If web content isn't accessible, it denies equal access to information—a basic human right. Breaking these digital barriers is essential for a fair and inclusive academic environment. Persons with disabilities often encounter such barriers when they try to access information from digital resources. This study aims to evaluate the information accessibility status of the best Asian University library websites based on compliance with the WCAG 2.1 standard. The study population consists of the best 50 Asian Universities from Times Higher Education 2024 ranking data. The study employed Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) with the combination of WAVE and axe Dev tools. The study found that contrast errors, lack of text alternatives for non-text, missing form labels, etc., are major accessibility issues. And alarmingly, these websites fail to meet even the basic compliance standards established by WCAG. Furthermore, the Kruskal-Wallis test revealed p = 0.073 for WAVE and p = 0.198 for axe Dev, indicating no statistically significant link between website categories based on web performance score. These results underscore the urgent need for action to create an equitable, inclusive web environment.
{"title":"Digital inclusion in higher education: A web content accessibility evaluation of best Asian university library websites","authors":"A.R. Arya Asok , R.V. Rekha","doi":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103120","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103120","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Digitization in higher education has opened up exciting opportunities for easy access to a multitude of knowledge sources. These information centers are currently mostly distributed through educational websites. If web content isn't accessible, it denies equal access to information—a basic human right. Breaking these digital barriers is essential for a fair and inclusive academic environment. Persons with disabilities often encounter such barriers when they try to access information from digital resources. This study aims to evaluate the information accessibility status of the best Asian University library websites based on compliance with the WCAG 2.1 standard. The study population consists of the best 50 Asian Universities from Times Higher Education 2024 ranking data. The study employed Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) with the combination of WAVE and axe Dev tools. The study found that contrast errors, lack of text alternatives for non-text, missing form labels, etc., are major accessibility issues. And alarmingly, these websites fail to meet even the basic compliance standards established by WCAG. Furthermore, the Kruskal-Wallis test revealed <em>p</em> = 0.073 for WAVE and <em>p</em> = 0.198 for axe Dev, indicating no statistically significant link between website categories based on web performance score. These results underscore the urgent need for action to create an equitable, inclusive web environment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47762,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Librarianship","volume":"51 5","pages":"Article 103120"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144841962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-08-06DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103119
Sarah P.C. Dahlen, Joy Hopkins Camp
Equity gaps are disparities in educational outcomes and access to opportunities that are rooted in systemic inequities. Higher education has been attentive to equity gaps in course grades, grade point average, and graduation and retention rates, but less so to gaps in specific academic outcomes. This study investigates how equity gaps can be measured in information literacy, a core academic competency, by conducting a case study using rubric scores of student papers. Various measures of equity gaps are employed and evaluated to provide guidance for future work in this area. While no equity gaps were identified in this sample, considerations for each of the methods are discussed.
{"title":"Equity gaps in information literacy: A case study and methodological exploration","authors":"Sarah P.C. Dahlen, Joy Hopkins Camp","doi":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103119","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103119","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Equity gaps are disparities in educational outcomes and access to opportunities that are rooted in systemic inequities. Higher education has been attentive to equity gaps in course grades, grade point average, and graduation and retention rates, but less so to gaps in specific academic outcomes. This study investigates how equity gaps can be measured in information literacy, a core academic competency, by conducting a case study using rubric scores of student papers. Various measures of equity gaps are employed and evaluated to provide guidance for future work in this area. While no equity gaps were identified in this sample, considerations for each of the methods are discussed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47762,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Librarianship","volume":"51 5","pages":"Article 103119"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144781783","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-08-04DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103117
LeEtta Schmidt, Evan Fruehauf, Andrew Beman-Cavallaro
Libraries are at a critical moment to lead in AI literacy, but success doesn't demand starting from scratch. By building on familiar frameworks for information literacy, outreach, and instructional design, libraries can quickly and effectively meet the challenges of generative AI. This article showcases how one research-intensive university library leveraged existing strengths—through AI-focused guides, workshops, grants, and cross-campus partnerships—to embed AI literacy across its academic community. Rather than reinventing the wheel, the library expanded proven methods to support ethical, critical, and informed engagement with AI technologies. This case study offers a practical, scalable model for any library seeking to empower users and stake a leadership role in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.
