Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has made fluent text cheap, but it has not made responsibility cheap. This opinion paper conceptualises responsible AI use as a discipline of accountability structured around four questions: Who is responsible for the work? What role did the AI tool play? Whose information was provided? Is the output accurate? Drawing on publication ethics, international AI governance frameworks, Nigerian data protection law and research on language-model limitations, the paper argues that authorship entails answerability rather than mere text production; transparency should be an established research practice; privacy requires safeguards when information is submitted to AI systems; and fact-checking remains indispensable despite the fluency of generated content. It further contends that institutional responses should prioritise critical AI literacy and responsible practice rather than rely excessively on prohibition or unreliable detection tools. Given their expertise in information evaluation, provenance, confidentiality and information literacy, library and information science professionals are well positioned to advance responsible AI governance. The paper proposes integrating transparent disclosure, data protection, human accountability and systematic verification into institutional policies and information literacy programmes. It concludes that the integrity of AI-assisted scholarship depends on the responsible evaluation and communication of information, not merely the efficiency of its production.
The changing landscape of higher education, characterised by interdisciplinary research, digital transformation, artificial intelligence, open science, evolving scholarly communication practices, and increasing demands for strategic institutional support, is challenging traditional models of liaison librarianship. The conventional subject-based liaison model, while valuable for disciplinary engagement and relationship building, may be insufficient for addressing emerging information, research, teaching, and technology-related needs that transcend academic subject boundaries. This opinion paper reimagines liaison librarianship by advancing a transition from predominantly subject-based specialisation toward mission-based functional specialisation in academic libraries. Drawing on recent literature on the evolving roles and competencies of academic librarians, the paper argues that specialist expertise should increasingly be organised around strategic institutional and scholarly functions such as research data management, scholarly communication, artificial intelligence, digital scholarship, research impact, open science, and information literacy. The paper proposes a hybrid model that retains the relationship-building strengths of subject liaison librarianship while integrating cross-disciplinary functional specialists aligned with institutional missions and emerging scholarly needs. The proposed approach has the potential to enhance institutional alignment, optimise professional expertise, strengthen research and teaching support, and improve the strategic visibility of academic libraries. However, challenges relating to disciplinary knowledge, role ambiguity, organisational resistance, and resource limitations must be addressed. The paper concludes that mission-based functional specialisation should not be viewed as the replacement of subject liaison librarianship, but as its strategic renewal for a more interdisciplinary, technology-driven, and research-intensive academic environment.
The Fifth Industrial Revolution (5IR) has brought about profound changes in the way information is accessed, managed, and disseminated, posing new challenges and opportunities for libraries and librarians. This paper examines the extent to which librarians possess the requisite skills and knowledge to effectively manage library services within the evolving realities of the Fifth Industrial Revolution. It underscores the significance of professional preparedness in enabling librarians to function as facilitators of equitable information access, advocates of digital literacy, and custodians of information ethics in an increasingly technology-driven environment. The paper further discusses strategic approaches to strengthening librarian capacity, including sustained professional development, interdisciplinary collaboration, purposeful technology adoption, and the cultivation of innovative organisational cultures. It concludes that with deliberate investment in relevant competencies and adaptive strategies, librarians can remain responsive to technological transformation and sustain the relevance of libraries in contemporary knowledge societies.
Agentic artificial intelligence is taking supply chain software from recommendation to execution. Planning and procurement agents now execute replenishment orders, reallocate freight, and negotiate with suppliers based on delegated powers, all without simultaneous human approval. Virtually every organization maintains the records of such activities as log files, subject only to IT retention policies until the files are no longer useful for diagnostic purposes and then disposed of. This opinion article contends that such treatment misclassifies what is, in substance, evidence of business transactions. An agent-executed decision that commits expenditure, alters a contractual position or redistributes risk across trading partners creates obligations that auditors, counterparties, regulators and courts may later test, and its trace therefore meets the functional definition of a record. Drawing on records continuum theory, the article follows a single agent decision across the dimensions of creation, capture, organisation and pluralisation and locates the points at which it leaves any recordkeeping regime. It then specifies the attributes of a trustworthy decision record in terms of reliability, authenticity and integrity, and proposes a governance arrangement in which records and information managers hold design authority over decision records alongside IT, procurement, legal and audit functions. The argument is addressed to information professionals in commercial settings who will increasingly be asked to evidence what an agent did, and on whose authority.
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is now a routine information tool for students and knowledge workers, and the quality of what they obtain depends in part on how they instruct it. This article argues that prompt engineering is best understood as an extension of information literacy, and that library and information professionals should lead its teaching in partnership with other units. Using conceptual analysis, it maps prompt competencies onto the six frames of the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education and, unlike earlier mappings, identifies where the analogy fails. The mapping holds for question formulation, evaluation and refinement. It fails where a language model generates text and does not retrieve documents, where its sources cannot be inspected, and where it fabricates citations. Those failures are the strongest argument for librarian involvement, because they call for verification skills that prompt technique alone does not supply. The article proposes an instructional design in four strands, including one for workplace settings, sets out how each can be assessed, and considers equity of access to instruction. It also addresses two objections: that prompt engineering is a transient skill, and that librarians are not yet prepared to teach it. The argument is conceptual and requires empirical evaluation.
