2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102355
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Academic library leadership in the dawn of the new millennium: a systematic literature review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Though originally developed for use in the health-care professions, it has been shown to be equally applicable in a variety of other fields. Recent research in the discipline of library and information science (LIS) has successfully used PRISMA guidelines to conduct systematic reviews of scientific literature ( Ashiq, Rehman, Safdar, et al, 2021 ; Ashiq & Warraich, 2022 ). Furthermore, we also used the PRISMA 2020 Checklist developed by Page et al (2021) to formulate the title of the study, objectives, methods, results, discussion, and other details (particularly focusing on search details, inclusion and exclusion criteria, synthesize of results, risk of bias, etc.).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Though originally developed for use in the health-care professions, it has been shown to be equally applicable in a variety of other fields. Recent research in the discipline of library and information science (LIS) has successfully used PRISMA guidelines to conduct systematic reviews of scientific literature ( Ashiq, Rehman, Safdar, et al, 2021 ; Ashiq & Warraich, 2022 ). Furthermore, we also used the PRISMA 2020 Checklist developed by Page et al (2021) to formulate the title of the study, objectives, methods, results, discussion, and other details (particularly focusing on search details, inclusion and exclusion criteria, synthesize of results, risk of bias, etc.).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The researchers picked the checklist developed by Boynton and Greenhalgh (2004) , since it was deemed relevant for this review. This checklist was also used by library and information science (LIS) researchers to assess the quality of their systematic review studies ( Ashiq, Rehman, Safdar, et al, 2021 ; Safdar et al, 2021 ). The checklist includes items relating to six different aspects of a study: questions and design, sampling, instrumentation, response rate, coding and analysis, and results presentation.…”
Section: Risk Of Biasmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The drivers and motivational factors associated with data librarianship as an emerging paradigm have been reported in 11 studies (Table 3). There are various factors reported in these studies such as library value and visibility (Ashiq et al, 2021a; Cox et al, 2019; Huang et al, 2021; Tenopir et al, 2017), funder mandate (Ashiq et al, 2021b; Bresnahan and Johnson, 2013; Brown et al, 2015), learning and enjoying element (Faniel and Connaway, 2018), job responsibility (Tenopir et al, 2013), and support open access (Chawinga and Zinn, 2020; Si et al, 2015). Ohaji et al (2019) stated that RDS fall under LIS jurisdiction.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both housekeeping activities and work in the library parts can be performed by robots. In the library, for example, there are autonomous shelf reading robots, virtual reality, Virtual agents, and intelligent robots for reference services and circulation record maintenance [36]. The librarian can control the robot with the remote or technologies of artificial intelligence and virtual reality.…”
Section: The Concept Of Ai and Vrmentioning
confidence: 99%