Library Research Forum
The Research Forum
Since 2002, Concordia's Library Research Forum has provided librarians, archivists, graduate students, teaching faculty, and information professionals with an opportunity to describe and promote their completed or in-progress research and practical case studies. The Forum also provides a venue for researchers to seek suggestions for enhancing their research interests, to identify potential new partners for projects, to test the effectiveness of their undertakings, and to promote research in academic libraries.
Themes
The Forum offers research and case studies in any area of Library and Information Science, including but not limited to:- Library technologies
- Open scholarship and open access
- Social justice
- Decolonization and Indigenization
- Universal design and accessibility
- Artificial intelligence
- Scholarly communication and publishing
- Library management and governance
- Community engagement and outreach
- Assessment and impact
- Digital and information literacy
- Special collections, archives and preservation
Session Format
In-person Presentation – A 15-min formal presentation taking place onsite at Concordia’s Loyola Campus followed by a 5-min Q&A.
Languages
Presentations can be in English or French.
Proposal Rubric
| Criteria | Excellent 3 | Good 2 | Fair 1 | Poor 0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Innovation and Originality | The proposal content is groundbreaking and transformational. | The proposal content is original and innovative. | The proposal content is a new take on a familiar topic. | The proposal topic is weak and lacks originality. |
| Timeliness | Proposal is timely. It is emerging or trending. | Proposal is mostly timely. Of interest in the last 1-2 years. | Proposal is somewhat timely. It continues to be a topic of interest within the last 5 years. | Proposal is not timely, and does not address current topics in librarianship. |
| Relevance to library and information science field | The proposal topic is core to the work of library professionals. | The proposal topic is valuable to the work of library professionals. | The proposal topic is somewhat related to the work of library professionals. | It is a stretch to make this topic relate to the work of library professionals. |
| Proposal clarity, organization, and outcomes | The proposal is well written, and organized, and outcomes are clearly stated. | The proposal has only minor issues with clarity, organization, and outcomes. | Some components of the proposal would have benefitted from additional clarification and/or editing. | The proposal is vague and/or poorly edited |
| Research clarity, organization, and outcomes | The research is conducted following a proper and appropriate methodology. The data analysis is appropriate to the research questions. Results and conclusion appear to be soundly grounded in the greater field. | The research contains minor issues with methodology, appropriateness of data analysis, or extrapolation of results and conclusion. | The research is somewhat flawed in its methodology, appropriateness of data analysis, or extrapolation of results and conclusion. | The research is unclear, inappropriate, or weak in its methodology, appropriateness of data analysis, or extrapolation of results and conclusion. |
| Appropriateness of venue | The proposal is appropriate for this venue as it takes a research angle or approach to the topic proposed. | The proposal is somewhat appropriate for this venue. | The proposal is most likely inappropriate for this venue. | The proposal is clearly inappropriate for this venue. |
| Equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility (EDIA) | The proposal strongly addresses the EDIA acknowledgements. Acceptance would allow members of underrepresented group(s) to present their work or otherwise broaden the perspectives of conference attendees. | The proposal addresses the EDIA acknowledgements Acceptance is likely to broaden the perspectives of conference attendees. | The proposal addresses the EDIA acknowledgements, but acceptance is unlikely to broaden the perspectives of conference attendees. | The proposal does not sufficiently address the EDIA acknowledgements. Acceptance is unlikely to broaden the perspectives of conference attendees. |
Proposals that receive the highest cumulative score, as per the rubric above, will be invited to present over those with lower scores.
Source The rubric above is derived from that of the ACRL 2023 conference
https://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/ACRL%202023%20Rubric.pdf
Committee
Michelle Lake, Alexandra Mills
Co-Chairs, Library Research Forum Committee
lib-forum@concordia.ca
2026 Library Research Forum Committee members:
Krista Alexander,
Kathleen Botter,
Megan Fitzgibbons,
Laura Ivan,
Aeron MacHattie,
Melissa Rivosecchi