Exploring PubMed as a reliable resource for scholarly communications services

Objective: PubMed’s provision of MEDLINE and other National Library of Medicine (NLM) resources has made it one of the most widely accessible biomedical resources globally. The growth of PubMed Central (PMC) and public access mandates have affected PubMed’s composition. The authors tested recent claims that content in PMC is of low quality and affects PubMed’s reliability, while exploring PubMed’s role in the current scholarly communications landscape. Methods: The percentage of MEDLINE-indexed records was assessed in PubMed and various subsets of records from PMC. Data were retrieved via the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) interface, and follow-up interviews with a PMC external reviewer and staff at NLM were conducted. Results: Almost all PubMed content (91%) is indexed in MEDLINE; however, since the launch of PMC, the percentage of PubMed records indexed in MEDLINE has slowly decreased. This trend is the result of an increase in PMC content from journals that are not indexed in MEDLINE and not a result of author manuscripts submitted to PMC in compliance with public access policies. Author manuscripts in PMC continue to be published in MEDLINE-indexed journals at a high rate (85%). The interviewees clarified the difference between the sources, with MEDLINE serving as a highly selective index of journals in biomedical literature and PMC serving as an open archive of quality biomedical and life sciences literature and a repository of funded research. Conclusion: The differing scopes of PMC and MEDLINE will likely continue to affect their overlap; however, quality control exists in the maintenance and facilitation of both resources, and funding from major grantors is a major component of quality assurance in PMC.  This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program

Starting with I: Combating Anti-Blackness in Libraries

When millions saw the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota by the police during the COVID-19 pandemic where Black, along with Indigenous and Latinx, people had higher death rates, this led to a major awakening from white Americans that Black lives and Black bodies are treated differently. In response, many libraries issued statements supporting Black people in general and supporting their Black library workers. These statements were commitments to make change and to impact the inequities in libraries. As time passed after these statements, reading lists, LibGuides, and reading groups were created, Black bodies are still being harmed; so, where do we go from here? Start and end with I: This editorial details this concept and provides concrete steps for making change. Library workers must know the field’s anti-Black racist history and address its ongoing presence. As individuals and in institutions, library workers and library leaders must take concrete steps for combating anti-Black racism in libraries. The Black Lives Matter movement benefits all of the oppressed because its tenets, when applied, address intersectionality and combat bias and discrimination for all Black, Indigenous, and People of Color. It is time to center the voices that have been dismissed and ignored for far too long. Are you willing to do what it takes

Librarians’ Reported Systematic Review Completion Time Ranges Between 2 and 219 Total Hours with Most Variance due to Information Processing and Instruction

A Review of: Bullers, K., Howard, A. M., Hanson, A., Kearns, W. D., Orriola, J. J., Polo, R. L., & Sakmar, K. A. (2018). It takes longer than you think: Librarian time spent on systematic review tasks. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(2), 198-207. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.323 Abstract Objective – To investigate how long it takes for medical librarians to complete steps toward completion of a systematic review and to determine if the time differs based on factors including years of experience as a medical librarian and experience completing systematic reviews. Design – Survey research as a questionnaire disseminated via email distribution lists. Setting – At institutions that are members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) and librarians at Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) or American Osteopathic Association (AOA) member institutions. Subjects – Librarians of member institutions who have worked on systematic reviews. Methods – On December 11, 2015, AAHSL library directors and librarian members of AAMC and AOA were sent the survey and the recommendation to forward the survey to librarians on staff who have worked on systematic reviews. Reminders were sent on December 17, 2015, and the survey closed for participation on January 7, 2016. Participants who had worked on a systematic review within the past five years were asked to indicate experience by the number of systematic reviews completed, years of experience as a medical librarian, and how much time was spent, in hours, on the following: initial consultations/meetings; developing and testing the initial search strategy; translating the strategy for other databases; documenting the process; delivering the search results; writing their part of the manuscript; other tasks they could identify; and any instruction (i.e., training they provided to team members necessary for completion of the systematic review). Participants also further broke down the amount of their time searching, by percentage of time, in various resources, including literature indexes/databases, included studies’ references, trial registers, grey literature, and hand searching. Participants were also given space to add additional comments. The researchers reported summary statistics for phase one and, for phase two, excluded outliers and performed exploratory factor analysis, beginning with principal components analysis (PCA), followed by a varimax rotation, to determine if there was a relationship between the time on tasks and experience. Main Results – Of the 185 completed responses, 105 were analyzed for phase one because 80 responses were excluded due to missing data or no recent experience with a systematic review. The average respondent had between 1 and 6 years of experience: 1-3 years in librarianship (49.5%) and 4-6 years (23.8%). The time reported for completion of all tasks ranged from 2 to 219 hours with a mean of 30.7 hours. Most of the variance (61.6%) was caused by “information processing” and “interpersonal instruction/training” components. Search strategy development and testing had the highest average time at 8.4 hours. Within that category, databases accounted for 78.7% of time searching, followed by other searching methods. For remaining systematic review tasks, their averages were as follows: translating research (5.4 hours), delivering results (4.3 hours), conducting preliminary consultations (3.9 hours), instruction (3.8 hours), documentation (3.0 hours), additional tasks that were written-in by respondents (2.2 hours), and writing the manuscript (1.8 hours). The most common written-in tasks were development of inclusion/exclusion criteria, critical appraisal, and deduplication. Other write-ins included retrieving full-text articles, developing protocols, and selecting a journal for publishing the systematic review. For the second phase of analysis, 12 responses were excluded as extreme outliers, and the remaining 93 responses were analyzed to detect a relationship between experience and time on task. Prior systematic review experience correlated with shorter times performing instruction, consultation, and translation of searches. However, librarian years of experience affected the percentage of time on task, where greater years of experience led to more time spent consulting and instructing than the percentage for librarians with fewer years of experience. Librarians with greater than 7 years of experience skewed trends toward shorter time on task, and, with their data excluded, years of experience showed weak positive correlation with instruction and consultation. Conclusion – Because the average librarian participating on systematic review teams has had few prior experiences and because the times can vary widely based on assigned roles, duties, years of experience, and complexity of research question, it is not advised to establish expectations for librarians’ time on task. This may be why library administrators have disparate expectations of librarians’ involvement in systematic reviews and find it difficult to allocate and anticipate staff time on systematic review projects. While it may not be possible to set specific overarching guidelines for librarians’ expected time on systematic review tasks, librarian supervisors and library directors planning for their staff to offer systematic review services should work to develop extensive understanding of the steps for conducting and assessing systematic reviews in order to better estimate time commitments

