Étiquette : librarians

Publié le

Improving peer review of systematic reviews and related review types by involving librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers: a randomised controlled trial

Authors : Melissa L Rethlefsen, Sara Schroter, Lex M Bouter, Jamie J Kirkham,  David Moher, Ana Patricia Ayala, David Blanco, Tara J Brigham, Holly K Grossetta Nardini,  Shona Kirtley, Kate Nyhan, Whitney Townsend, Maurice Zeegers

Objective

To evaluate the impact of adding librarians and information specialists (LIS) as methodological peer reviewers to the formal journal peer review process on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches in the medical literature.

Design

Pragmatic two-group parallel randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Three biomedical journals.

Participants

Systematic reviews and related evidence synthesis manuscripts submitted to The BMJ, BMJ Open and BMJ Medicine and sent out for peer review from 3 January 2023 to 1 September 2023. Randomisation (allocation ratio, 1:1) was stratified by journal and used permuted blocks (block size=4). Of 2670 manuscripts sent to peer review during study enrollment, 400 met inclusion criteria and were randomised (62 The BMJ, 334 BMJ Open, 4 BMJ Medicine). 76 manuscripts were revised and resubmitted in the intervention group and 90 in the control group by 2 January 2024.

Interventions

All manuscripts followed usual journal practice for peer review, but those in the intervention group had an additional (LIS) peer reviewer invited.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcomes are the differences in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups in the quality of reporting and risk of bias. Quality of reporting was measured using four prespecified PRISMA-S items. Risk of bias was measured using ROBIS Domain 2. Assessments were done in duplicate and assessors were blinded to group allocation. Secondary outcomes included differences between groups for each individual PRISMA-S and ROBIS Domain 2 item. The difference in the proportion of manuscripts rejected as the first decision post-peer review between the intervention and control groups was an additional outcome.

Results

Differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches (4.4% difference, 95% CI: −2.0% to 10.7%) and risk of bias in searches (0.5% difference, 95% CI: −13.7% to 14.6%) showed no statistically significant differences between groups. By 4 months post-study, 98 intervention and 70 control group manuscripts had been rejected after peer review (13.8% difference, 95% CI: 3.9% to 23.8%).

Conclusions

Inviting LIS peer reviewers did not impact adequate reporting or risk of bias of searches in first revision manuscripts of biomedical systematic reviews and related review types, though LIS peer reviewers may have contributed to a higher rate of rejection after peer review.

URL : Improving peer review of systematic reviews and related review types by involving librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers: a randomised controlled trial

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113527

Publié le

Why Won’t They Just Adopt Good Research Data Management Practices? An Exploration of Research Teams and Librarians’ Role in Facilitating RDM Adoption

Authors: Clara Llebot, Hannah Gascho Rempe

Adoption of good research data management practices is increasingly important for research teams. Despite the work the research community has done to define best data management practices, these practices are still difficult to adopt for many research teams.

Universities all around the world have been offering Research Data Services to help their research groups, and libraries are usually an important part of these services. A better understanding of the pressures and factors that affect research teams may help librarians serve these groups more effectively.

The social interactions between the members of a research team are a key element that influences the likelihood of a research group successfully adopting best practices in data management.

In this article we adapt the Unified Theory of the Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003) to explain the variables that can influence whether new and better, data management practices will be adopted by a research group.

We describe six moderating variables: size of the team, disciplinary culture, group culture and leadership, team heterogeneity, funder, and dataset decisions.

We also develop three research group personas as a way of navigating the UTAUT model, and as a tool Research Data Services practitioners can use to target interactions between librarians and research groups to make them more effective.

URL : Why Won’t They Just Adopt Good Research Data Management Practices? An Exploration of Research Teams and Librarians’ Role in Facilitating RDM Adoption

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2321

Publié le

Understanding Factors that Encourage Research Productivity for Academic Librarians

Authors : Kristin Hoffmann, Selinda Berg, Denise Koufogiannakis

Objective

This project identifies the factors that contribute to the success of librarians as active researchers. Research success is generally aligned with productivity and output, and the authors are therefore interested in understanding the factors that encourage research productivity. This fills a gap in the literature on librarians as researchers, which has tended to focus on barriers rather than enablers.

Methods

For this quantitative study, we distributed an online survey to 1,653 potential participants across Canada and received 453 usable responses for a 27% response rate. The survey asked participants to report their research outputs and to answer questions that addressed three categories of factors: Individual Attributes, Peers and Community, and Institutional Structures and Supports.

We then statistically analyzed participant responses in order to identify relationships between the research output variables (weighted output score and number of peer-reviewed articles) and the three categories, the factors within those categories, and the constituent components.

Results

Participants’ research output consisted largely of presentations, non-peer-reviewed articles, peer-reviewed articles, and posters. All three categories of factors were significantly related to research output, both for a calculated weighted output score and for number of peer-reviewed articles.

All of the factors identified within those categories were also significant when tested against weighted output score, but Intrinsic Motivations was not a significant factor when tested against number of peer-reviewed articles.

Several components of factors were also not significant for number of peer-reviewed articles. Age was the only significant component of Demographics. Three components of Education and Experience were significant: whether participants had received research training after completing their MLIS, whether they were working on an advanced degree, and the institution where they had obtained their MLIS.

