An environmental scan of librarian involvement in systematic reviews at Queen's University: 2020 update.

Abstract

Introduction: Systematic 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.

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. 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.

Results: Of 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.

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 also suggests that as more librarians have become involved in systematic reviews, librarian capacity for this work has increased compared to five years ago.