scholarly journals Acknowledging Librarians’ Contributions to Systematic Review Searching

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Desmeules ◽  
Sandy Campbell ◽  
Marlene Dorgan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Time Required ◽  
Professional Value

<p>Abstract</p><p> </p><p>Introduction</p><p>Academic health librarians are increasingly involved as members of research teams that conduct systematic reviews. Sometimes librarians are co-authors on the resulting publications, sometimes they are acknowledged, and sometimes they receive no recognition. This study was designed to query librarian supervisors’ understanding of the extent to which Canadian academic health librarians are involved in systematic reviews and the manner in which their work is recognized.</p><p> </p><p>Methods</p><p>A survey asking 21 questions was sent to supervisors of librarians at all 17 academic health sciences libraries in Canada, querying the extent and nature of librarians’ involvement in systematic review research projects and the forms of acknowledgement that they receive.</p><p> </p><p>Results</p><p>Fourteen responses to the survey were received.  Results show strong expectations that librarians are involved, and will be involved, in systematic review research projects.  Results related to the number of reviews undertaken, the amount of time required, the forms of acknowledgement received, and the professional value of systematic review searching varied greatly.</p><p> </p><p>Discussion</p><p>The lack of consensus among academic health librarians’ supervisors regarding most aspects of librarians’ involvement in systematic review projects, and the ways in which this work is and should be acknowledged, points to the need for research on this subject. </p><p> </p>

scholarly journals It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Krystal Bullers ◽  
Allison M. Howard ◽  
Ardis Hanson ◽  
William D. Kearns ◽  
John J. Orriola ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Strategy Development ◽  
Library Directors ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Medical Library ◽  
Task Time ◽  
Time Required ◽  
Time Frames

Introduction: The authors examined the time that medical librarians spent on specific tasks for systematic reviews (SRs): interview process, search strategy development, search strategy translation, documentation, deliverables, search methodology writing, and instruction. We also investigated relationships among the time spent on SR tasks, years of experience, and number of completed SRs to gain a better understanding of the time spent on SR tasks from time, staffing, and project management perspectives.Methods: A confidential survey and study description were sent to medical library directors who were members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries as well as librarians serving members of the Association of American Medical Colleges or American Osteopathic Association.Results: Of the 185 participants, 143 (77%) had worked on an SR within the last 5 years. The number of SRs conducted by participants during their careers ranged from 1 to 500, with a median of 5. The major component of time spent was on search strategy development and translation. Average aggregated time for standard tasks was 26.9 hours, with a median of 18.5 hours. Task time was unrelated to the number of SRs but was positively correlated with years of SR experience.Conclusion: The time required to conduct the librarian’s discrete tasks in an SR varies substantially, and there are no standard time frames. Librarians with more SR experience spent more time on instruction and interviews; time spent on all other tasks varied widely. Librarians also can expect to spend a significant amount of their time on search strategy development, translation, and writing.

scholarly journals Borrowing trouble? The impact of a systematic review service on interlibrary loan borrowing in an academic health sciences library

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christy Jarvis ◽  
Joan Marcotte Gregory ◽  
Alison Mortensen-Hayes ◽  
Mary McFarland
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Financial Impact ◽  
Interlibrary Loan ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Sample Data ◽  
The Impact

Background: With the mandate to review all available literature in the study’s inclusion parameters, systematic review projects are likely to require full-text access to a significant number of articles that are not available in a library’s collection, thereby necessitating ordering content via interlibrary loan (ILL). The aim of this study is to understand what effect a systematic review service has on the copyright royalty fees accompanying ILL requests at an academic health sciences library.Case Presentation: The library created a custom report using ILLiad data to look specifically at 2018 ILL borrowing requests that were known to be part of systematic reviews. This subset of borrowing activity was then analyzed to determine its impact on the library’s copyright royalty expenditures for the year. In 2018, copyright eligible borrowing requests that were known to be part of systematic reviews represented only approximately 5% of total filled requests that involved copyright eligible borrowing. However, these systematic review requests directly or indirectly caused approximately 10% of all the Spencer S. Eccles Library copyright royalty expenditures for 2018 requests.Conclusion: Based on the sample data set, the library’s copyright royalty expenditures did increase, but the overall financial impact was modest.

scholarly journals Is there a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic review process?