Conclusions

Research productivity is significantly impacted by all three categories: Individual Attributes, Peers and Community, and Institutional Structures and Supports. Fostering an environment that focuses on all of these areas will be most likely to promote research output for librarians. At the same time, this study’s findings point to particular aspects that warrant further investigation, such as the nature and effect of institutional support and librarians’ motivations for doing research.

URL : Understanding Factors that Encourage Research Productivity for Academic Librarians

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/B8G66F

 

 

Publié le

Green on What Side of the Fence? Librarian Perceptions of Accepted Author Manuscripts

Authors : Jimmy Ghaphery, Sam Byrd, Hillary Miller

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing body of accepted author manuscripts (AAMs) in national, professional, and institutional repositories. This study seeks to explore librarian attitudes about AAMs and in what contexts they should be recommended.

Particular attention is paid to differences between the attitudes of librarians whose primary job responsibilities are within the field of scholarly communications as opposed to the rest of the profession.

METHODS

An Internet survey was sent to nine different professional listservs, asking for voluntary anonymous participation.

RESULTS

This study finds that AAMs are considered an acceptable source by many librarians, with scholarly communications librarians more willing to recommend AAMs in higher-stakes contexts such as health care and dissertation research.

DISCUSSION

Librarian AAM attitudes are discussed, with suggestions for future research and implications for librarians.

URL : Green on What Side of the Fence? Librarian Perceptions of Accepted Author Manuscripts

DOI : http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2204

Publié le

Perceptions of Scholarly Communication Among Library and Information Studies Students

Author: Christopher Hollister

INTRODUCTION

Professional discourse concerning scholarly communication (SC) suggests a broad consensus that this is a burgeoning functional area in academic libraries. The transformed research lifecycle and the corresponding changes in copyright applications, publishing models, and open access policies have generated unprecedented opportunities for innovative library engagement with the academy and its researchers.

Accordingly, the roles for librarians have shifted to accommodate new responsibilities. Previous research on SC librarianship is mainly focused on the provision of services, administrative structures, and the analysis of relevant job descriptions. Little has been written regarding the implications of SC on the preparation of new library professionals, and no research has been produced on the relative perspectives of library students.

METHOD

The author surveyed MLIS students who were completing semester-long courses on SC at three universities to elicit their perceptions of that subject matter in terms of their library education and career pathways.

RESULTS

All respondents qualified SC as interesting and important subject matter, and a majority indicated relevance to their professional pursuits. Student perspectives are given on the viability of SC librarianship and the perceived bearing of this specialty area in different types of libraries.

DISCUSSION

Survey data suggests a possible correlation between SC courses and relative career appeal. The data may warrant attention among MLIS curriculum planners, given the academy’s recognition of the need for SC specialists.

CONCLUSION

The transformed research lifecycle necessitates new professional competencies for library practitioners. Implications for library education are discussed, and areas for future research are proposed

URL : Perceptions of Scholarly Communication Among Library and Information Studies Students

DOI : http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2180

Publié le

Valoriser les ressources numériques alternatives dans les bibliothèques publiques : un vecteur d’opportunités pour le développement des biens communs

Auteur/Author : Hans Dillaerts

Les ressources numériques alternatives peuvent être définies comme des ressources relevant du domaine public ou des ressources numériques diffusées sous la forme d’une licence libre. La place qu’occupent ces ressources dans les bibliothèques publiques est encore marginale.

Force est de constater que les politiques documentaires des bibliothèques publiques s’articulent prioritairement autour de l’offre commerciale portée par les éditeurs. Alors qu’il paraît évident que l’intégration et la valorisation de ces ressources libres au cœur des politiques documentaires permettraient non seulement aux bibliothèques de proposer une offre plus riche et plus diversifiée, mais aussi de valoriser la richesse littéraire, culturelle et artistique qui se développe sur le Web en dehors de la sphère marchande.

Quelles sont ces ressources numériques alternatives ? Comment opérer et construire une offre documentaire complémentaire des ressources physiques ? Quels enjeux pour les bibliothèques, le métier et les missions des bibliothécaires?

URL : https://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_01561437

 

Publié le

Open Access, Privacy, and Human Rights : A Case Study on Ethics in Library and Information Sciences Education

Author : Joachim Schöpfel

Purpose

How do students comment on ethical principles, which principles are important for their awareness of librarianship, how do they understand the relevance of human rights for their future work?

Methodology/approach

The case study presents the results of a lecture on information rights and ethics with 50 Master students in library and information sciences (LIS) at the University of Lille (France) in 2014–2015. Students were asked to comment on the core principles of the International Federation of Library Association (IFLA) Code of Ethics.

Findings

The students see the library as a privileged space of access to information, where the librarian takes on the function of a guardian of this specific individual freedom—a highly political role and task.

This opinion is part of a general commitment to open access and free flowing resources on Internet. They emphasize the social responsibility toward the society as a whole but most of all toward the individual patron as a real person, member of a cultural community, a social class or an ethnic group.

With regard to Human Rights, the students interpret the IFLA Code mainly as a code of civil, political, and critical responsibility to endorse the universal right of freedom of expression.

They see a major conflict between ethics and policy. The findings are followed by some recommendations for further development of LIS education, including internship, transversality, focus on conflicts and the students’ cognitive dissonance and teaching of social skills, in terms of work-based solidarity and collective choices.

Originality/value

The chapter is qualitative research based on empirical data from a French LIS Master program.

URL : http://hal.univ-lille3.fr/hal-01408444