{"title":"Becoming a leader in AI literacy instruction by not reinventing the wheel","authors":"LeEtta Schmidt, Evan Fruehauf, Andrew Beman-Cavallaro","doi":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103117","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103117","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Libraries are at a critical moment to lead in AI literacy, but success doesn't demand starting from scratch. By building on familiar frameworks for information literacy, outreach, and instructional design, libraries can quickly and effectively meet the challenges of generative AI. This article showcases how one research-intensive university library leveraged existing strengths—through AI-focused guides, workshops, grants, and cross-campus partnerships—to embed AI literacy across its academic community. Rather than reinventing the wheel, the library expanded proven methods to support ethical, critical, and informed engagement with AI technologies. This case study offers a practical, scalable model for any library seeking to empower users and stake a leadership role in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47762,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Librarianship","volume":"51 5","pages":"Article 103117"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144766833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-08-01DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103115
Clare Camp, Dr Jayne Finlay
Literature on the experiences of neurodivergent LIS professionals working in academic libraries is sparse. Although anecdotal evidence suggests that librarianship may be an attractive profession for neurodivergent adults, significant challenges remain. This paper discusses a case study undertaken in a large research-intensive university in England. This case study investigates the experiences of neurodivergent LIS individuals, examining the impact of recruitment practices, the workplace environment, daily work and tasks, and their professional skills as perceived through the lens of neurodivergency. Qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews with six participants who identified as neurodivergent. A reflexive approach was taken to the research and thematic analysis used to analyse the results. This research finds that neurodivergent individuals encounter challenges with recruitment, the physical and sociocultural environment, and their daily work. This includes challenges with panel interviews, the sensory environment, the “unspoken rules” of social, professional expectations, and a conflicting desire for novelty and routine. Access to adjustments vary and are reliant on individual and institutional knowledge of neurodivergence, and the psychological safety required to disclose. Neurodivergent individuals are keen to use and develop their skills, however, employers appear nervous to discuss professional development opportunities. Although neurodivergent individuals are cautiously optimistic about their experiences, there is a need for increased understanding within the sector of their lived experiences to provide support. This paper puts forward recommendations for practice and identifies areas for future research that will help to improve the experiences of neurodivergent professionals.
{"title":"The experiences of neurodivergent Library and Information Science [LIS] professionals working in academic libraries – a case study","authors":"Clare Camp, Dr Jayne Finlay","doi":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103115","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103115","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Literature on the experiences of neurodivergent LIS professionals working in academic libraries is sparse. Although anecdotal evidence suggests that librarianship may be an attractive profession for neurodivergent adults, significant challenges remain. This paper discusses a case study undertaken in a large research-intensive university in England. This case study investigates the experiences of neurodivergent LIS individuals, examining the impact of recruitment practices, the workplace environment, daily work and tasks, and their professional skills as perceived through the lens of neurodivergency. Qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews with six participants who identified as neurodivergent. A reflexive approach was taken to the research and thematic analysis used to analyse the results. This research finds that neurodivergent individuals encounter challenges with recruitment, the physical and sociocultural environment, and their daily work. This includes challenges with panel interviews, the sensory environment, the “unspoken rules” of social, professional expectations, and a conflicting desire for novelty and routine. Access to adjustments vary and are reliant on individual and institutional knowledge of neurodivergence, and the psychological safety required to disclose. Neurodivergent individuals are keen to use and develop their skills, however, employers appear nervous to discuss professional development opportunities. Although neurodivergent individuals are cautiously optimistic about their experiences, there is a need for increased understanding within the sector of their lived experiences to provide support. This paper puts forward recommendations for practice and identifies areas for future research that will help to improve the experiences of neurodivergent professionals.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47762,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Librarianship","volume":"51 5","pages":"Article 103115"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144756844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-07-31DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103107
Graham Kendall
In this column, I argue for more transparency for APC (Article Processing Charges) payments, proposing that publishers supply this information on the article itself, as well as making it available in the metadata. In the same way that funders insist that any research articles arising from the research they fund is OA (Open Access), I propose that research funders should also make it a condition on publishers to be more open and transparent about the APC revenue that they receive for a given article.