Academic Medical Library Services Contribute to Scholarship in Medical Faculty and Residents

A Review of: Quesenberry, A. C., Oelschlegel, S., Earl, M., Leonard, K., & Vaughn, C. J. (2016). The impact of library resources and services on the scholarly activity of medical faculty and residents. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 35(3), 259-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2016.1189778 Abstract Objective – To assess the impact of academic medical library services and resources on information-seeking behaviours during the academic efforts of medical faculty and residents. Design – Value study derived from a 23-item survey. Setting – Public medical residency program and training hospital in Tennessee, USA. Subjects – 433 faculty and residents currently employed by or completing residency in an academic medical centre. Methods – Respondents completed a 23-question survey about their use of library resources and services in preparation for publishing, presenting, and teaching. The library services in the survey included literature searches completed by librarians and document delivery for preparation of publications, presentations, and lecture material. The survey also included questions about how resources were being accessed in preparation for scholarship. The survey sought information on whether respondents published articles or chapters or presented papers or posters in the previous three years. If respondents answered in the affirmative to one of the aforementioned methods of scholarship, they were provided with further questions about how they access library resources and whether they sought mediated literature search and document delivery services in preparation for their recent presentations and publications. The survey also included questions concerning what types of scholarly activity prompt faculty and residents to use online library resources. Main Results – The study was provided to 433 subjects, including 220 faculty and 213 residents, contacted through an email distribution list. The response rate to the survey was 15% (N=65). Residents comprised 35% of the respondents, and faculty at each of the three levels of tenure comprised 60%. The remaining 5% of respondents included PhD and non-clinical faculty within the graduate school. Over 50% of respondents reported use of library services in preparation for publishing and presenting. These library services were literature searches, document delivery, and accessing online resources. Faculty and residents reported use of PubMed first (71%) and most often, with 56% of respondents reporting weekly use, followed by Google or Google Scholar, with 20% of respondents reporting its use first and 23% of respondents reporting weekly use. However, regarding responses to the question concerning how journal articles are accessed, “using a search engine” was chosen most often, at almost 65%, followed by (in order) clicking library links in a database, contacting the library directly, searching the list of library e-journals, clicking publisher links in a database, using personal subscriptions, searching the library catalog, and using bookmarks saved in a web browser. Based on survey responses, faculty reported higher use of library services and resources than residents; however, residents reported higher use of library services and resources when preparing posters and papers for conferences and professional meetings. In addition, several comments spoke to the importance of the library for scholarly activity, many indicating the critical role of library assistance or resources in their academic accomplishments. Conclusion – This study provides evidence in support of library resources and services for medical faculty and residents, which contributes to discussions of the contributions of medical libraries. As hospital libraries close and academic medical libraries see reductions in budgets, this study contributes to the value of a library’s presence, as well as the role of the health sciences librarian in medical research and scholarly communication. This academic medical library was reported to be first and most often used, in comparison with other resources or none, in preparation for publication and presenting. The results of this and similar studies can contribute to the generalizability of its findings relating to the value of medical libraries. In addition, PubMed, UpToDate, and Google were the resources used most often by respondents, along with search engines and library links in databases. These findings can be incorporated into future outreach, marketing, and instructional curriculum for this library’s users. The survey results also provide additional support for the library’s role in the academic research lifecycle, and free-text comments about the critical role of library services furthered those findings. The authors state that further research is necessary for improving awareness of library resources and services in the role of scholarship at institutions

