高校图书馆学科馆员服务模式探讨

作为一种全新的服务模式,高校图书馆学科馆员制度已经被我国很多大学图书馆所引用,与此同时,这种制度得到了迅速及深入的发展。本文主要从学科馆员的起源和定义出发,简单说明了对高校图书馆学科馆员的基本要求,此外,还详细阐述了高校图书馆学科馆员的服务模式,以期为高校图书馆学科馆员服务模式的进一步研究提供参考。     

浅议高校图书馆学科馆员队伍建设

高校图书馆采用学科馆员制度是其实现自我实力提升、迎接挑战的重要内容。本文从高校图书馆学科馆员的筛选、工作职责、培养计划等方面详细解析了学科馆员队伍建设,并进一步提出了高校图书馆增强学科馆员队伍建设的具体措施。     

高校图书馆学科馆员智慧服务实现研究

本文认为学科馆员在高等学校图书馆建设中处于重要地位,是图书馆智慧服务的实现者。通过进一步完善学科馆员制,提高学科馆员信息化素养是提高服务保障能力,建设智慧图书馆实现智慧服务的有效路径。     

西南大学图书馆学科馆员制度实施策略研究

学科馆员制度是我国高校图书馆处于制度创新阶段的一个新举措,是我国高校图书馆发展的一种趋势。西南大学图书馆建立学科馆员制度刻不容缓,＂学科分馆—学科馆员＂组合模式是其最佳选择。     

高校图书馆学科服务的探讨

高校图书馆结合本身的状况,在寻求高效管理方式和策划设计的方向上,以融入学院、走进专业、深入科研为基础,让嵌入式服务方式为奋斗目标,经过小而精的专业服务基础特色发展多层次的学科服务。     

浅议高校学科馆员制度学科

学科馆员制度开创了一种全新的图书馆理念和超前的服务模式。鉴于图书馆的图书种类繁多,而师生需求大多定义在自己的学科上,所以在图书馆和学校单位、各科室之间设立专门负责人是有必要的。这也就是学科馆员的存在意义。他们的存在使得师生无论是在查阅资料还是搜索图书上都大大提高了效率。如此有针对性的查询也使得图书查阅有了准确性。既缩短了时间又提高了效率,从而大大提高了整个图书馆的工作效率,更好的服务于查阅人员。因此,加强学科馆员人才队伍建设、重视学科方向、调整馆藏结构、优化文献信息资源势在必行。     

高校图书馆嵌入式学科服务探析

在科学技术快速发展的今天越来越多的新型信息技术应用到图书馆服务环境中,为高校科研活动的开展提供了有力的基础支撑,其中以图书馆嵌入式学科服务的应用最为典型。本文简单论述了高校图书馆嵌入式学科服务,分析了嵌入式学科服务的一些特点,最后对高校图书馆嵌入式学科服务进行了浅显的探析。     

浅谈高校图书馆馆员素质教育

新时代图书馆的工作环境下对图书馆馆员的服务素质和服务技能都提出了更高的要求。图书管理人员的专业管理水平、文化素质、思想作风、道德修养直接决定和影响着图书馆事业的前进与发展,是图书馆事业发展的关键环节。     

浅议高校图书馆馆员的素质

本文在分析高校图书馆馆员素质的重要性及其所存在问题的基础上,探讨了提高高校图书馆员素质的六项措施。     

小议高校图书馆馆员素质培养

提出培养高校图书馆馆员素质必要性;客观分析高校图书馆员素质培养的原因;对提升图书馆管理人员的素质的解决办法提出解决方案。     

Legal responsibilities of veterinarians in the control of zoonotic diseases

This discussion of legal issues that may arise from the existence of zoonotic diseases is not meant to cause alarm; rather, it is meant to alert members of the profession to possibilities, not probabilities. The very nature of any discussion of legal issues, especially a discussion of case law in which someone is always suing somebody else, exaggerates the true-life situation. Although it is everyone's hope that they will not be involved in litigation, it is wise to be aware of the problems that may arise in connection with zoonotic diseases.     

Genotype disclosure in the genomics era: roles and responsibilities

Disclosure of affected breed without disclosure of major progenitors has been the usual practice in scientific papers reporting recessive heritable disorders of cattle. Before molecular genetics, carrier identity could not be used by breeders to control causal mutations because phenotypically normal heterozygotes among genetically related animals could not be detected other than by test mating. Accurate, low‐cost DNA tests fundamentally changed this situation. Genomics can provide relief from the old problem of emerging recessive disorders in cattle breeding, but greater transparency of genotype data between breeders is necessary to fully exploit the opportunities for cost‐efficient genetic disease control. Effective control of several recessive disorders has been demonstrated in Angus cattle, based entirely on voluntary DNA testing by breeders but mandatory public disclosure of test results and genotype probabilities for all registered animals. When a DNA test is available, major progenitors (particularly bulls from which semen has been distributed) should be identified and disclosed concurrently with the affected breed. As a minimum, whenever possible the closest common ancestors in the pedigrees of the parents of homozygous mutants should be disclosed after confirmation of carrier status. Progenitor disclosure in scientific publications should occur in cooperation with breed societies, which should have the opportunity to advise breeders and initiate management programs before scientific publication. Unless properly managed, genomic enhancement of animal selection using SNP markers may increase inbreeding, co‐ancestry and emergence of recessive disorders. The information systems and genotype disclosure policies of some breed societies will be increasingly challenged, particularly with accelerating mutation discovery using next‐generation sequencing.     

The role of veterinary medical librarians in teaching information literacy

This qualitative study seeks to determine the nature of the instruction librarians provide to veterinary medical students at all 28 United States veterinary colleges. A secondary goal of the study was to determine in what ways and to what extent librarians participated in other instructional activities at their colleges. Over half of the librarians formally taught in one or more courses, predominantly in the first two years of the veterinary curriculum. One presentation per course was most common. Over half of the librarians interviewed stated that evidence-based veterinary medicine was taught at their colleges, and about half of these librarians collaborated with veterinary faculty in this instruction. Many librarians participated in orientation for first-year veterinary students. The librarians also taught instructional sessions for residents, interns, faculty, graduate students, and practicing veterinarians. This study found that librarians teach information literacy skills both formally and informally, but, in general, instruction by librarians was not well integrated into the curriculum. This study advances several recommendations to help veterinary students develop information literacy skills. These include: encourage veterinary faculty and administrators to collaborate more closely with librarians, incorporate a broader array of information literacy skills into assignments, and add a literature evaluation course to the curriculum.