Library systematic review service supports evidence-based practice outside of medicine

Kallaher, Amelia; Eldermire, Erin; Fournier, Christine; Ghezzi‐Kopel, Kate; Johnson, Kent C.; Morris-Knower, Jim; Scinto-Madonich, Sara; Young, Sarah

doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102222

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An example of this is Cornell University Library's Evidence Synthesis Service breakdown between librarians as consultants and co-authors when collaborating on an evidence synthesis project. 31 Systematic reviews and other knowledge synthesis reviews have complex methodologies, and therefore training is a critical component to ensure that librarians have the competencies necessary to adequately support these types of projects. 32 Our survey data showed that librarians participated in multiple different formats of training, showing that a multipronged training approach seems necessary to develop comfort and competency.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Exploration of Business Librarian Participation in Knowledge Synthesis Reviews

Premji¹,

Splenda²,

Young³

2022

CRL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews and other forms of knowledge synthesis are increasingly common in the social sciences, including in business and management research. We surveyed academic business librarians to determine the extent of their involvement, in any capacity, in knowledge syntheses. Of 71 eligible responses, 30 percent were involved in supporting knowledge synthesis, while others expressed an awareness of and interest in knowledge synthesis methods and have participated in training opportunities to support these types of projects in the future. While still nascent, knowledge synthesis support by business librarians presents potential as a new service area providing opportunities for deep engagement with faculty research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Exploration of Business Librarian Participation in Knowledge Synthesis Reviews

Premji¹,

Splenda²,

Young³

2022

CRL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Librarians can perform a wide variety of roles on an ES review team, 22 either as consultants or as co‐authors. Consultations can increase researchers' search skill and confidence, 23 but the librarian is not responsible for ensuring that their advice is implemented or reported appropriately in the finished review 24,25,26 . Table 1 summarizes the observations of several studies regarding librarian consultation and co‐author rates as determined by reviewing the published ES.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do researchers co‐author evidence syntheses with librarians? A mixed‐methods study

Logan

2023

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Librarians and information specialists are experts in designing comprehensive literature searches, such as those needed for Evidence Syntheses (ES). The contributions of these professionals to ES research teams have several documented benefits, especially when they collaborate on the project. However, librarian coauthorship is relatively rare. This study explores researcher motivations for working with librarians at the co-author level through a mixed methods design.Interviews with researchers identified 20 potential motivations that were then tested through an online questionnaire sent to authors of recently published ES. Consistent with previous findings, most respondents did not have a librarian co-author on their ES, though 16% acknowledged one in their manuscript and 10% consulted one but did not document the contribution. Search expertise was the most common motivation both to and not to co-author with librarians. Those that had or were interested in co-authoring stated that they wanted the librarians' search expertise, while those who had not or were not interested stated that they already had the necessary search expertise. Researchers who were motivated by methodological expertise and availability were more likely to have co-authored their ES with a librarian. No motivations were negatively associated with librarian co-authorship. These findings provide an overview of the motivations that influence researchers to bring a librarian into an ES investigatory team. More research is needed to substantiate the validity of these motivations.evidence syntheses, librarians and information professionals, literature searching, research team composition HighlightsWhat Is Already Known Librarians and information professionals rarely co-author Evidence Syntheses with research teams despite documented benefits. Consultations, both acknowledged and unacknowledged, are more common.

show abstract

“…Many academic health centers have developed programmatic responses to the need for trained librarians on SR teams, but outside that environment, the response appears to be still gathering steam. In some cases, health sciences libraries are reprioritizing their service portfolios to redirect efforts or add personnel for supporting SR services, realizing that it is increasingly being demanded by their clientele (Kallaher et al, 2020;Ludeman et al, 2015;Roth, 2018). Given the financial constraints that libraries are currently and perennially facing, adding a labor-intensive service to their librarians' responsibilities may not be realistic.…”

Section: Librarian Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who's Publishing Systematic Reviews? An Examination Beyond the Health Sciences

Slebodnik

Pardon

Hermer

2022

ISTL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of systematic reviews (SRs) published continues to grow, and the methodology of evidence synthesis has been adopted in many fields outside of its traditional health sciences origins. SRs are now published in fields as wide ranging as business, environmental science, education, and engineering; however, there is little research looking at the nature and prevalence of non-health sciences systematic reviews (non-HSSRs). In this study, a large sample from the Scopus database was used as the basis for analyzing SRs published outside the health sciences. To map the current state of non-HSSRs, their characteristics were investigated and the subject areas publishing them determined. The results showed that a majority of the non-HSSRs examined were lacking at least one characteristic commonly expected in health sciences systematic review (HSSRs) methodology. The broad subject areas publishing non-HSSRs fall mostly within the social sciences and physical sciences.

show abstract

Library systematic review service supports evidence-based practice outside of medicine

Cited by 9 publications

References 10 publications

An Exploration of Business Librarian Participation in Knowledge Synthesis Reviews

An Exploration of Business Librarian Participation in Knowledge Synthesis Reviews

Why do researchers co‐author evidence syntheses with librarians? A mixed‐methods study

Who's Publishing Systematic Reviews? An Examination Beyond the Health Sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About