兽医图书馆员参与系统审查和范围审查的基准

L. Toews
{"title":"兽医图书馆员参与系统审查和范围审查的基准","authors":"L. Toews","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2019.710","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives The objectives of this study were to benchmark roles that veterinary librarians at universities and colleges play in systematic reviews (SRs) and scoping reviews that are conducted by faculty and students at their institutions, to benchmark the level of training that veterinary librarians have in conducting SRs, to identify barriers to their participation in SRs, and to identify other types of literature reviews that veterinary librarians participate in. Methods Sixty veterinary librarians in universities and colleges in Canada, the United States, England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand were surveyed online about their roles and training in conducting SRs, barriers to participation in SRs, and participation in other types of literature reviews. Results Veterinary librarians’ highest participation was at an advising level in traditional librarian roles as question formulator, database selector, search strategy developer, and reference manager. Most respondents reported pretty good to extensive training in traditional roles and no or some training in less traditional roles. Sixty percent of respondents received few or no requests to participate in SRs, and only half of respondents had participated in SRs as a review team member. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their libraries had no policies regarding librarian roles and participation in SRs. Conclusions The surveyed veterinary librarians participated in SRs to a lesser degree than human health sciences librarians, experienced low demand from veterinary faculty and students to participate in SRs, and participated as review team members at significantly lower rates than human health sciences librarians. The main barriers to participation in SRs were lack of library policies, insufficient training, and lack of time.","PeriodicalId":227502,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Benchmarking veterinary librarians’ participation in systematic reviews and scoping reviews\",\"authors\":\"L. Toews\",\"doi\":\"10.5195/jmla.2019.710\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives The objectives of this study were to benchmark roles that veterinary librarians at universities and colleges play in systematic reviews (SRs) and scoping reviews that are conducted by faculty and students at their institutions, to benchmark the level of training that veterinary librarians have in conducting SRs, to identify barriers to their participation in SRs, and to identify other types of literature reviews that veterinary librarians participate in. Methods Sixty veterinary librarians in universities and colleges in Canada, the United States, England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand were surveyed online about their roles and training in conducting SRs, barriers to participation in SRs, and participation in other types of literature reviews. Results Veterinary librarians’ highest participation was at an advising level in traditional librarian roles as question formulator, database selector, search strategy developer, and reference manager. Most respondents reported pretty good to extensive training in traditional roles and no or some training in less traditional roles. Sixty percent of respondents received few or no requests to participate in SRs, and only half of respondents had participated in SRs as a review team member. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their libraries had no policies regarding librarian roles and participation in SRs. Conclusions The surveyed veterinary librarians participated in SRs to a lesser degree than human health sciences librarians, experienced low demand from veterinary faculty and students to participate in SRs, and participated as review team members at significantly lower rates than human health sciences librarians. The main barriers to participation in SRs were lack of library policies, insufficient training, and lack of time.\",\"PeriodicalId\":227502,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.710\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.710","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本研究的目的是对高校兽医图书馆员在系统评价(SRs)和范围评价中所扮演的角色进行基准测试,对兽医图书馆员在进行系统评价(SRs)方面的培训水平进行基准测试,确定他们参与SRs的障碍,并确定兽医图书馆员参与的其他类型的文献综述。方法对来自加拿大、美国、英国、苏格兰、爱尔兰、澳大利亚和新西兰等国高校的60名兽医图书馆员进行在线调查,了解他们在开展SRs中的角色和培训情况、参与SRs的障碍以及参与其他类型文献综述的情况。结果兽医馆员在传统图书馆员角色(问题提问者、数据库选择者、检索策略制定者和参考资料管理者)中的参与度最高。大多数受访者表示,在传统角色方面接受了广泛的培训,而在不那么传统的角色方面没有或只有一些培训。60%的回答者很少或没有收到参与SRs的请求,只有一半的回答者作为审查小组成员参与了SRs。60%的受访者表示,他们的图书馆没有关于图书馆员角色和参与srr的政策。结论受访兽医图书馆员参与科学研究的程度低于人类健康科学图书馆员,兽医教师和学生参与科学研究的需求较低,作为评审小组成员参与科学研究的比例显著低于人类健康科学图书馆员。参与SRs的主要障碍是缺乏图书馆政策、培训不足和缺乏时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Benchmarking veterinary librarians’ participation in systematic reviews and scoping reviews
Objectives The objectives of this study were to benchmark roles that veterinary librarians at universities and colleges play in systematic reviews (SRs) and scoping reviews that are conducted by faculty and students at their institutions, to benchmark the level of training that veterinary librarians have in conducting SRs, to identify barriers to their participation in SRs, and to identify other types of literature reviews that veterinary librarians participate in. Methods Sixty veterinary librarians in universities and colleges in Canada, the United States, England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand were surveyed online about their roles and training in conducting SRs, barriers to participation in SRs, and participation in other types of literature reviews. Results Veterinary librarians’ highest participation was at an advising level in traditional librarian roles as question formulator, database selector, search strategy developer, and reference manager. Most respondents reported pretty good to extensive training in traditional roles and no or some training in less traditional roles. Sixty percent of respondents received few or no requests to participate in SRs, and only half of respondents had participated in SRs as a review team member. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their libraries had no policies regarding librarian roles and participation in SRs. Conclusions The surveyed veterinary librarians participated in SRs to a lesser degree than human health sciences librarians, experienced low demand from veterinary faculty and students to participate in SRs, and participated as review team members at significantly lower rates than human health sciences librarians. The main barriers to participation in SRs were lack of library policies, insufficient training, and lack of time.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信