Journal of the Medical Library Association最新文献

Background: Doctor of pharmacy educational accreditation standards state student pharmacists should be able to evaluate the scientific literature as well as critically analyze and apply information in answering drug information questions. Student pharmacists often struggle with identifying and using appropriate resources to answer medication-related questions. To ensure educational needs were met, a college of pharmacy hired a health sciences librarian to support the faculty and students.

Case presentation: The health sciences librarian collaborated with faculty and students throughout the doctor of pharmacy curriculum to identify and address any gaps related to appropriate drug resource utilization. Adding instruction time to the new student pharmacist orientation, coursework throughout the first year of the pharmacy program, and a two-semester evidence-based seminar course provided opportunities for the health sciences librarian to work with student pharmacists in the areas of library resource access, instruction on drug information resources, and evaluation of drug information found on the internet.

Conclusion: The deliberate inclusion of a health sciences librarian into the doctor of pharmacy curriculum can benefit faculty and students. Opportunities for collaboration are available throughout the curriculum, such as providing instruction for database utilization and supporting the research activities of both faculty and student pharmacists.

Objective: Health sciences librarians frequently engage in scholarly publication, both with other librarians undertaking intradisciplinary scholarship, and increasingly as members of research teams centered in other disciplines. We sought to assess the emotional and institutional context of authorship among health sciences librarians, including emotions experienced during authorship negotiation, the frequency with which authorship is denied, and the correlation of perceived support from supervisors and the research community with the number of publications produced.

Methods: 342 medical and health sciences librarians took an online survey of 47 questions regarding emotions experienced when asking for authorship, denial of authorship, if they have been given authorship without asking, and the extent to which they felt supported to conduct research in their current job.

Results: Authorship negotiation creates varied and complex emotions among librarians. The emotions reported differed when negotiating authorship with librarian colleagues and when negotiating authorship with professionals in another field. Negative emotions were reported when asking either type of colleague for authorship. Respondents reported feeling mostly supported and encouraged by their supervisors, research communities, and workplaces. Nearly one quarter (24.4%) of respondents reported being denied authorship by colleagues outside of their departments. Perceived research appreciation and support by the research community is correlated with the total number of articles or publications produced by librarians.

Conclusion: Authorship negotiation among health sciences librarians involves complex and frequently negative emotions. Denial of authorship is frequently reported. Institutional and professional support appear to be critical to publication among health sciences librarians.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1443.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1447.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1579.].

Background: Since 2003, the MLA Membership Committee has facilitated an in-person mentoring program called Colleague Connection at the annual meeting. The program hinged on meeting attendance, so members who could not attend were excluded. The 2020 virtual meeting created an opportunity to rethink the Colleague Connection experience. Three members of the Membership Committee developed an expanded and virtual version of the mentoring program.

Case presentation: Colleague Connection was promoted via the MLA '20 vConference Welcome Event, MLAConnect, and email lists. The 134 participants were matched based on same-chapter preference, library type, practice area interest, and years of experience. Mentees chose mentor-mentee or peer pairs, resulting in 4 peer matchings and 65 mentor-mentee matchings. Pairs were encouraged to meet monthly, and conversation prompts were provided. A Wrap-Up Event was held for participants to talk about their experiences and network. A survey evaluated the program and sought suggestions for improvement.

Conclusion: The online format boosted participation, and the format change was well received. In the future, a formal orientation meeting and communication plan can ensure pairs make their initial connections and provide clarity about program details, expectations, timelines, and contact information. The type of pairings and size of the program are important considerations for the feasibility and sustainability of a virtual mentoring program.

Email solicitations for manuscript submissions are a common tactic employed by predatory journals to attract potential victims. Both new and established researchers alike have fallen prey to this tactic, justifying the need for librarians to provide further education and support in this area. This commentary provides a succinct overview of predatory journals; briefly describes the problem of predatory journal email solicitations; explains the role librarians can play in their identification; and lists some red flags and tactics librarians can tell researchers to look out for, as informed by the literature and the author's analysis of 60 unsolicited journal emails she received in her own institutional inbox.

