Introduction
Whilst discussing 40 years of BIALL in a meeting earlier this year, the Legal Information Management (LIM) Editorial Board realised that 2010 will mark the 10th year of publication of the journal under this title.Footnote 1 This prompted the important question, is the journal still achieving what it set out to do? If you have ever read the Editorial Board Mission Statement, which appears at the back of each issue, you might have noticed that the journal aims to “focus on the needs of British and Irish law librarians and legal information professionals”. The Board asked the journal's publisher, Cambridge University Press, to undertake a survey of journal readers with these needs in mind. What better way to find out if the journal is still catering for its readers than to ask you directly?
We placed an advert in the BIALL Newsletter asking members to complete an online survey. We are grateful to all 105 individuals who completed it (an excellent 13% response rate) and congratulate James Mullan who won the prize draw for £200 worth of Cambridge books and £50 worth of HMV vouchers kindly donated by BIALL.
We are pleased with the results of the survey, which have assured us that we are providing BIALL members with what they need, as well as giving us some very constructive suggestions for the future which, as you will see below, we are already acting on.
We hope this summary of the resultsFootnote 2 will demonstrate the valuable resource LIM provides, as well as revealing some interesting trends in the way people are managing legal information today. The results are presented under the headings used in the survey.
Note of caution
You should be aware that the survey was available only to BIALL members rather than all subscribers to the journal. The results should therefore be treated with a note of caution, as they represent only the views of a percentage of journal users. BIALL members currently account for around three-quarters of subscribers (not including those who subscribe through library consortia agreements). We would hope to extend future surveys to all who use the journal.
Survey results
Usage – “LIM sits in my car awaiting being stuck in a traffic jam!”
In the category of usage we asked questions on LIM reading habits, frequency of publication and current awareness tools.
Responses revealed:
• 76% of those asked read every issue
• LIM is read cover to cover much more than many journals
• The majority are happy with quarterly publication
• Other popular knowledge management resources used are BIALL's website and newsletter, CILIP resources, Information World Review, lis-law and lis-link
Format – “a little retro in appearance”
In this category readers were asked about LIM online versus LIM in print, style and layout and LIM on Westlaw.
Responses revealed:
• 78% use the print rather than the electronic journal and the main reason for this was its portability. It was interesting to see the variety of places where people read their copy, from in the bath to during children's swimming lessons
• Despite the online revolution being an ongoing theme in LIM, very few LIM readers do use the journal online and, of those that do, many use Westlaw rather than the Cambridge Journals Online platform
• 35% did not know LIM is on Westlaw
• Opinions on print layout were hugely varied from “attractive” and “simple and clear” to “text-heavy” and “old-fashioned”
Usefulness – “My reference lists for the last two university assignments I wrote were probably 70% from LIM”
Questions on usefulness invited overall opinions of LIM, how relevant and practical it is and whether it fulfils its role as BIALL's professional journal.
Responses revealed:
• When rating LIM overall only nine individuals had negative comments
• Most thought highly of the journal and it was great to see responses such as “An excellent publication – one of the reasons for membership”, “it has taught me so much”, “the only journal of substance in the field of legal librarianship” and “indispensable for law librarians”
• Negative feedback was that the journal can be “dull”, “dry” and “a bit too studious sometimes”
• 72% felt that LIM was relevant
• 81% thought it had a practical application in their everyday work
• 89% thought LIM fulfilled its role as BIALL's professional journal
Coverage – “I don't want academic waffle – leave that to the university journals”
This category included a detailed evaluation of each of the sections, subjects readers are most interested in and coverage of legal information management issues outside the UK.