Health Centre Staff Are Satisfied with Librarian-Mediated Search Services, Especially When Librarians Follow Up

A Review of: McKeown, S., Konrad, S.-L., McTavish, J., & Boyce, E. (2017). Evaluation of hospital staff’s perceived quality of librarian-mediated literature searching services. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(2), 120-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.201 Abstract Objective – To determine the effects of the professional designation and communication method on clinical, educational, and research activities and related users’ reported satisfaction with and perceived quality of a librarian-mediated literature searching service. Design – Online survey. Setting – A large teaching hospital in Ontario, Canada. Subjects – 237 health sciences centre staff who were requesting librarian-mediated literature searching over a one-year period. Methods – From February 1, 2014 to January 31, 2015, one-third of the health centre staff members requesting searching services, representing a systematic sample of the user group, were invited to participate in the survey. The survey centred on questioning participants on a critical incident, which, according to the critical incident technique, is an actual event upon which recollections are made, rather than hypothetical situations. In the case of this study, the critical incident was the service they received upon requesting literature searching by a librarian who was blinded concerning the originator of the request. With a 71% response rate, the researchers received 137 responses to the survey by health sciences staff. Participants were asked how many literature searches they had requested in the previous year, the reason they requested the service, how they submitted the request, and whether the librarian followed up for further clarification of their need. They also reported on the relevance of the results and their method of delivery, along with their perceptions of the overall quality of the service. Main Results – The results came from 137 completed surveys, for a 71% response rate. Physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals comprised 85% of the responses, at 35%, 27%, and 23% respectively. Scientists, researchers, research coordinators, and other staff made up the remainder of responses. Responses indicated frequent search requests, with the average number of searches being five, and 68% of respondents reported searching for the information themselves before contacting the library for assistance. Most searches were for research/publishing (34%) and teaching/training (20%). Requests were submitted via email (44%), online form (32%), in person (17.5%), and phone (6.5%), and most respondents rated themselves extremely satisfied (54%) or very satisfied (42%). Most respondents (72%) reported that the librarian followed up for further clarification of the request, and staff who received follow-up rated themselves extremely satisfied at a significantly higher rate than those who did not (p=0.002). Respondents whose request was submitted verbally (i.e., by phone or in person), in comparison with those whose request was submitted by email or online form, rated themselves extremely satisfied at a significantly higher rate (p=0.004) and rated the quality of results as excellent at a significantly higher rate (p=0.005). Conclusion – The need for comprehensive and expert searching when publishing or completing research and the availability of easy to use point-of-care resources may be why librarian-mediated literature searching was used for research and publishing at a rate much higher than for patient care. In addition, the fact that the institution was also engaged in efforts toward evidence-based standardization of care and electronic health records during that year may have also affected results. While satisfaction with the service was higher for those communicating verbally with a librarian, it is unclear whether this was caused by other factors or differences between staff members who engage in phone or in-person communication and those who submit forms and online requests. Because following up was correlated with higher satisfaction, adjustments in service encouraging librarians to follow up are recommended. Following up in person and via phone may help further

Data: What do we need, and what do we do with it once we have it?

This presentation discusses how to find and evaluate a quality data resource, and the process of building data expertise and service models for students, faculty, and librarians

PubMed and Public Access: Distinguishing the Different Resources and Discussing the Impact of Pubmed Central

Presentation for the 2018 University of North Texas Open Access Symposium. This presentation provides an overview of resources within PubMed and its role in scholarly communication services

TransFABing: Taking the Library from a Place of Consumption to Creation

The presenters will discuss the conceptualization and creation of the University of Texas at Arlington FabLab in the Central Library. A fab lab, or a fabrication laboratory, is a space providing software and equipment to be used in digital fabrication. These spaces provide users the opportunity to work with other creative and inventive individuals and provide them with open access to technology. The UTA FabLab is a teaching facility focused on the application of cutting-edge technology in the development of professional skills, including teamwork and iterative design knowledge as well as specific technical knowledge. The University of Texas at Arlington is a large research institution, where there are many labs with equipment; however, these labs are segregated in their academic departments, where no students on campus, outside of the upperclassmen in that discipline, have access. The Libraries seek to break down that barrier by allowing all students, faculty, staff, and community members to have access to a centralized FabLab. The FabLab is student-run with students acting as both staff and supervisors. All staff members have been trained to provide exemplary customer service as well as assistance on the software and equipment available in the FabLab. In addition to the core staff are two FabLab Technicians who primarily work to manage the lab, maintain and repair equipment, and work toward specific initiatives that will further the reach, effectiveness, and development of the FabLab. The presentation will describe the methods of building and expanding a beta-fab lab, including Transforming the idea of the library’s role on campus Equipment Purchase and Maintenance Staff Hiring and Development Assessment and Evaluation Construction for the transformation of physical spac