Objective: Open science (OS) is a global movement focused on improving research equity, reproducibility, and transparency of research outputs in publicly funded research. While OS education in academia is becoming more common, examples of health sciences librarians providing OS training are not. This paper describes how a librarian collaborated with teaching faculty and a research program coordinator to integrate an OS curriculum into an undergraduate professional practice course and assess students' perceptions of OS after participating.

Methods: A librarian developed an OS-specific curriculum for an undergraduate professional practice course in Nutrition. This course is part of the First Year Research Experience (FYRE) program, which is integrated into 13-week undergraduate courses to introduce students to core elements of the research process in their first year of study by carrying out a research project. The OS curriculum included an Introduction to OS class, a requirement that students share their research outputs in the Open Science Framework, and an assignment asking students to reflect on their experience learning about and practicing OS. Twenty-one of 30 students consented to having their reflection assignment undergo thematic analysis.

Results: Students indicated transparency, accountability, accessibility to research outputs, and increased efficiency as positive attributes of OS. The time commitment, fear of being scooped, and concerns over having research be misinterpreted were considered negative attributes. 90% (n=19) of students indicated that they intend to practice OS in the future.

Conclusion: Based on strong engagement from the students, we believe that this OS curriculum could be adapted to other undergraduate or graduate student contexts where a research project is required.

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.

Background: Despite the challenges the COVID-19 pandemic placed on libraries' existing workflows and operations, many librarians developed and debuted new services that addressed novel needs that emerged during the pandemic. This report describes how two electronic resource librarians at regional hospitals within a healthcare corporation used exhibition platforms to showcase resident research in an online format as a complement to in-person resident research programming.

Case presentation: Over the course of the pandemic, two exhibition platform variants were implemented, one year apart. This case report describes how each platform was developed. The first online event was conducted using a virtual exhibit platform to minimize in-person contact. The second online event, held the following year, blended a traditional live event with virtual elements using the online exhibit platform. To ensure completion of tasks, project management techniques were adopted throughout the event planning process.

Conclusions: The pandemic created opportunities for hospitals to explore transforming meetings from primarily live and onsite into hybrid and fully virtual events. While many corporate hospitals have transitioned back to primarily in-person programming, newly adopted online practices such as online judging platforms and automation of continuing medical education tasks will likely remain. As in-person restrictions within healthcare settings are lifted or eased at uneven rates, organizations may continue to explore the value of in-person meetings versus the video conference experience of the same meeting.

Objective: To understand the experience of academic health sciences libraries during the pandemic using a phenomenological approach.

Methods: This study used a multisite, mixed-method approach to capture the direct experience of academic health sciences libraries as they evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. Phase one of the study involved administering a qualitative survey to capture to capture current evolutions of programs and services. The survey for phases two (August 2020) and three (February 2021) contained eight questions asking participants to share updates on their evolution and experiences.

Results: Qualitative data were analyzed using open coding techniques to ensure emergent themes were allowed to surface. Additional post-hoc sentiment analysis ascertained the frequency of positive and negative words in each data set. Of the 193 possible AAHSL libraries, 45 (23.3%) responded to the April 2020 survey, 26 to the August 2020 survey, and 16 to the February 2021 survey. Libraries represented 23 states and the District of Columbia. The majority of libraries closed in March 2020. The ease of transferring library services to a remote environment varied by type of service. For the quantitative analysis, ten distinct areas were analyzed using text coded as "Staff" as a lens for understanding the connection between codes.

Conclusion: Innovations by libraries during the early stages of the pandemic are having a long-term impact on library culture and the delivery of services. Even as libraries returned to in-person services, elements of telecommuting, using online conferencing software, safety precautions, and monitoring of staff well-being persisted.

In this profile, Shannon D. Jones, MLS, MEd, AHIP, FMLA, Medical Library Association President, 2022-2023, MJ Tooey describes her as someone who "takes chances on people, valuing those others might not see as valuable". Jones embraces lifelong learning, and it shows up in her collegiate journey; she has been a student of leadership, a leader of institutions, especially within the Medical Library Association (MLA); and a leader in librarianship. She is a trailblazer, the second African American MLA president, and a champion of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging. Jones has been Director of Libraries & Professor at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) for the past seven years and is also Director of Region 2 of the National Network of Libraries of Medicine, National Library of Medicine.