On the 77th anniversary of Kostroma Region restoration (scientific discussion in the information centre of Kostroma Region administration)

The article presents the results of a round table dedicated to the 77th anniversary of the restoration of Kostroma Region (in 1920s and 30s, the region’s territories belonged to nearby major cities); the meeting took place on August 27, 2021 at the information centre of the Administration of Kostroma Region. The participants of the round table considered the historical background and achievements of Kostroma Region, tried to make a historical overview of the development of the Kostroma Region and determine its prospects. The work summarises the most significant theses of the reports heard, we focus on the most important milestones in the region development history and the milestones’ current understanding, on the assimilation of previous experience by modern scientists and public figures in solving topical problems.

Codex Fragments Detached from Incunabula in the Department of Manuscripts and Rare Books of the Library and Information Centre of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

This article presents the results of a study of 32 manuscript fragments detached from incunables in the Department of Manuscripts and Rare Books of the Library and Information Centre of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. The incunables themselves were imported into Hungary between the end of the eighteenth and early twentieth centuries.

'The Ever Widening Spiral' (Alley Theatre and Strabane and Sperrin Visitor Information Centre, 2021)

Review of ‘The Ever Widening Spiral’ (Alley Theatre and Strabane and Sperrin Visitor Information Centre, 27 September–15 October 2021)

Tinjauan Sistematik Pembelajaran Koperatif Menggunakan Kaedah Jigsaw Dalam Penulisan Bahasa

Pembelajaran koperatif Jigsaw merupakan salah satu amalan pedagogi yang mementingkan komponen sosialisasi dan budaya perkongsian ilmu sesama pelajar. Melalui budaya kerjasama, pelajar dapat mencapai matlamat dan menyelesaikan masalah yang tidak dapat diatasi secara bersendirian. Tujuan kajian ini adalah untuk meninjau secara sistematik berkaitan pembelajaran kaedah Jigsaw dalam penulisan bahasa. Tinjauan sistematik ini melibatkan analisis secara induktif dengan pencarian sebanyak 19 buah artikel dan jurnal yang berimpak tinggi melalui enjin pencarian Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC), Researchgate, Google Scholar, Springerlink, ScienceDirect dan Scopus. Pencarian adalah dengan menggunakan kata kunci seperti teknik Jigsaw, Jigsaw classroom dan pembelajaran penulisan Jigsaw. Kajian ini membuat tinjauan tentang instrumen yang digunakan dalam kajian penulisan Jigsaw dan implikasi pengajaran koperatif Jigsaw. Dapatan tinjauan menunjukkan bahawa kebanyakan kajian menggunakan instrumen soal selidik dan ujian sebagai skala pengukuran motivasi penulisan, kreativiti dalam penulisan dan pencapaian pelajar dalam pembelajaran penulisan Jigsaw. Hasil tinjauan juga mengenalpasti bahawa kaedah koperatif Jigsaw membawa implikasi positif terhadap pembelajaran penulisan. Kesimpulannya, dapatan kajian ini memberi gambaran kepada pengkaji lain bahawa kaedah Jigsaw sesuai dijadikan sebagai alat pengukur dalam bidang pendidikan.

Peer review declaration

All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: AI Scholar System • Number of submissions received: 146 • Number of submissions sent for review: 133 • Number of submissions accepted: 75 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 51.4% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 45 • Any additional info on review process: • Step 1. Each of selected paper will be reviewed by two/three professional experts in the related subject area. • Step 2. Review Reports received from the experts will be judged by one of the editors either Review Reports are logical or not? • Step 3. If not logical, then editor can assign new reviewer or can also judge at his/her own. • Step 4. If logical, then Review Reports will be sent to authors to modify the manuscript accordingly. • Step 5. Authors will be required to revise their papers according to the points raised. • Step 6. Revised version will then be evaluated by the editor for the incorporation of the points raised by the reviewers. • Step 7. Then the editor will send the revised manuscript to the reviewers again for re-evaluation. • Step 8. If the reviewers approve the revise version of the manuscript, then will be accepted for publication. • Contact person for queries: Xuexia Ye [email protected] AEIC Academic Exchange Information Centre

Study into the use of applied library and information studies (LIS) research in New Zealand libraries

