Reducing waste and increasing value through embedded replicability and reproducibility in systematic review process and automation

Shokraneh, Farhad

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.008

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reproducibility and replicability are expected to reduce research waste and increase the value of evidence [13] . Although excessive duplication of systematic reviews [9] is certainly contributing to research waste, there may be legitimate reasons for conducting new, overlapping systematic reviews.…”

Section: Letter To the Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

Replicability in the context of systematic reviews: A call for a framework with considerations regarding duplication, overlap, and intentionality

Puljak

Pieper

2022

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Letter To the Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

Replicability in the context of systematic reviews: A call for a framework with considerations regarding duplication, overlap, and intentionality

Puljak

Pieper

2022

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…“Data” in a systematic review are the set of studies resulting from the comprehensive literature search, which is analogous to the findings and data from a primary research study or specific results or data from an experiment [9]. Proper construction, validation, and reporting of search strategies to retrieve these data are fundamental to the quality and reproducibility of systematic reviews and meta-analyses [4, 5, 7, 9–13]. Librarians, information specialists, and informationists are experts in searching for information, and systematic review quality improves when the systematic search methodology is designed and performed by a librarian [10, 14, 15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey

Nardini

Batten

Funaro

et al. 2019

Res Integr Peer Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDeveloping a comprehensive, reproducible literature search is the basis for a high-quality systematic review (SR). Librarians and information professionals, as expert searchers, can improve the quality of systematic review searches, methodology, and reporting. Likewise, journal editors and authors often seek to improve the quality of published SRs and other evidence syntheses through peer review. Health sciences librarians contribute to systematic review production but little is known about their involvement in peer reviewing SR manuscripts.MethodsThis survey aimed to assess how frequently librarians are asked to peer review systematic review manuscripts and to determine characteristics associated with those invited to review. The survey was distributed to a purposive sample through three health sciences information professional listservs.ResultsThere were 291 complete survey responses. Results indicated that 22% (n = 63) of respondents had been asked by journal editors to peer review systematic review or meta-analysis manuscripts. Of the 78% (n = 228) of respondents who had not already been asked, 54% (n = 122) would peer review, and 41% (n = 93) might peer review. Only 4% (n = 9) would not review a manuscript. Respondents had peer reviewed manuscripts for 38 unique journals and believed they were asked because of their professional expertise. Of respondents who had declined to peer review (32%, n = 20), the most common explanation was “not enough time” (60%, n = 12) followed by “lack of expertise” (50%, n = 10).The vast majority of respondents (95%, n = 40) had “rejected or recommended a revision of a manuscript| after peer review. They based their decision on the “search methodology” (57%, n = 36), “search write-up” (46%, n = 29), or “entire article” (54%, n = 34). Those who selected “other” (37%, n = 23) listed a variety of reasons for rejection, including problems or errors in the PRISMA flow diagram; tables of included, excluded, and ongoing studies; data extraction; reporting; and pooling methods.ConclusionsDespite being experts in conducting literature searches and supporting SR teams through the review process, few librarians have been asked to review SR manuscripts, or even just search strategies; yet many are willing to provide this service. Editors should involve experienced librarians with peer review and we suggest some strategies to consider.

show abstract

“…[9] Proper construction, validation, and reporting of search strategies to retrieve these data are fundamental to the quality and reproducibility of systematic reviews and metaanalyses. [4,5,7,[9][10][11][12][13] Librarians, information specialists, and informationists are experts in searching for information, and systematic review quality improves when the systematic search methodology is designed and performed by a librarian. [10,14,15] Involvement of a librarian in the process of developing and executing a comprehensive search is increasingly evident in the literature and strongly encouraged by organizations such as the Cochrane, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (previously Institute of Medicine -IOM), and the Campbell Collaboration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of a survey

Nardini¹,

Batten²,

Funaro³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Developing a comprehensive, reproducible literature search is the basis for a high-quality systematic review (SR). Librarians and information professionals, as expert searchers, can improve the quality of systematic review searches, methodology, and reporting. Likewise, journal editors and authors often seek to improve the quality of published SRs and other evidence syntheses through peer review. Health sciences librarians contribute to systematic review production but little is known about their involvement in peer reviewing SR manuscripts.Methods:This survey aimed to assess how frequently librarians are asked to peer review systematic review manuscripts and to determine characteristics associated with those invited to review. The survey was distributed to a purposive sample through three health sciences information professional listservs. Results:There were 291 complete survey responses. Results indicated that 22% (n=63) of respondents had been asked by journal editors to peer review systematic review or meta-analysis manuscripts. Of the 78% (n=228) of respondents who had not already been asked, 54% (n=122) would peer review, and 41% (n=93) might peer review. Only 4% (n=9) would not review a manuscript. Respondents had peer reviewed manuscripts for 38 unique journals and believed they were asked because of their professional expertise. Of respondents who had declined to peer review (32%, n=20), the most common explanation was ‘not enough time’ (60%, n=12) followed by ‘lack of expertise’ (50%, n=10). The vast majority of respondents (95%, n=40) had ‘rejected or recommended a revision of a manuscript’ after peer review. They based their decision on the ‘search methodology’ (57%, n=36), ‘search write-up’ (46%, n=29), or ‘entire article’ (54%, n=34). Those who selected ‘other’ (37%, n=23) listed a variety of reasons for rejection, including problems or errors in the PRISMA flow diagram; tables of included, excluded, and ongoing studies; data extraction; reporting; and pooling methods. Conclusions:Despite being experts in conducting literature searches and supporting SR teams through the review process, few librarians have been asked to review SR manuscripts, or even just search strategies; yet many are willing to provide this service. Editors should involve experienced librarians with peer review and we suggest some strategies to consider.

show abstract

Reducing waste and increasing value through embedded replicability and reproducibility in systematic review process and automation

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

Replicability in the context of systematic reviews: A call for a framework with considerations regarding duplication, overlap, and intentionality

Replicability in the context of systematic reviews: A call for a framework with considerations regarding duplication, overlap, and intentionality

Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey

Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of a survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About