Adherence to systematic review standards: Impact of librarian involvement in Campbell Collaboration's education reviews

Ramírez, Diana; Kogut, Ashlynn; Xiao, Daniel

doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102567

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Levels of librarian involvement observed in this study fall within range of previous findings, 4,5,11,22,23,24 suggesting that systematic review trends are comparable to other review types. Most respondents' reviews (69%) either did not involve a librarian or did not acknowledge their involvement.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Researchers and librarians should discuss the most appropriate means of acknowledging librarian contributions to ES. If the librarian designs and executes the search, offering them the opportunity to write up their work and be responsible for it as a co‐author could increase the project's quality, 3 transparency, 4 reproducibility, 5 and reduce bias 6 . If the librarian contributes in ways that do not meet authorship criteria, they should be offered an acknowledgement in the final paper 31 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Appropriately trained and experienced librarians and information science professionals 1 are natural advisors and partners on ES projects because of their expertise in searching for and retrieving published and gray literature. Librarian participation in ES reviews have been documented to improve search quality, 3 adherence to standards, 4 search reproducibility, 5 and to reduce bias 6 . Despite these benefits and concerted advocacy by librarians, 7,8 a minority of reviews report consulting librarians while even fewer have librarian co‐authors 4,5,6 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Librarian participation in ES reviews have been documented to improve search quality, 3 adherence to standards, 4 search reproducibility, 5 and to reduce bias 6 . Despite these benefits and concerted advocacy by librarians, 7,8 a minority of reviews report consulting librarians while even fewer have librarian co‐authors 4,5,6 . This study will ask researchers about their motivations for working with librarians or for choosing not to do so, building on and updating previous unpublished work 9 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Why do researchers co‐author evidence syntheses with librarians? A mixed‐methods study

Logan

2023

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Librarians and information specialists are experts in designing comprehensive literature searches, such as those needed for Evidence Syntheses (ES). The contributions of these professionals to ES research teams have several documented benefits, especially when they collaborate on the project. However, librarian coauthorship is relatively rare. This study explores researcher motivations for working with librarians at the co-author level through a mixed methods design.Interviews with researchers identified 20 potential motivations that were then tested through an online questionnaire sent to authors of recently published ES. Consistent with previous findings, most respondents did not have a librarian co-author on their ES, though 16% acknowledged one in their manuscript and 10% consulted one but did not document the contribution. Search expertise was the most common motivation both to and not to co-author with librarians. Those that had or were interested in co-authoring stated that they wanted the librarians' search expertise, while those who had not or were not interested stated that they already had the necessary search expertise. Researchers who were motivated by methodological expertise and availability were more likely to have co-authored their ES with a librarian. No motivations were negatively associated with librarian co-authorship. These findings provide an overview of the motivations that influence researchers to bring a librarian into an ES investigatory team. More research is needed to substantiate the validity of these motivations.evidence syntheses, librarians and information professionals, literature searching, research team composition HighlightsWhat Is Already Known Librarians and information professionals rarely co-author Evidence Syntheses with research teams despite documented benefits. Consultations, both acknowledged and unacknowledged, are more common.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Why do researchers co‐author evidence syntheses with librarians? A mixed‐methods study

Logan

2023

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When it comes to development education, this does not differ from development education in the past (Chong et al, 2022;Huang & Wei, 2022;Ramirez et al, 2022). Education has been practiced in Indonesia since before man knew how to write, referred to as prehistoric times, and education at that time had a simple meaning: education obtained through the environment with the goal of surviving (Argaheni, 2020;Aritantia et al, 2021;Helaluddin et al, 2019;Zamroni, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship between Buddhist education in Sriwijaya and Buddhist education in India

Wicahyah

Asyari

Irwanto

et al. 2022

ijss

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Development Buddhist education on the island of Sumatra, specifically in the Srivijaya Kingdom, began in the seventh century. At the time, there was a city big a Chinese Buddhist monk I'Tsing who came see that Buddhism was very developed in life Public Srivijaya as well as he said many activity students who come to Srivijaya for study. The purpose of writing this is to have a deeper understanding of the entwined relationship between the Srivijaya Kingdom and India, particularly in the sphere of education. This article will not only analyze the relationship between education and Buddhism in South Sumatra, but will also describe Buddhist education, the relationship that exists between Kingdom Srivijaya and other countries in numerous fields, and provide proofactual links of cooperation in the sphere of Buddhist education that were previously connected The introduction of Hindu-Buddhist culture to Indonesia had a significant impact, such as the beginning of the development of religion and culture imported from India. This method of research is used in article writing to gather knowledge and resources in the form of articles, journals, books, and ebooks. As a result of the research, more detailed information about the entry and development of Buddhism in South Sumatra, as well as the types of relationships and physical evidence, is available.