{"title":"More transparency is required for article processing charges","authors":"Graham Kendall","doi":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103107","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103107","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In this column, I argue for more transparency for APC (Article Processing Charges) payments, proposing that publishers supply this information on the article itself, as well as making it available in the metadata. In the same way that funders insist that any research articles arising from the research they fund is OA (Open Access), I propose that research funders should also make it a condition on publishers to be more open and transparent about the APC revenue that they receive for a given article.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47762,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Librarianship","volume":"51 5","pages":"Article 103107"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144738560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-07-30DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103113
Robert Tomaszewski
Mnemonic evaluative frameworks have become central to information literacy instruction for assessing information credibility. Widely used tools such as CRAAP, CARS, ACT UP, and SIFT remain underrepresented in scholarly literature and insufficiently aligned with emerging information challenges. This study uses cited reference analysis in the Scopus database to examine 16 mnemonic evaluative frameworks across 280 peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, and review articles. Citation patterns were analyzed by year, discipline, institutional affiliation, and source title. Findings reveal that while legacy models like CRAAP and CARS retain the most citations, newer frameworks such as SIFT and RADAR are proportionally more cited in AI-related literature. A subset of 49 AI-focused citing documents indicates a disciplinary shift from Library and Information Sciences toward Computer Science, Engineering, Business, and Decision Sciences since 2022. These results highlight the need for adaptive, systems-aware models that address credibility challenges associated with generative AI and algorithmic curation. In response, this study introduces the CAT Test (Check, Ask, Think), a three-part evaluative framework designed to help learners assess AI-generated content by corroborating claims, interrogating model reasoning, and reflecting on platform influence. The findings inform instructional design and contribute to ongoing conversations about algorithmic transparency and credibility in academic librarianship.
{"title":"Mnemonic evaluative frameworks in scholarly publications: A cited reference analysis across disciplines and AI-mediated contexts","authors":"Robert Tomaszewski","doi":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103113","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103113","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Mnemonic evaluative frameworks have become central to information literacy instruction for assessing information credibility. Widely used tools such as CRAAP, CARS, ACT UP, and SIFT remain underrepresented in scholarly literature and insufficiently aligned with emerging information challenges. This study uses cited reference analysis in the Scopus database to examine 16 mnemonic evaluative frameworks across 280 peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, and review articles. Citation patterns were analyzed by year, discipline, institutional affiliation, and source title. Findings reveal that while legacy models like CRAAP and CARS retain the most citations, newer frameworks such as SIFT and RADAR are proportionally more cited in AI-related literature. A subset of 49 AI-focused citing documents indicates a disciplinary shift from Library and Information Sciences toward Computer Science, Engineering, Business, and Decision Sciences since 2022. These results highlight the need for adaptive, systems-aware models that address credibility challenges associated with generative AI and algorithmic curation. In response, this study introduces the CAT Test (<em>Check, Ask, Think</em>), a three-part evaluative framework designed to help learners assess AI-generated content by corroborating claims, interrogating model reasoning, and reflecting on platform influence. The findings inform instructional design and contribute to ongoing conversations about algorithmic transparency and credibility in academic librarianship.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47762,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Librarianship","volume":"51 5","pages":"Article 103113"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144723432","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-07-29DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103109
Lori Caniano
Academic libraries provide support for student-parents in a variety of ways from providing activity kits for visiting children to offering family-friendly rooms. The author learned of the need for this type of support through conversations with students. A formal survey on library services and spaces was conducted. Respondents indicated it would be helpful to them if they could bring their children with them to the library. The family-friendly space in Swirbul Library provides an opportunity for student-parents to utilize the library while having their children accompany them. This article covers the steps taken to bring this space to fruition, from conceptualization, planning, implementation to current use.
{"title":"Incorporating a family-friendly space into a university library","authors":"Lori Caniano","doi":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103109","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103109","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Academic libraries provide support for student-parents in a variety of ways from providing activity kits for visiting children to offering family-friendly rooms. The author learned of the need for this type of support through conversations with students. A formal survey on library services and spaces was conducted. Respondents indicated it would be helpful to them if they could bring their children with them to the library. The family-friendly space in Swirbul Library provides an opportunity for student-parents to utilize the library while having their children accompany them. This article covers the steps taken to bring this space to fruition, from conceptualization, planning, implementation to current use.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47762,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Librarianship","volume":"51 5","pages":"Article 103109"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144721616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号