Abstract
IntroductionSystematic reviews are a growing research methodology in the health sciences, and in other disciplines, having a significant impact on librarian workload. In a follow up to an earlier study, an environmental scan was conducted at Queen’s University to determine what has changed, if anything, since the introduction of a tiered service for knowledge synthesis by examining review publications where at least one co-author was from Queen’s University.MethodsA search was conducted in PubMed and the Joanna Briggs database to find systematic reviews and meta-analyses with at least one author from Queen’s University for the five-year time since the last environmental scan. Reviews were categorized by the degree of involvement of the librarian(s) regardless of their institutional affiliation: librarian as co-author, librarian named in the acknowledgements, no known librarian involvement in the review.ResultsOf 453 systematic reviews published in the five-year time frame, nearly 20% (89) had a librarian named as co-author. A further 24.5% (110) acknowledged the role of a librarian in the search, either in the acknowledgements section or in the body of the text of the article. In just over half of reviews (235 or 51.8%) a librarian was either not involved, or was not explicitly acknowledged. More librarians and more institutions were represented in the period of 2016-2020 than in 2010-2015.ConclusionIn the five years since the last environmental scan, an increasing number of reviews recognized the role of the librarian in publishing systematic reviews, either through co-authorship or named acknowledgement. This also suggests that as more librarians have become involved in systematic reviews, librarian capacity for this work has increased compared to five years ago.
Highlights
Systematic reviews are a growing research methodology in the health sciences, and in other disciplines, having a significant impact on librarian workload
This prompted the development of a tiered service, which would allow librarians to choose their level of engagement with the project [5]
Combined with the total number of published reviews nearly doubling during the same period, it is understandable that librarians who perform systematic reviews would feel burnout[11]
Summary
Systematic reviews are a growing research methodology in the health sciences, and in other disciplines, having a significant impact on librarian workload. Methods: A search was conducted in PubMed and the Joanna Briggs database to find systematic reviews and meta-analyses with at least one author from Queen’s University for the five-year time since the last environmental scan. Conclusion: In the five years since the last environmental scan, an increasing number of reviews recognized the role of the librarian in publishing systematic reviews, either through co-authorship or named acknowledgement. This suggests that as more librarians have become involved in systematic reviews, librarian capacity for this work has increased compared to five years ago. Systematic reviews are a growing research methodology in the health sciences, as well as in other disciplines, which has had a significant impact on librarians’ workloads. Less likely, to be included as co-authors? Do librarians receive named acknowledgment in systematic review
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