show abstract

Searching and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: A systematic assessment of current methods

Young,

MacDonald,

Louden

et al. 2024

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The search methods used in systematic reviews provide the foundation for establishing the body of literature from which conclusions are drawn and recommendations made. Searches should aim to be comprehensive and reporting of search methods should be transparent and reproducible. Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews strive to adhere to the best methodological guidance available for this type of searching. The current work aims to provide an assessment of the conduct and reporting of searches in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews. Our objectives were to examine how searches are currently conducted in Campbell systematic reviews, how search strategies, search methods and search reporting adhere to the Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR) and PRISMA standards, and identify emerging or novel methods used in searching in Campbell systematic reviews. We also investigated the role of information specialists in Campbell systematic reviews. We handsearched the Campbell Systematic Reviews journal tables of contents from January 2017 to March 2024. We included all systematic reviews published since 2017. We excluded other types of evidence synthesis (e.g., evidence and gap maps), updates to systematic reviews when search methods were not changed from the original pre‐2017 review, and systematic reviews that did not conduct their own original searches. We developed a data extraction form in part based on the conduct and reporting items in MECCIR and PRISMA. In addition, we extracted information about the general quality of searches based on the use of Boolean operators, keywords, database syntax and subject headings. Data extraction included information about reporting of sources searched, some aspects of search quality, the use and reporting of supplementary search methods, reporting of the search strategy, the involvement of information specialists, date of the most recent search, and citation of the Campbell search methods guidance. Items were rated as fully, partially or not conducted or reported. We cross‐walked our data extraction items to the 2019 MECCIR standards and 2020 PRISMA guidelines and provide descriptive analyses of the conduct and reporting of searches in Campbell systematic reviews, indicating level of adherence to standards where applicable. We included 111 Campbell systematic reviews across all coordinating groups published since 2017 up to the search date. Almost all (98%) included reviews searched at least two relevant databases and all reported the databases searched. All reviews searched grey literature and most (82%) provided a full list of grey literature sources. Detailed information about databases such as platform and date range coverage was lacking in 16% and 77% of the reviews, respectively. In terms of search strategies, most used Boolean operators, search syntax and phrase searching correctly, but subject headings in databases with controlled vocabulary were used in only about half of the reviews. Most reviews reported at least one full database search strategy (90%), with 63% providing full search strategies for all databases. Most reviews conducted some supplementary searching, most commonly searching the references of included studies, whereas handsearching of journals and forward citation searching were less commonly reported (51% and 62%, respectively). Twenty‐nine percent of reviews involved an information specialist co‐author and about 45% did not mention the involvement of any information specialist. When information specialists were co‐authors, there was a concomitant increase in adherence to many reporting and conduct standards and guidelines, including reporting website URLs, reporting methods for forward citation searching, using database syntax correctly and using subject headings. No longitudinal trends in adherence to conducting and reporting standards were found and the Campbell search methods guidance published in 2017 was cited in only twelve reviews. We also found a median time lag of 20 months between the most recent search and the publication date. In general, the included Campbell systematic reviews searched a wide range of bibliographic databases and grey literature, and conducted at least some supplementary searching such as searching references of included studies or contacting experts. Reporting of mandatory standards was variable with some frequently unreported (e.g., website URLs and database date ranges) and others well reported in most reviews. For example, database search strategies were reported in detail in most reviews. For grey literature, source names were well reported but search strategies were less so. The findings will be used to identify opportunities for advancing current practices in Campbell reviews through updated guidance, peer review processes and author training and support.

show abstract

Adherence to systematic review standards: Impact of librarian involvement in Campbell Collaboration's education reviews

Cited by 13 publications

References 26 publications

Why do researchers co‐author evidence syntheses with librarians? A mixed‐methods study

Why do researchers co‐author evidence syntheses with librarians? A mixed‐methods study

The Relationship between Buddhist education in Sriwijaya and Buddhist education in India

Searching and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: A systematic assessment of current methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About