Librarian Involvement in Systematic Reviews at Queen’s University: An Environmental Scan

Introduction Systematic reviews pose a growing research methodology in many fields, particularly in the health sciences. Many publishers of systematic reviews require or advocate for librarian involvement in the process, but do not explicitly require the librarian to receive co-authorship. In prep...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Amanda Ross-White
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Alberta 2016-08-01
Series:Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/jchla/index.php/jchla/article/view/26149
id doaj-0d40ef612877423fac17de8de6114285
record_format Article
spelling doaj-0d40ef612877423fac17de8de61142852020-11-24T22:47:34ZengUniversity of AlbertaJournal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association1708-68922016-08-0137210.5596/c16-01619161Librarian Involvement in Systematic Reviews at Queen’s University: An Environmental ScanAmanda Ross-White0Queen's University Introduction Systematic reviews pose a growing research methodology in many fields, particularly in the health sciences. Many publishers of systematic reviews require or advocate for librarian involvement in the process, but do not explicitly require the librarian to receive co-authorship. In preparation for developing a formal systematic review service at Queen’s, this environmental scan of systematic reviews was conducted to see whether librarians receive co-authorship or other acknowledgement of their role in systematic reviews. Methods A search of the Joanna Briggs Database and both Medline and PubMed for systematic reviews with at least one Queen’s-affiliated author was completed. These were classified based on the level of acknowledgement received by the librarian involved in the search into three groups: librarian as co-author, librarian acknowledged and unclear librarian involvement. In instances where the lead author was Queen’s-affiliated, these were also categorized by their primary academic department. Results Of 231 systematic reviews published with at least one Queen’s-affiliated author since 1999, 32 listed a librarian as co-author. A librarian received acknowledgement in a further 36. The School of Nursing published the most systematic reviews and was most likely to have a librarian as co-author. Discussion Librarians at Queen’s are actively involved in systematic reviews and co-authorship is a means of valuing our contribution. Librarians appear to be more likely to achieve co-authorship when they have advocated for this role in the past. Success varies according to the cultural norms of the department.https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/jchla/index.php/jchla/article/view/26149systematic reviewhealth sciences librarianscolleges and universitieslibrariesacademic
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Amanda Ross-White
spellingShingle Amanda Ross-White
Librarian Involvement in Systematic Reviews at Queen’s University: An Environmental Scan
Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association
systematic review
health sciences librarians
colleges and universities
libraries
academic
author_facet Amanda Ross-White
author_sort Amanda Ross-White
title Librarian Involvement in Systematic Reviews at Queen’s University: An Environmental Scan
title_short Librarian Involvement in Systematic Reviews at Queen’s University: An Environmental Scan
title_full Librarian Involvement in Systematic Reviews at Queen’s University: An Environmental Scan
title_fullStr Librarian Involvement in Systematic Reviews at Queen’s University: An Environmental Scan
title_full_unstemmed Librarian Involvement in Systematic Reviews at Queen’s University: An Environmental Scan
title_sort librarian involvement in systematic reviews at queen’s university: an environmental scan
publisher University of Alberta
series Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association
issn 1708-6892
publishDate 2016-08-01
description Introduction Systematic reviews pose a growing research methodology in many fields, particularly in the health sciences. Many publishers of systematic reviews require or advocate for librarian involvement in the process, but do not explicitly require the librarian to receive co-authorship. In preparation for developing a formal systematic review service at Queen’s, this environmental scan of systematic reviews was conducted to see whether librarians receive co-authorship or other acknowledgement of their role in systematic reviews. Methods A search of the Joanna Briggs Database and both Medline and PubMed for systematic reviews with at least one Queen’s-affiliated author was completed. These were classified based on the level of acknowledgement received by the librarian involved in the search into three groups: librarian as co-author, librarian acknowledged and unclear librarian involvement. In instances where the lead author was Queen’s-affiliated, these were also categorized by their primary academic department. Results Of 231 systematic reviews published with at least one Queen’s-affiliated author since 1999, 32 listed a librarian as co-author. A librarian received acknowledgement in a further 36. The School of Nursing published the most systematic reviews and was most likely to have a librarian as co-author. Discussion Librarians at Queen’s are actively involved in systematic reviews and co-authorship is a means of valuing our contribution. Librarians appear to be more likely to achieve co-authorship when they have advocated for this role in the past. Success varies according to the cultural norms of the department.
topic systematic review
health sciences librarians
colleges and universities
libraries
academic
url https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/jchla/index.php/jchla/article/view/26149
work_keys_str_mv AT amandarosswhite librarianinvolvementinsystematicreviewsatqueensuniversityanenvironmentalscan
_version_ 1725681297511153664