Airing our dirty linen in public: to what extent is Online Information Review devoted to online information?[1]

Airing our dirty linen in public: to what extent is Online Information Review devoted to online information?[1]

Article Type: Editorial From: Online Information Review, Volume 35, Issue 3

“Online information” is an elusive phrase, and one is hard pressed to find a working definition that is anywhere near the reality of twenty-first century information in the online context. We do, of course, have this from Keevil and Associates (2000): online information is the “information stored in a computer system that can be displayed, used, and modified interactively without the need for printed copy”.

This smacks of 1990s thinking and is too narrowly defined in computer science terms. Clearly something from a bygone age, it does not convey the breadth, fluidity and rapid expansion of online information. This is a problem for a journal such as Online Information Review (OIR) – how do we define that to which OIR is dedicated? As Carman and Knoblock (2007) remind us:

Recent years have seen an explosion in the quantity and variety of information available online. One can find shopping data (prices and availability of goods), geospatial data (weather forecasts, housing information), travel data (flight pricing and status), financial data (exchange rates and stock quotes), and that just scratches the surface of what is available.

If we look at a definition of “online documentation” as distinct from “online information”, we find ourselves in a more comfortable space:

Online documentation can be just about any information that is stored and viewed in electronic form including, Windows Help files, electronic books and manuals, context-sensitive help screens, databases, document management systems, and many more (TechCom Plus, 2010).

This statement is probably a more accurate reflection of scholarship in the online information domain, and also an indication of the problem of how we define ourselves – where does “online information” begin and end? Certainly the OIR team (Editor, Associate Editors, Editorial Board and publisher) attempts to keep the journal’s objectives in line with movements and trends in online information. Accordingly, the editorial objectives for Online Information Review have evolved significantly in the past eight years, each iteration seeking to make clearer what we are seeking, and perhaps also stretching our boundaries into areas as yet ill-defined. The present statement indicates that:

Online Information Review is […] devoted to research in the broad field of online information, including both transactional and transformational aspects, in the academic, corporate, government, scientific and commercial contexts. It addresses issues related to online resources, systems and services, information quality, content and evaluation, with a particular focus on online and digital information creation, storage, retrieval and applications (including social, political and ethical aspects). Every submission must spell out the implications of findings in the paper for online information as distinct from implications for commerce, education, etc. (Emerald, 2011).

This statement of scope seeks to capture the breadth and range of online information, including its content, format and presentation. But how well does this reflect the expanding focus to which Carman and Knoblock (2007) allude? Some would question, for example, what is meant by “systems and services”; others wonder whether “transactional aspects” is specific enough to be of much value.

Indeed, such issues have been highlighted of late in a series of email exchanges by members of the Editorial Board regarding the content of the journal, and whether this content is a true reflection of OIR’s stated aims.

On viewing a list of papers available for review in July 2010, one of our more constructively critical members felt that OIR was moving well away from its original aims. His view was that the journal had moved far from its editorial intent, leaving behind “information studies” for emerging fields such as e-commerce. In an e-mail dated 15 July 2010, he stated that “In browsing through […] [the] latest list of articles for review I (once again) became troubled by what seemed to be a move away from OIR’s original (and probably current) aims”.

A contrary position was taken by another Board member, who felt that the present content of OIR was only to be expected:

The growth for Emerald is in the electronic information, information management, information science and e-commerce papers from a range of disciplines. This reflects the growth of the web and the importance of electronic information worldwide (Board member e-mail, 15 July 2010).

This person also suggested that the original focus of OIR was no longer sustainable as scholarship was moving on, and that for the journal to remain commercially viable it had to move with emerging scholarship.

Yet another perhaps more moderate position was taken by a third Editorial Board member, who felt that the issue was less a matter of moving into new domains than one of deciding where to draw the line: “The challenge for me in deciding whether an e-commerce paper is within scope or not is if it deals with some aspect of information systems or services” (Board member e-mail, 24 November 2010).

So we clearly do have a difference of opinion among this journal’s decision makers about who we are, what we represent and where we are going. What might this mean for the immediate future of Online Information Review?

While I pride myself in not being a member of the “they can’t read, but they sure can count” brigade, some figures are in order to help us determine future directions for OIR. Between 2005 and 2010, the number of downloads for OIR has more than trebled, from 30,000 to 117,000 (see Table I).

During this same period the number of users has doubled, and the top countries by downloads has expanded dramatically beyond the EU-North American axis to all parts of the world.

Yes, these are commercial defences for the present content of Online Information Review. After all, Emerald is a commercial enterprise and it expects to see these sorts of figures. (Before deleting this editorial as just another “advertorial”, please read further to see what we say about impact factors.)

In terms of content, Table II shows that the 10 most downloaded papers in 2010 were indeed in the area that has caused most consternation within the Editorial Board – e-commerce broadly defined (items 1-4, 6-9). I believe this is an indicator that we are reaching a target audience that may be different from the “old days”, when OIR appealed to a smaller and less diverse market.

Downloads, of course, are a small guide in a non-commercial sense to what we as scholars and researchers regard as quality indicators. Much like databases accessed online or books borrowed from libraries, such figures tell us only that there has been movement, and nothing of the quality of that movement. So we can look at the impact factor of Online Information Review as another kind of indicator – since 2003 the impact factor for this journal has risen from 0.417 to 1.423 in 2010. To me this suggests that OIR is making an impact in scholarship, which in my view is more significant than commercial considerations.

Of course we are not la crème de la crème, nor will we be for some time to come – it is dangerous to predict future fortunes, especially in the field of online information. Will this term be redundant in a decade? Will we speak simply of “information”, with “online” taken for granted? What will replace e-commerce as the “Next Best Thing”? Will OIR have the stamina and foresight to continue evolving as a result of continuing debate among members of the Editorial Board? As one Editorial Board member recently commented, we have extensively studied the “technical wiring” aspects of online information; are we now in a position to turn our focus to understanding the nuances of this wiring? (Board member e-mail, 3 May 2011) Time will tell, and for now it would be most interesting to hear from readers about the present content and emerging direction for this journal. Please contact me at oir.editor@gmail.com

G.E. Gorman

A draft of this editorial was circulated to the Associate Editors and members of the Editorial Board for comment. The Editor wishes to thank those who responded and trusts that the final version presented herewith reflects at least some of the constructive responses received.

Table I OIR downloads, 2005-2010

Table II Most downloaded papers, 2010