Keep those cards and letters coming!

I've never had so much helpful advice.

Since the notice went out last fall that I was succeeding Michael Homan as editor of the Bulletin, it seems that scarcely a week has gone by without someone sending a congratulatory message—always accompanied by a suggestion for something that really needs to be done with the Bulletin and the wish that I would address this need as soon as is convenient. I am amused at the amount of power that many people seem to think the editor has.

Since my transition meeting with Michael in early December, I spend a good bit of every day (and of quite a few nights) thinking about this publication, and what it has been and what it might be. By the time you read this, we should be well on the way to electronic publication of the entire Bulletin. This is only a first step toward taking advantage of the new communication technologies, however. You may also by now have heard something about the formation of the “Editor's Guild.” Spearheaded by Scott Garrison, editor of MLANET, the Editor's Guild brings together all of the committees and advisory groups that support the Medical Library Association's (MLA's) various publication activities. Conceived as an informal gathering for sharing information, ideas, plans, and proposals, the guild offers those MLA members involved with supporting our publications a platform for thinking about the ways in which those different publications interrelate. As our understanding of the potential of the electronic media grows, the boundaries that separate the MLA News, the books program, the Bulletin, and MLANET will blur. It becomes easy to see a time when the quarterly printed Bulletin issue is an anachronism, supplanted by—by what?

The first issue on the Bulletin shelf in my office is volume 72 (1984), number 1. Susan Crawford was the editor; Nina Matheson was president of MLA. The issue features a lively exchange between Matheson and David Bishop concerning a piece Matheson had recently published with John A. D. Cooper, “Academic Information in the Academic Health Sciences Center: Roles for the Library in Information Management” [1]. This piece is what we now refer to as “the Matheson report,” the beginnings of the Integrated Advanced Information Management Systems (IAIMS).

There are book reviews and editorials, several brief communications about union list production, and five full-length articles, only two of which could be considered research articles. I bring up the content of that issue because I have the impression that many potential contributors to the Bulletin think that it is intended to publish only research articles. However, the word “research” did not even appear in the “Information for Authors” (printed in the January issue each year and now available on MLANET) until 1999 when Homan revised the section to read,

The Bulletin welcomes the submission of any original manuscript that seeks to improve the practice of health sciences librarianship or articulates developments and history of the profession and related fields. [It] also welcomes manuscripts that extend the knowledge base through research. [2]

In 1984, it simply stated, “The editors of the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association welcome contributions on health sciences librarianship, biomedical communication, and the history of these fields” [3]. It remained as some minor variant of that until Homan did his revision.

Research should certainly be a centerpiece of the Bulletin, and I will work closely with the Research Section to do whatever can be done to encourage and support the research activities of our members. There is much more that can and should be published, however. We tend to disparage the “how I done it good” article or presentation. But when the “it” is something that many of us are trying to deal with, and the “how” is particularly innovative and effective, then that article should definitely find a place in the Bulletin. When we look to our colleagues in the health care arena, it is not the researcher that I see as our primary model so much as the practitioner. The Bulletin needs to have articles that meet the practical, daily needs of the busy librarian in a small hospital setting just as much as the in-depth research articles that advance the theoretical underpinnings of our professional practice.

I had lunch with Lucretia McClure (former MLA president and currently MLA's parliamentarian and copyright referent) in February, and she had suggestions for me. She wants to see more discussion, more debate of ideas. I could not agree more. I look at that issue from 1984, to the debate between Matheson and Bishop over the conceptual framework of IAIMS. Providing a forum for this sort of discussion has always been an important role for the Bulletin. At this point in our history, with so much changing around us, there is much to discuss, much to argue passionately and well. Look at some of the furious discussions that break out from time to time on MEDLIB-L. Imagine a few of those off-the-cuff remarks transformed into well thought-out, carefully reasoned, but just as passionate, opinion pieces. I am eager to see such submissions.

Regardless of how electronic publishing transforms the Bulletin, these sorts of communications are crucial. I hope we can speed up the dissemination of research results and innovative practices, and engage in thoughtful discussions about issues of immediate concern. What form this dissemination takes is one of the exciting unknowns that our future offers us.

Several years ago, when people began to try to envision the world of electronic publishing, they would occasionally suggest or express concern that peer review would be done away with. We now know that peer review can be done just as well (or just as poorly) in the world of the Web as in the world of print. The Bulletin has a good editorial board with strong peer reviewers. When our process is at its best, it helps an author see how to make an article stronger, crisper, clearer, more useful, and more compelling. Maintaining and enhancing a strong, effective peer-review process that works to support authors will be a constant, no matter how the technology changes.

The Bulletin, in its present form and in the yet-to-be-defined forms that we will invent, serves a key role in helping us, as a community of professionals, improve our knowledge, our practice, and our understanding of the role that we play in this complex information society. While we can expect to see many changes in the way the Bulletin operates in the coming years, that key role will remain. It cannot be fulfilled, of course, without people willing to write; willing to put their ideas and experiences into words, sentences, and paragraphs; and willing to send them out. I can encourage, solicit, prod, and plead, but I cannot write the stuff. That is up to all of you. I'm only the editor.