AARL: evolution, not revolution

When the editorship of a strong and successful journal changes hands, its readers are entitled to wonder whether major changes to its editorial policy will follow. In the present case, I intend to maintain the general direction and standing of AARL. Only minor changes are planned, although it is hoped 1998 will see a revised presentation and layout. In particular, it is my hope to continue to offer a balance in material published, with coverage of a wide range of subject areas from both established and new authors. Readers with a manuscript in contemplation for preparation are encouraged to contact me. All contributions will continue to be fully refereed.

In taking over the editorship of AARL from my friend and colleague Peter Biskup, I would like to join Eric Wainwright in thanking him for his contribution to the journal. From my perspective, that contribution has been twofold: not only in his work on AARL, but also in training his erstwhile associate editor, now editor.

In turn I would like to welcome AARL's new associate editor, Russell McCaskie. Russell is a first class honours graduate in Russian language and literature from the University of Queensland, and holds qualifications in librarianship from the Canberra CAE and in public sector management from Griffith University. He has worked in the Department of Defence, the Department of Political Science (RSSS) at the ANU and at the National Library of Australia before joining the Department of Health, Information Resources Section, in 1993. His research interests include learning organisations, knowledge management, information in politics and community access to information. He describes himself as a keen follower of most sports, and a 'chauffeur of children to their various extracurricular activities'.

AARL would like to build up its team of regular reviewers. Readers who would like to be included should contact Russell McCaskie, as associate editor. Prior experience in this area is not a prerequisite; rather, the ability to assess the work in hand fairly and write about it in a readable manner. Guidelines for reviewers are available on request.

Finally, in this issue we publish a letter to the editor. Feedback from readers, whether for publication or not, will always be welcome.

Peter Clayton
Editor