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Wissinger
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Graduate Students ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Basic Education ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Training Opportunities ◽  
Systematic Review Process

Systematic reviews are a well-established and well-honed research methodology in the medical and health sciences fields. As the popularity of systematic reviews has increased, disciplines outside the sciences have started publishing them. This increase in familiarity has begun to trickle down from practitioners and faculty to graduate students and recently undergraduates. The amount of work and rigor that goes into producing a quality systematic review may make these types of research projects seem unattainable for undergraduate or graduate students, but is this an accurate assumption? This commentary discusses whether there is a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic review process. It explains the possible benefits of having undergraduate and graduate students engage in systematic reviews and concludes with ideas for creating basic education or training opportunities for researchers and students who are new to the systematic review process.

scholarly journals Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Clare Roth
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Educational Needs ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Educational Services ◽  
Educational Service ◽  
Service Model ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Health Care Settings

To meet the current needs of researchers who perform systematic reviews in health care settings, libraries need to provide high-quality educational services for researchers as part of their systematic review services. A team of librarians with diverse skills is also important for ensuring the growth and sustainability of systematic review services. This commentary describes a new team-based systematic review service model that can transform systematic review services by providing a pathway for librarians to offer a comprehensive educational service for systematic review research in a variety of health sciences library settings.

Systematic Review as a Research Method in Library and Information Science

2020 ◽  
pp. 80-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mercy Mlay Komba ◽  
Edda Tandi Lwoga
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Knowledge Gaps ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Current State

The aim of this chapter is to assess the current state of application of systematic reviews (SRs) in library and information science (LIS) field and determine how information scientists can advance the SRs as a methodology. The literature shows that there is an increasing number of SRs in LIS although there are still knowledge gaps about the use of SRs as a methodology. The quality of reporting in primary studies in LIS is still poor, and hence, it becomes difficult to appraise the value of the study undertaken. In order to advance the use of SRs in LIS domain, it is important to introduce SRs in LIS education curricular, integrate SRs as part of the continuing scientist development programmes (CPD), use automated SR software to minimize workload, introduce SRs a formal role and service in the libraries, collaborate with research teams as co-authors to conduct SRs not only in the topics defined by research teams, but also in LIS topics, and create SR databases and tools in LIS.

Systematic Review as a Research Method in Library and Information Science

2022 ◽  
pp. 17-31
Author(s):  
Mercy Mlay Komba ◽  
Edda Tandi Lwoga
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Knowledge Gaps ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Current State

The aim of this chapter is to assess the current state of application of systematic reviews (SRs) in library and information science (LIS) field and determine how information scientists can advance the SRs as a methodology. The literature shows that there is an increasing number of SRs in LIS although there are still knowledge gaps about the use of SRs as a methodology. The quality of reporting in primary studies in LIS is still poor, and hence, it becomes difficult to appraise the value of the study undertaken. In order to advance the use of SRs in LIS domain, it is important to introduce SRs in LIS education curricular, integrate SRs as part of the continuing scientist development programmes (CPD), use automated SR software to minimize workload, introduce SRs a formal role and service in the libraries, collaborate with research teams as co-authors to conduct SRs not only in the topics defined by research teams, but also in LIS topics, and create SR databases and tools in LIS.

scholarly journals Librarian Involvement in Systematic Reviews at Queen’s University: An Environmental Scan

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Ross-White
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Lead Author ◽  
Cultural Norms ◽  
Environmental Scan ◽  
School Of Nursing ◽  
The Past ◽  
To Receive

