Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA最新文献

The informed netizen of today is in a state of information overload. With 785 million broadband subscribers and an urban and rural teledensity of 138% and 60%, respectively [1], India is already the second-largest online digital market. Today, in theory, medical journals and textbooks can be accessed by anyone, anytime, anywhere, and at affordable rates. Fifty odd years ago, when the authors entered medical school, the use of computers in medical education was unknown in India, as in other parts of the world. It was in this milieu, thirty-seven years ago, that eleven young Madras (Chennai)-based doctors decided to make medical literature easily accessible, particularly to clinicians in suburban and rural India. The aim was to make relevant, affordable reprints easily available to the practitioner at their place of work or study. Photocopying and using the postal service was the chosen, and indeed the only available, mode of operation. This article will outline the methodology used, trials and tribulations faced, and persistence displayed. At that time, the processes deployed appeared relevant and truly innovative. Over the ensuing years, developments in information technology made the services redundant. Extensive, even revolutionary, changes such as universal digitization and availability of a cost-effective Internet radically changed how medical literature could be accessed in India.

Objective: This preliminary study examined how personal librarian programs are implemented within medical and academic health sciences libraries. Increasing awareness of these programs and how they are implemented could create a larger and more accessible knowledge base for establishing best practices that similar libraries can look to when creating their own programs.

Methods: To characterize existing programs, a twenty-two-item survey was sent to MEDLIB-L, AAHSL-ALL, ARCL-HSIG, and PSS-Lists email listservs in October 2018 to reach a broad audience of medical and academic health sciences librarians. Survey responses were analyzed using Qualtrics and Excel.

Results: Of the 2,882 potential email recipients, 49 survey sessions were recorded, and a total of 38 survey sessions were completed (1.3% response rate). Of the 38 completed responses, representatives of 12 libraries (31.5%) reported that a personal librarian program had been implemented at their institution. For implementation, eight libraries involved 1-5 librarians, and four involved 6-10. Librarians were assigned 50-100 (n=6), 101-150 (n=1), or 151 or more (n=1) students each. The identified programs served medical students (n=11), nursing students (n=7), health professions students (n=7), dental students (n=2), and students in other fields (n=4). Services provided and communication methods were also identified.

Conclusions: The personal librarian programs identified by the survey were uniquely structured to best meet the needs of their users, though similarities in implementation existed across institutions. Medical and academic health sciences libraries can look to these libraries as practical examples when starting their own personal library programs.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a wave of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research that organizations around the world have been synthesizing in evidence reviews to provide high-quality evidence to support policymakers and clinicians. The urgency of these efforts opens these organizations to the risk of duplicated efforts, which could waste valuable time and resources.

Case presentation: The VA Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) formed a COVID Response Team that launched an online catalog of COVID-19 evidence reviews in March 2020 (https://www.covid19reviews.org/). The goal of this website is to capture the work of evidence synthesis groups in the US and around the world to maximize their collective contributions to patients, frontline clinicians, researchers, and policymakers during the COVID-19 pandemic and avoid duplicating efforts.

Conclusions: This ongoing and evolving project provides a helpful catalog of evidence reviews at various stages of production; in addition, the website provides further value with informational icons, review collections, and links to similar resources. The VA ESP will maintain this website to continue to support the needs of policymakers, clinicians, and researchers both within the VA and around the world throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: This study examines the extent to which retracted articles pertaining to COVID-19 have been shared via social and mass media based on altmetric scores.

Methods: Seventy-one retracted articles related to COVID-19 were identified from relevant databases, of which thirty-nine had an Altmetric Attention Score obtained using the Altmetrics Bookmarklet. Data extracted from the articles include overall attention score and demographics of sharers (e.g., geographic location, professional affiliation).

Results: Retracted articles related to COVID-19 were shared tens of thousands of times to an audience of potentially hundreds of millions of readers and followers. Twitter was the largest medium for sharing these articles, and the United States was the country with the most sharers. While general members of the public were the largest proportion of sharers, researchers and professionals were not immune to sharing these articles on social media and on websites, blogs, or news media.

Conclusions: These findings have potential implications for better understanding the spread of misleading or false information perpetuated in retracted scholarly publications. They emphasize the importance of quality peer review and research ethics among journals and responsibility among individuals who wish to share research findings.

The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) selects new editorial board members every year. In the spring of 2021, JMLA used a new process for reviewing and selecting applicants for the limited number of open editorial board positions. This reevaluation of the selection process was spurred by a desire to create a more diverse and representative board. Changes to the procedures for selecting new editorial board members included having an open call for editorial board members, creating an application form, creating a selection committee to screen applicants, creating a form for the selection committee to extract data from applications, and creating a two-step process for screening and then selecting board members. As part of construction of this new process, areas for continued improvement were also identified, such as refining the application form to allow more specific answers to areas of interest to the selection committee. The newly created selection process for editorial board members constitutes a significant change in JMLA processes; however, more can be done to build on this work by further refining the selection process and ensuring that new members are selected in a transparent and streamlined manner.