A response to R.A. Baryshev’s article “Proactivity, Reactivity and Interactivity in Library Activity” (pp. 173—183) is presented, in which the author continues to defend the terms proposed by him in his previous works. Neologisms in science in general and in library science in particular are necessary, they contribute to the development of the conceptual apparatus and scientific discipline as a whole. The objective need for neologisms arises when a new phenomenon is discovered, which has no name yet, and the existing terms for some reason characterize it either partially or distorted. To get out of the situation, usually use two ways: either according to the rules of terminology invent a new word, or borrow the most appropriate from related and neighboring sciences, expanding its meaning. Here are examples of neologisms “fondist”, “document”, “information resource”, “medialogy” that illustrate this provision. But there is no need to introduce the terms proposed by R.A. Baryshev, library science and library practice do without the terms artificially borrowed by him from other fields. The necessity of their introduction is not justified by the author, and their introduction is useless both theoretically and practically. The article by R.A. Baryshev does not reveal the methodology of how to anticipate the information needs of readers and there are no examples illustrating the effectiveness of the so-called proactive libraries.