Cargando…
The case of the disappearing librarians: analyzing documentation of librarians' contributions to systematic reviews
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to analyze the documented role of a librarian in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses whose registered protocols mentioned librarian involvement. The intention was to identify how, or if, librarians' involvement was formally documented, how their contributio...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10124603/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37101926 http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1505 |
_version_ | 1785029870764425216 |
---|---|
author | Brunskill, Amelia Hanneke, Rosie |
author_facet | Brunskill, Amelia Hanneke, Rosie |
author_sort | Brunskill, Amelia |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to analyze the documented role of a librarian in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses whose registered protocols mentioned librarian involvement. The intention was to identify how, or if, librarians' involvement was formally documented, how their contributions were described, and if there were any potential connections between this documentation and basic metrics of search reproducibility and quality. METHODS: Reviews whose PROSPERO protocols were registered in 2017 and 2018 and that also specifically mentioned a librarian were analyzed for documentation of the librarian's involvement. Language describing the librarian and their involvement was gathered and coded, and additional information about the review, including search strategy details, was also collected. RESULTS: A total of 209 reviews were found and analyzed. Of these, 28% had a librarian co-author, 41% named a librarian in the acknowledgements section, and 78% mentioned the contribution of a librarian within the body of the review. However, mentions of a librarian within the review were often generic (“a librarian”) and in 31% of all reviews analyzed no librarian was specified by name. In 9% of the reviews, there was no reference to a librarian found at all. Language about librarians' contributions usually only referenced their work with search strategy development. Reviews with librarian coauthors typically described the librarian's work in active voice centering the librarian, unlike reviews without librarian coauthors. Most reviews had reproducible search strategies that utilized subject headings and keywords, but some had flawed or missing strategies. CONCLUSION: Even among this set of reviews, where librarian involvement was specified at the protocol level, librarians' contributions were often described with minimal, or even no, language in the final published review. Much room for improvement appears to remain in terms of how librarians' work is documented. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10124603 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | University Library System, University of Pittsburgh |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101246032023-04-25 The case of the disappearing librarians: analyzing documentation of librarians' contributions to systematic reviews Brunskill, Amelia Hanneke, Rosie J Med Libr Assoc Original Investigation OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to analyze the documented role of a librarian in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses whose registered protocols mentioned librarian involvement. The intention was to identify how, or if, librarians' involvement was formally documented, how their contributions were described, and if there were any potential connections between this documentation and basic metrics of search reproducibility and quality. METHODS: Reviews whose PROSPERO protocols were registered in 2017 and 2018 and that also specifically mentioned a librarian were analyzed for documentation of the librarian's involvement. Language describing the librarian and their involvement was gathered and coded, and additional information about the review, including search strategy details, was also collected. RESULTS: A total of 209 reviews were found and analyzed. Of these, 28% had a librarian co-author, 41% named a librarian in the acknowledgements section, and 78% mentioned the contribution of a librarian within the body of the review. However, mentions of a librarian within the review were often generic (“a librarian”) and in 31% of all reviews analyzed no librarian was specified by name. In 9% of the reviews, there was no reference to a librarian found at all. Language about librarians' contributions usually only referenced their work with search strategy development. Reviews with librarian coauthors typically described the librarian's work in active voice centering the librarian, unlike reviews without librarian coauthors. Most reviews had reproducible search strategies that utilized subject headings and keywords, but some had flawed or missing strategies. CONCLUSION: Even among this set of reviews, where librarian involvement was specified at the protocol level, librarians' contributions were often described with minimal, or even no, language in the final published review. Much room for improvement appears to remain in terms of how librarians' work is documented. University Library System, University of Pittsburgh 2022-10-01 2022-10-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10124603/ /pubmed/37101926 http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1505 Text en Copyright © 2022 Amelia Brunskill, Rosie Hanneke https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Investigation Brunskill, Amelia Hanneke, Rosie The case of the disappearing librarians: analyzing documentation of librarians' contributions to systematic reviews |
title | The case of the disappearing librarians: analyzing documentation of librarians' contributions to systematic reviews |
title_full | The case of the disappearing librarians: analyzing documentation of librarians' contributions to systematic reviews |
title_fullStr | The case of the disappearing librarians: analyzing documentation of librarians' contributions to systematic reviews |
title_full_unstemmed | The case of the disappearing librarians: analyzing documentation of librarians' contributions to systematic reviews |
title_short | The case of the disappearing librarians: analyzing documentation of librarians' contributions to systematic reviews |
title_sort | case of the disappearing librarians: analyzing documentation of librarians' contributions to systematic reviews |
topic | Original Investigation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10124603/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37101926 http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1505 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT brunskillamelia thecaseofthedisappearinglibrariansanalyzingdocumentationoflibrarianscontributionstosystematicreviews AT hannekerosie thecaseofthedisappearinglibrariansanalyzingdocumentationoflibrarianscontributionstosystematicreviews AT brunskillamelia caseofthedisappearinglibrariansanalyzingdocumentationoflibrarianscontributionstosystematicreviews AT hannekerosie caseofthedisappearinglibrariansanalyzingdocumentationoflibrarianscontributionstosystematicreviews |