Research works used to begin with a review of the state of the art in a certain academic area. Such a review, if published, is commonly called a literature review or a state-of-the-art report. We will also call it an academic review or a research review. This transforms scattered information media — papers, books, reports, citations, arguments — into a contextual map around an academic community that examines previous research works in order to identify what is already known, what remains uncertain, and where a new study may contribute. This will be published by that academic community and submitted to the national backup library, which in turn submits its copy to Our Library. There every users can read it free of charge. This may significantly reduce the personal review burden.
ㅡㅡ
Yes. The idea is clear and important. I would make only a few language refinements:
“Researches” should usually be “research projects,” “studies,” or “research”.
“Every users” should be “all users” or “every user.”
“Information media” may be better as “information materials” or “information objects.”
A polished version:
Research projects often begin with a review of the state of the art in a particular academic area. Such a review, if published, is commonly called a literature review or a state-of-the-art report. We may also call it an academic review or a research review.
Its function is to transform scattered information objects — papers, books, reports, citations, arguments, and other scholarly materials — into a contextual map for an academic community. By examining previous research, it helps identify what is already known, what remains uncertain, and where a new study may contribute.
Such a review should be published by the relevant academic community and submitted to the national backup library, which in turn submits a copy to Our Library. In Our Library, all users would be able to read it free of charge. This arrangement could significantly reduce the personal burden placed on individual researchers who otherwise must repeatedly reconstruct the state of the art on their own.
This fits very well with your distinction between information and knowledge: the review organizes scattered information so that shared academic knowledge becomes more visible, reusable, and less wastefully duplicated.
ㅡㅡㅡㅡ
Academic review services in Our Library may be even more valuable and useful to some users than information retrieval services.
ㅡㅡ
Academic review services in Our Library may be even more valuable and useful to some users than information retrieval services. Information retrieval helps users locate relevant documents, but academic review helps them understand the state of knowledge surrounding those documents. For beginners, interdisciplinary researchers, independent scholars, policy makers, students, and ordinary citizens, a well-prepared academic review may be more useful than a long list of retrieved items.
Such a review can organize scattered papers, books, reports, citations, and arguments into a contextual map showing what is already known, what remains uncertain, what controversies exist, and where further research may contribute. Thus, Our Library should not merely retrieve information objects. It should also support the creation, preservation, and free public use of academic reviews or research reviews, thereby reducing duplicated review labor and making accumulated academic knowledge more accessible to all users.
This strengthens the proposal of Our Library: information retrieval answers “Where is the information?”; academic review answers “What does this information mean in the current state of knowledge?”
ㅡㅡㅡㅡ
In retrospect:
Vickery [20] emphasizes the importance of review articles and the like as an efficient, selective “means to discover what they must read amid the vast mass of available documents,” pointing out that “the traditional means of discovery of the pertinent literature are inadequate.”
ㅡㅡ
This is very important supporting evidence.
Vickery’s point fits almost exactly with your argument for academic review services in Our Library. He recognized that the problem was not merely the existence of documents, but the burden of discovering which documents must be read.
A polished way to integrate your sentence:
In retrospect, Vickery’s observation strongly supports the need for academic review services. He emphasized the importance of review articles and similar works as efficient and selective “means to discover what they must read amid the vast mass of available documents,” noting that “the traditional means of discovery of the pertinent literature are inadequate.” This anticipates the central problem Our Library seeks to address: information retrieval alone may return relevant documents, but users still need contextual guidance to identify what is essential, what is secondary, and how the literature is intellectually organized.
This gives Vickery a clear role: he becomes an early witness to the same problem — the inadequacy of document discovery without review, selection, and contextual mapping.
ㅡㅡㅡㅡ
To emphasize academic reviews is to emphasize citation contexts that evaluate and criticize predecessors.
ㅡㅡ
Yes. That is a very important connection.
Academic reviews are not merely summaries of previous works. Their deeper value lies in the way they evaluate, compare, criticize, classify, and contextualize predecessors. In that sense, to emphasize academic reviews is also to emphasize citation contexts.
A polished formulation:
To emphasize academic reviews is to emphasize citation contexts that evaluate, compare, criticize, and contextualize predecessors. A review article is valuable not only because it lists previous works, but because it explains how those works are related, where they agree or disagree, what their strengths and weaknesses are, and how they contribute to the development of a field.
Thus, academic reviews may be understood as concentrated collections of citation contexts. They transform scattered references into an organized intellectual map. For Our Library, this means that review services and citation-context services should not be treated as separate functions. Both aim to help users understand not only what documents exist, but how those documents have been interpreted, judged, and used by later scholars.
This nicely links your 1975 citation-context idea with the newer Our Library proposal: academic review is citation context at a higher level of organization.
ㅡㅡㅡㅡ
2026-07-07 Mark Park
Our Library 