<p>Introduction</p><p>Systematic reviews pose a growing research methodology in many fields, particularly in the health sciences. Many publishers of systematic reviews require or advocate for librarian involvement in the process, but do not explicitly require the librarian to receive co-authorship. In preparation for developing a formal systematic review service at Queen’s, this environmental scan of systematic reviews was conducted to see whether librarians receive co-authorship or other acknowledgement of their role in systematic reviews.</p><p>Methods</p><p>A search of the Joanna Briggs Database and both Medline and PubMed for systematic reviews with at least one Queen’s-affiliated author was completed. These were classified based on the level of acknowledgement received by the librarian involved in the search into three groups: librarian as co-author, librarian acknowledged and unclear librarian involvement. In instances where the lead author was Queen’s-affiliated, these were also categorized by their primary academic department.</p><p>Results</p><p>Of 231 systematic reviews published with at least one Queen’s-affiliated author since 1999, 32 listed a librarian as co-author. A librarian received acknowledgement in a further 36. The School of Nursing published the most systematic reviews and was most likely to have a librarian as co-author.</p><p>Discussion</p>Librarians at Queen’s are actively involved in systematic reviews and co-authorship is a means of valuing our contribution. Librarians appear to be more likely to achieve co-authorship when they have advocated for this role in the past. Success varies according to the cultural norms of the department.

scholarly journals For Your Enrichment: A Model for Developing and Implementing a Systematic Review Service for Disciplines outside of the Health Sciences

2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Riegelman ◽  
Megan Kocher
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
The Social ◽  
Reference Librarians ◽  
Meta Analyses

Support for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the social sciences is an innovative service that makes advanced use of the expert skills of reference librarians and subject specialists. This column provides a deep look into the launch of one systematic review service to provide a model that is adaptable for other academic and special libraries.—Editor

scholarly journals Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: an exploratory study

2020 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle R. Demetres ◽  
Drew N. Wright ◽  
Antonio P. DeRosa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Information Professionals ◽  
Job Duties

Objective: The aim of this exploratory study was to assess personal, work-related, and client-related burnout among information professionals who support systematic review (SR) work.Methods: The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, a validated tool for assessing burnout, was administered to information professionals who support SR work. A broad range of health sciences or medical librarians and information professionals were targeted via professional email discussion lists and news outlets. Questionnaire responses were captured electronically using Qualtrics Survey Software and quantitatively analyzed.Results: Respondents experienced an average personal burnout score of 48.6, work-related score of 46.4, and client-related score of 32.5 out of 100. Respondents who reported spending >80% of their job duties on SR work had significantly lower personal burnout scores than those who reported spending <10% of their job duties on SR work (average, 31.5 versus 50.9, respectively). Also, respondents who reported using an SR support tool had significantly lower personal burnout scores than those who reported sometimes using a tool (average, 43.7 versus 54.7, respectively).Conclusion: The results suggest that information professionals who dedicate more time to SR work or who consistently use an SR support tool experience less burnout. This study provides groundwork for further investigation with the aim of developing approaches to prevent or combat SR-related burnout among information professionals.

scholarly journals Building the Systematic Review Core in an academic health sciences library

2019 ◽  
Vol 107 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mellanye J. Lackey ◽  
Heidi Greenberg ◽  
Melissa L. Rethlefsen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Executive Director ◽  
Financial Support ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Subject Matter Experts ◽  
A Charge ◽  
Procedural Decisions

Background: The authors present efforts to build capacity at our institution for conducting systematic reviews and other forms of evidence synthesis through partnerships and a recharge model. This report describes how we successfully created and launched a for-fee systematic review core at our library.Case Presentation: Throughout 2014 and 2015, library leadership proposed different models for getting institutional and financial support for librarians and staff to better support university researchers conducting systematic reviews. Though well received, initial requests for financial support were not funded. The executive director of the Health Sciences Library released two years’ worth of salary and benefits to fund an evidence synthesis and retrieval librarian position. With this new position, the team formed a charge-back core facility in partnership with our university’s Clinical Translation and Science Award hub. A series of procedural decisions and operational changes helped the group achieve success. Within eighteen months after launching the Systematic Review Core, we reached maximum capacity with more than twenty ongoing reviews.Discussion: Assigning a dollar value to our expertise put us on par with other subject matter experts on campus and actually drove demand. We could act as paid consultants in research projects and shifted the perception of librarians from service providers to research partners. Affiliating with our partners was key to our success and boosted our ability to strengthen our campus’ research infrastructure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document