1. Dr Anne-Marie ONeill Dublin Institute of Technology

2. The Initial Process ONeill, A.M and Urquhart C Accommodating Employees with Disabilities: Perceptions of Irish Academic Library Managers New Review of Academic Librarianship, 17: 234-258, 2011.

3. The Structure of the Article The Title – Refined at the review process. The Structure – similar to Dissertation Summary of Literature Review and Research Questions arising; Summary of Research Methods; Mixed Method Approach Identification of Sample; Method of selection of sample; Nature of questions in questionnaire; Nature of telephone interviews – semi-structured;

4. The Structure of the Article (continued) How we collected data from the telephone interviews; Methods of analysing data. Summary of Results Outline of Response Rate to Survey; Outline of Results in form of answers to research questions; Summary of Discussion Conclusions Recommendations

5. The Abstract Publishers Guidance Outline primary objective of research; Outline research design and reasons for adopting that methodology; Outline methods and procedures employed; Outline the main outcomes and results; Outline the conclusions; Outline implications for further research; Word limit 100-200 words; Abstract to be self contained; Use of key words recommended;

6. The Abstract - Description The research study investigated the views and practice of Irish academic library managers regarding reasonable accommodation of employees with disabilities in Irish college libraries (as defined in the Irish Employment Equality Act 1998 as amended.) A mixed method study (sample of 163 library managers) employed both an online survey (response rate 108/163) and follow up telephone interviews (23% of respondents). Questions were based on a literature review.

7. The Abstract - Findings Library managers were aware of the legal duty to accommodate A majority (63%) of library managers subscribed to the social model of disability rather than the medical model. Library managers were less aware of the needs of employees with less visible disabilities.

8. The Abstract - Findings A small majority of library managers reported the presence of accommodation procedures at their college. A large majority (80%) of library managers would not spend more than 0-10% of the library budget on disability accommodation. In practice this is sufficient.

9. The Abstract - Findings A majority (64%) of library managers would adopt a graduated approach (informal to formal) as a response to discriminatory conduct.

10. The Abstract – Conclusions and Recommendations On the whole the legislation is working in practice; However further disability awareness training of staff was required; Further research should examine the views specifically of library staff with disabilities. ONeill, A.M. and Urquhart C. Accommodating Employees with Disabilities: Perceptions of Irish Academic Library Managers New Review of Academic Librarianship, 17: 234-258, 2011.

11. Contact with the Publisher Choice of Library Management, Library Review, Sconul Focus or New Review of Academic Librarianship; Initial contact with the Editor of N.R.A.L by e-mail.

12. Peer Review Standard Format Paper Presentation Style of Paper Overall Impressions

13. Peer Review Paper Presentation How informative is the title?; Is the abstract no more than 200 words and does it outline the main findings? Presence of up to date bibliography and conformity to journal referencing style? English is clear and of acceptable standard?

14. Peer Review Style of Paper Clarity of objectives in paper? Methods clearly described? Results presented in a straightforward manner? Data well presented by means of tables/graphs etc.? Discussion links theory and practice? Clarity of writing with sound grammar? Paper is no more than 7,000 words?

15. Peer Review Overall Impressions Paper provides something new? Ideas in paper are of interest and practical relevance for academic libraries? How the paper can be improved; Is the paper acceptable with revisions for publication? Comments; Would you be prepared to see a revision of the paper?

16. Time Span 11 months from first contact with editor; 3 months to write; 8 months after submission

17. Thank You.