<p>The purpose of this research project was to determine the perceptions of information professionals in New Zealand regarding applied LIS (Library and Information Studies) research. To achieve this aim, a purposive sample of 130 tertiary and non-profit government libraries / information centres was selected from the New Zealand Contacts in Libraries directory. The chief librarians or library managers from these institutions were invited to offer their opinions using a brief questionnaire that included Likert and Verbal Frequency scales (Appendix A). Alternatively, the questionnaire could be distributed to another information professional from the organisation. Practitioners' reasons for and against consulting research, their tendency towards conducting it themselves and encouraging others in their employ to produce it, and ways by which the relationship between LIS research and practice might be improved were assessed using the survey instrument. The amount of research consultation undertaken by survey participants was analysed according to the following variables: * Highest library / information qualification, whether it contained a research methods / project component, and how recently it was completed; * Major subject area (other than library / information studies) of tertiary-level study; * Experience in current position; * Level of management responsibility; * Specialty area of responsibility; * Library / information centre size; * Organisational context of the library / information centre; * Participation in conferences / professional meetings. The study found that the amount of research consultation by information professionals comprising the sample was low, and levels of research production and encouragement for employees to conduct research were even lower. Participants most often consult the research to stay current with trends and developments in the field of LIS, and to support workplace activities such as decision-making, problem-solving, planning and evaluation. The research is most often not consulted due to time constraints. Despite small data sets that necessitated some caution in the interpretation of results, associational relationships were apparent between the amount of research consultation and all of the participant variables listed above, with one exception (level of management responsibility). Information professionals responding to this study also indicated that the most effective strategy for improving the current relationship between the LIS research and practice communities is the encouragement of research productions that include practical guidelines for the application of results in a workplace context.</p>

Study into the use of applied library and information studies (LIS) research in New Zealand libraries

<p>The purpose of this research project was to determine the perceptions of information professionals in New Zealand regarding applied LIS (Library and Information Studies) research. To achieve this aim, a purposive sample of 130 tertiary and non-profit government libraries / information centres was selected from the New Zealand Contacts in Libraries directory. The chief librarians or library managers from these institutions were invited to offer their opinions using a brief questionnaire that included Likert and Verbal Frequency scales (Appendix A). Alternatively, the questionnaire could be distributed to another information professional from the organisation. Practitioners' reasons for and against consulting research, their tendency towards conducting it themselves and encouraging others in their employ to produce it, and ways by which the relationship between LIS research and practice might be improved were assessed using the survey instrument. The amount of research consultation undertaken by survey participants was analysed according to the following variables: * Highest library / information qualification, whether it contained a research methods / project component, and how recently it was completed; * Major subject area (other than library / information studies) of tertiary-level study; * Experience in current position; * Level of management responsibility; * Specialty area of responsibility; * Library / information centre size; * Organisational context of the library / information centre; * Participation in conferences / professional meetings. The study found that the amount of research consultation by information professionals comprising the sample was low, and levels of research production and encouragement for employees to conduct research were even lower. Participants most often consult the research to stay current with trends and developments in the field of LIS, and to support workplace activities such as decision-making, problem-solving, planning and evaluation. The research is most often not consulted due to time constraints. Despite small data sets that necessitated some caution in the interpretation of results, associational relationships were apparent between the amount of research consultation and all of the participant variables listed above, with one exception (level of management responsibility). Information professionals responding to this study also indicated that the most effective strategy for improving the current relationship between the LIS research and practice communities is the encouragement of research productions that include practical guidelines for the application of results in a workplace context.</p>

Peer review declaration

All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: AI Scholar System • Number of submissions received: 91 • Number of submissions sent for review: 86 • Number of submissions accepted: 45 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 49.5% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 30 • Any additional info on review process: • Step 1. Each of selected paper will be reviewed by two/three professional experts in the related subject area. • Step 2. Review Reports received from the experts will be judged by one of the editors either Review Reports are logical or not? • Step 3. If not logical, then editor can assign new reviewer or can also judge at his/her own. • Step 4. If logical, then Review Reports will be sent to authors to modify the manuscript accordingly. • Step 5. Authors will be required to revise their papers according to the points raised. • Step 6. Revised version will then be evaluated by the editor for the incorporation of the points raised by the reviewers. • Step 7. Then the editor will send the revised manuscript to the reviewers again for re-evaluation. • Step 8. If the reviewers approve the revise version of the manuscript, then will be accepted for publication. • Contact person for queries: Xuexia Ye [email protected] AEIC Academic Exchange Information Centre

Peer review declaration

All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: AI Scholar System • Number of submissions received: 139 • Number of submissions sent for review: 132 • Number of submissions accepted: 73 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 52.5% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 50 • Any additional info on review process: • Step 1. Each of selected paper will be reviewed by two/three professional experts in the related subject area. • Step 2. Review Reports received from the experts will be judged by one of the editors either Review Reports are logical or not? • Step 3. If not logical, then editor can assign new reviewer or can also judge at his/her own. • Step 4. If logical, then Review Reports will be sent to authors to modify the manuscript accordingly. • Step 5. Authors will be required to revise their papers according to the points raised. • Step 6. Revised version will then be evaluated by the editor for the incorporation of the points raised by the reviewers. • Step 7. Then the editor will send the revised manuscript to the reviewers again for re-evaluation. • Step 8. If the reviewers approve the revise version of the manuscript, then will be accepted for publication. • Contact person for queries: Xuexia Ye [email protected] AEIC Academic Exchange Information Centre