The article explores available data on displaced materials from Germany in the Research Library of Tomsk State University (TSU), one of the largest academic libraries in Russia. It provides a summary on where and how German books were transported to TSU. The paper also explores what do they represent and where they originate from. Among other sources, the author uses unpublished documents related to negotiations between Russia and Germany on the displaced art in the 1990s. He concludes that the materials mostly have library provenance and arrived to the USSR by train No. 176/8037 Berlin – Leningrad in August 1946. Most probably, the library materials were delivered from Leningrad to Moscow, and later, in 1980, from Moscow to Tomsk. Most of the books belonged to the libraries of Magdeburg, Bremen and Berlin. Some part of the Tomsk collection might have been transported by another train from Berlin to Moscow. However, since these books were stored at the same storage facility at Berlin-Rummelsburg station as those dispatched to Leningrad, we might admit some sorting mistakes. Relatively modern printed books make the core of the collection though there is a small number of medieval manuscripts and archival documents. Possibly, the latter ended up in Tomsk by accident.

The article is prepared in the State Public Library of Scientific Technological Library of the Siberian Branch of the of the Russian Academy of Sciences, project No. 122041100088-9 “Transformation of the book culture in the social communications in the 19th-21st centuries”. 

The personal archive of the art critic M. I. Fabricant (1887–1966), now in the collection of the Scientific Library of Lomonosov Moscow State University, comprises many documents in the book science, arts bibliography, and Soviet-era library science. The author publishes the exegetical text of the two draft versions of the report by M. I. Fabricant “The second five-year plan of scientific libraries for arts”. The dating of this document, presumably written shortly before June 19, 1932, is substantiated; the historical and political situation in the country of that period is described. The library science terminology then emerging and reflecting the political rhetoric of the five-year plans for Soviet economy is discussed.  The use of technical terms in the humanitarian sphere is accentuated, e. g. “cultural construction”, “library construction”; within the collectivization paradigm, the terms characterized new methods of organization of work: “collection mobilization”, “consolidation”, “association”, “centralization”, “affiliating”, “hubbing”, “hub (central) library”, “general arts departments”; or the terms reflected the collective nature of work, like “brigades”, “groups” of museum libraries, art experts, “mass reader”, “library activists”. The number of terms characterized the specifics of museum libraries: “special library”, “scientific library”, “cultural and historical library”, “arts library”, “scientific library for arts”, “museum library”, “museum and arts library”, “isobibliothek” [“fine arts library”], “library for arts studies”.

Scientific specificity of HAC: 5.10.4. “Library science, bibliography and book science (philological sciences)”.

The article discusses the need to change role and functions of libraries, dictated by the challenges of the information society. In the information society, the amount of information is growing exponentially. Besides, the Internet is becoming the main space for aggregating information flows and searching for the necessary sources. In this situation, libraries are experiencing an identity crisis and, in order to maintain their fundamental role in the information system of society, they are faced with the need to change their operations. Therefore, libraries are applying information and communication technologies, especially social media, to create digital collections, to improve information services, as well as to promote libraries in order to attract users and satisfy their needs.

The need for evaluating scientific research demands adjusting methodology. Today, the two existing approaches, namely bibliometrical analysis and expert opinion, will not meet the demands of researchers and administrators if used separately.  

Based on the reviews, reports and personal practical experience, the author examines the pros and cons of these two approaches and concludes on the need to integrate them so they complement one another. The bibliometrical studies related to scholarly publications processing and quantitative analysis enable to identify the most globally important works while the expert opinion enables to distinguish radically new themes at the early stage.

The author argues that the methodology of three components will be the most efficient for science advance; they are: bibliometrical analysis, expert review, and opinion of the professional who would browse the publications in his/her specialty searching for promising themes. Properly synchronized, these three approaches would enable to make economically efficient and informative foundation for rating research activities and to identify the newest vectors in science at the early stage of their emergence.

Based on the conducted research, the possibilities of applying the artificial intelligence system ChatGPT to enhance and automate traditional library and bibliographic processes such as acquisition, cataloging, indexing, and reference services are considered. The methodology is based on evaluating the language model's capabilities in the context of these processes and provides detailed recommendations for the effective use of ChatGPT in library practice. The authors describe the ChatGPT existent information), differences in the accuracy of AI system responses across different languages, and the lack of real-time information updates. Methods for addressing potential issues associated with these limitations are proposed. Additionally, general recommendations for formulating queries are provided to maximize the effective utilization of ChatGPT in library practice. The importance of fact-checking to verify the accuracy of information obtained from the language model is emphasized. Recommendations are developed to optimize and automate acquisition, cataloging, indexing, and reference services processes. The authors conclude that ChatGPT can become a powerful tool in library work and has significant potential to improve and streamline traditional processes.

The author examines the current status of documentology. The difference between documentary, ontological and theoretical knowledge is explained as related to the sciences of documentary information, and development of documentology is discussed through the lens of the theory of the structure of scientific knowledge. Based on the logical typology of cognition objects as subjects of thought, the just identifications of subjects of thought and concepts related to information units denoted by the term “document” and related terms, are offered. The author analyzes several popular interpretations of various information units. The need for the common intertheory of documentology addressing the phenomena, processes, info units within the documentation activities and provision of socially significant information to the society, is substantiated. 

The authors analyze the materials in librarianship generated with artificial intelligence (AI). They demonstrate that AI generates the texts very close to the common style and format of publications in the area. The goal of the article is to warn the users of the AI-generated works and possibly, to prevent violation of publishing ethics. The authors undertook comprehensive comparison to evaluate the quality and similarity of text materials, and application of the generated predictive text (GPT) technology in librarianship. The advantages and disadvantages of both approaches are revealed. The findings of the study are important to understand the AI capabilities and limitations in librarianship and to identify the contexts where the computerized systems are most efficient as compared to human authors. The ChatGPT is an excellent reference and complementary tool based on the accumulated samples. The materials created by ChatGPT are legally close to encyclopedic or dictionary entries, however, they have no actual author(s), i.e. these materials are independent creative works therefore they can hardly be protected by general copyright. The authors recommend to indicate the AIgenerated parts of works, argue that further development of juridical foundations for GPT materials is needed, and invite everyone to discussion.

The study is accomplished within the framework of the NRU HSE Fundamental Studies Program.