{"title":"Bibliometric analysis of librarian involvement in systematic reviews at the University of Alberta.","authors":"Megan R Kennedy, Janice Y Kung","doi":"10.29173/jchla29696","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>It is well documented that librarian involvement in systematic reviews generally increases quality of reporting and the review overall. We used bibliometric analysis methods to analyze the level of librarian involvement in systematic reviews conducted at the University of Alberta (U of A).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using Web of Science (WoS), we searched for systematic reviews completed in the years 2016-2020 with a U of A co-author. Systematic reviews identified through WoS were screened in two phases: (<i>i</i>) exclusion of duplicates, protocols, other types of reviews, and systematic review methodology literature to leave true systematic review publications, and (<i>ii</i>) screening for level of librarian involvement (acknowledgement, co-author, or no involvement).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>640 reviews were analyzed for the following categories: (<i>i</i>) librarian named as a coauthor; (<i>ii</i>) librarian named in the acknowledgements section; (<i>iii</i>) librarian mentioned in the body of the manuscript; (<i>iv</i>) no librarian involvement. We identified 152 reviews who named a librarian as a co-author on the paper, 125 reviews named a librarian in the acknowledgements section, and 67 reviews mentioned a librarian in the body of the review without naming them as a co-author or in an acknowledgement. WoS Research Areas were used to identify disciplines that used librarian support and those that did not. A keyword network analysis revealed research areas that were very active in producing systematic reviews, while also providing information on the areas publishing systematic reviews without librarian support.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a great deal of variation in how the work of librarians is reflected in systematic reviews. This was particularly apparent in reviews where a librarian was mentioned in the body of the review but they were not named as an author or formally acknowledged. Continuing to educate researchers about the work of librarians is crucial to fully represent the value librarians bring to systematic reviews. Bibliometric analysis provides useful insights on service gaps for specific disciplines or research areas that are currently not using librarian support in systematic review publications, which can help inform service planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11081119/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29173/jchla29696","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: It is well documented that librarian involvement in systematic reviews generally increases quality of reporting and the review overall. We used bibliometric analysis methods to analyze the level of librarian involvement in systematic reviews conducted at the University of Alberta (U of A).
Methods: Using Web of Science (WoS), we searched for systematic reviews completed in the years 2016-2020 with a U of A co-author. Systematic reviews identified through WoS were screened in two phases: (i) exclusion of duplicates, protocols, other types of reviews, and systematic review methodology literature to leave true systematic review publications, and (ii) screening for level of librarian involvement (acknowledgement, co-author, or no involvement).
Results: 640 reviews were analyzed for the following categories: (i) librarian named as a coauthor; (ii) librarian named in the acknowledgements section; (iii) librarian mentioned in the body of the manuscript; (iv) no librarian involvement. We identified 152 reviews who named a librarian as a co-author on the paper, 125 reviews named a librarian in the acknowledgements section, and 67 reviews mentioned a librarian in the body of the review without naming them as a co-author or in an acknowledgement. WoS Research Areas were used to identify disciplines that used librarian support and those that did not. A keyword network analysis revealed research areas that were very active in producing systematic reviews, while also providing information on the areas publishing systematic reviews without librarian support.
Conclusion: There is a great deal of variation in how the work of librarians is reflected in systematic reviews. This was particularly apparent in reviews where a librarian was mentioned in the body of the review but they were not named as an author or formally acknowledged. Continuing to educate researchers about the work of librarians is crucial to fully represent the value librarians bring to systematic reviews. Bibliometric analysis provides useful insights on service gaps for specific disciplines or research areas that are currently not using librarian support in systematic review publications, which can help inform service planning.
分享
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