Responses revealed:
• Most of those asked thought the current topics and special topics articles were the most interesting, useful and highest quality sections of the journal. The book reviews and ‘From our own correspondent’ were the least interesting, useful and lowest quality
• 94% liked the approach of having two different sections of articles: current topics and special topics
• 91% thought there was a balanced coverage of topics
• The subjects people were most interested were those that we would expect: training, budgets, comparison of KM systems, the future of online information especially Web 2.0, intellectual property, dealing with publishers and distributors, managing people and interacting with fee-earners, professional support lawyers and students
• People would like to see more coverage of articles on managing IT, pricing, public access to legal information, problems with publishers, libraries on a budget, finding information sources on non-UK jurisdictions and more ‘how to do’ articles
• 77% liked the conference papers being included, but some thought we should be more selective of papers
• The majority felt that a peer review section (this would be articles reviewed by peers and accepted or rejected in the same way as most academic journals work) would be useful for readers and authors but many did not understand the concept. The fact that most want practical, rather than academic, articles suggests that peer review would have limited value here
• Respondents had no real preference for types of people to author articles and saw content as the most important factor
• 74% thought LIM gave the correct coverage to KM outside the UK. Of those who would like to see more about international KM, most were interested in seeing more about the EU and common law countries like the US, Canada and Australia
Future – “Dare I say it – the credit crunch”
Here we asked questions on how you see knowledge management evolving and the factors that might influence this.
Responses revealed:
• Recurring responses of what will impact on KM in the future were the economy, technology, Web 2.0 and the opening up of the legal market due to the Legal Services Act
• People anticipate the most important development in the near future to be a fuller move to online technology with increasing amounts of blogging, wikis, social networking, RSS feeds, online tutorials and free resources
Reader information
Just to give you some information on the individuals who completed the survey:
• 92% of survey participants were information management professionals, others included general administrators and an indexer
• 66% worked in solicitors firms; 25% in academic institutions, the remaining 9% worked in tax and accounting firms, parliamentary libraries, and for professional bodies
• Although no PSLs or fee-earners completed the survey, 12 of you commented that PSLs read your copy and six of you mentioned that fee-earners do
• 70/77 who answered the question on nationality were from UK, others were from South Africa, Bermuda, Hong Kong and Ireland
What difference will this survey make to the journal?
The survey paints a largely positive picture of the journal, but we do not want to be complacent and have already taken action based on your responses.
Improvements you may have noticed include: a modernised front cover, we admit that this had already been designed at the date of the survey but hope it nevertheless addresses your negative feedback; a European Union theme for the Summer issue to address calls for more information on this area; and more ‘how-to’ articles such as the how to use metrics article in the Summer issue and how to research Islamic law in the Autumn issue. We have added a reference to Westlaw on the inside of the journal to make more people aware that LIM is available there. We also intend to embark on an activation campaign to remind bundle subscribers and BIALL members that they have electronic access on Cambridge Journals Online (If you need reminding of your logon details simply email journals_societies@cambridge.org).
In the very near future we will be recruiting additional board members to ensure we cover all spectrums of legal information managers, including those who work in government and bar libraries.Footnote 3
Other useful suggestions currently under consideration are: a revamp of the internal typeface and layout; a remodelling of the book review section to make this more useful, with the possible inclusion of more product reviews. Knowing that it is the least used section, we may publish the ‘From our own correspondent’ section only when a particular story warrants our attention. We will also review the suggestion of career listings and are considering the possibility of regional focus groups for email or face-to-face feedback on the journal. The most common observation throughout the survey was the need for the journal to be as practical as possible and this is something that we will keep firmly in our minds when introducing new content and making editorial decisions.
In terms of content you wanted retained, your clear preference for the print format suggests we should certainly retain a print version of the journal for the foreseeable future.
Conclusion
So ten years into its new existence does the journal serve the needs of law librarians and legal information professionals? This survey suggests the answer is yes. Furthermore, by making the various improvements outlined above, we hope it will serve these needs even better in the future. Rapidly evolving legal information needs are a recurrent theme in LIM articles and indeed were a common thread throughout the responses to this survey; it will be interesting to see how LIM will have to adapt alongside these. We hope we can continue to give you what you need and welcome feedback to the Editor, Board or Cambridge University Press at any time.
