{"title":"消失的图书馆员案例:分析图书馆员对系统评论的贡献。","authors":"Amelia Brunskill, Rosie Hanneke","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2022.1505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"110 4","pages":"409-418"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10124603/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The case of the disappearing librarians: analyzing documentation of librarians' contributions to systematic reviews.\",\"authors\":\"Amelia Brunskill, Rosie Hanneke\",\"doi\":\"10.5195/jmla.2022.1505\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47690,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Medical Library Association\",\"volume\":\"110 4\",\"pages\":\"409-418\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10124603/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Medical Library Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1505\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1505","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
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 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.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship. The most current impact factor for the JMLA (from the 2007 edition of Journal Citation Reports) is 1.392.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
