Characteristics and Impact of Librarian Co-authored Systematic Reviews: A Bibliometric Analysis
Saleh, A. A.; Huebner, F.
Show abstract
BackgroundHealth sciences libraries have been providing services that support systematic reviews (SRs) for many years. In recent times the problem facing health sciences libraries is the management of the demand versus resources availability. There have been questions posed as to the value of this type of service in health sciences libraries. A valuable outcome of librarian collaboration on SR teams is co-authorship of the reported SRs. This study aimed to examine the characteristics and impact of librarian co-authored SRs. MethodsA bibliometric analysis was conducted. Librarian co-authored SRs were identified in the Web of Science (WOS) Core Collection limited up to the year 2017. Librarian co-authored SRs with the librarian as first author were excluded from this analysis. Additional inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied in the selection process. The included records were analyzed using Perl programs and VOSviewer. To examine the dissemination of librarian co-authored SRs, citing articles to the included SR records were retrieved from the WOS Core Collection and then identified in MEDLINE for an analysis of the indexed publication types. ResultsThe included results yielded 1,711 librarian co-authored SRs published between 1996 and 2017. The top three countries of the first author affiliation were USA, Canada, and Netherlands. Sources of publication were distributed among 730 journal titles. The number of MEDLINE citing articles to the included SRs was 28,868. The mean number of citations to a SR was 26.4. The top publication type descriptor of the citing articles representing the MEDLINE "Study Characteristic" category was "Randomized Controlled Trial". ConclusionOutcomes of librarian contributions to supporting SRs include increasing scholarship opportunities that highlight librarian contributions to other disciplines. SRs are bodies of evidence, which can influence policy, patient care, and future research. In this study, we demonstrate that librarian co-authored SRs are disseminated into randomized controlled trials and other study types, meta-analyses, as well as guidelines, thus providing insight into knowledge transfer and the potential for clinical implementation.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigating the Nature of Open Science Practices Across Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Journals: An Audit 94%
- Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors 94%
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- To Include or Not to Include? A prescription from the pharmacy on how to use active learning assisted screening in systematic reviews 92%
- Is artificial intelligence for medical professionals serving the patients? Protocol for a mixed method systematic review on patient-relevant benefits and harms of algorithmic decision-making 90%
- Understanding the Challenges of Medicine Optimisation Among Older People From Ethnic Minority Communities (Aged 60 Years and Above) With Polypharmacy in Primary Care: A Realist Review Protocol 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Agreeability testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies 93%
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 92%
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Catchii: empowering literature review screening in healthcare 94%
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 93%
- Fast and frugal decision tree for the rapid critical appraisal of systematic reviews 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 93%
- Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use – a scoping review 92%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.