Making the case for librarian expertise to support evidence synthesis for the sustainable development goals
Authors:
- Kate Ghezzi‐KopelKGKate Ghezzi‐Kopel
- Gracian ChimwazaGCGracian Chimwaza
- Florian DiekmannFDFlorian Diekmann
- Erin EldermireEEErin Eldermire
- Nasra GathoniNGNasra Gathoni
- Julie KellyJKJulie Kelly
- Alison Annet KinengyereAKAlison Annet Kinengyere
- Megan KocherMKMegan Kocher
- Edda Tandi LwogaELEdda Tandi Lwoga
- Jessica PageJPJessica Page
- Sarah YoungSYSarah Young
- 25 September 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Research Synthesis Methods
- Vol. 13 (1) , 77-87
Abstract
Evidence syntheses that engage librarians as co‐authors produce higher‐quality results than those that do not. Trained as teachers, researchers, and information managers, librarians possess expert knowledge on research methodologies and information retrieval approaches that are critical for evidence synthesis. Researchers are under increasing pressure to produce evidence syntheses to inform practice and policymaking. Many fields outside of health science and medicine, however, do not have established guidelines, processes, or methodologies. This article describes how librarians led the creation of an interdisciplinary toolkit for researchers new to evidence synthesis. The implementation of the tools, including a protocol, supported eight evidence syntheses focused on effective agricultural interventions published in a special collection in Nature Research in October 2020. This article is a step‐by‐step overview of the tools and process. We advocate that librarian collaboration in evidence synthesis must become the norm, not the exception. Evidence synthesis project leads without access to a qualified librarian may use this toolkit as a point of entry for production of transparent, reproducible reviews.Keywords
Funding Information
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1210352)
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and ExplanationAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2018
- Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis productsCampbell Systematic Reviews, 2018
- Mass Production of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses: An Exercise in Mega‐silliness?The Milbank Quarterly, 2016
- Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviewsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2015
- Use of Recommended Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews and the Impact of Librarian Involvement: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Recent AuthorsPLOS ONE, 2015
- Systematic review automation technologiesSystematic Reviews, 2014
- Impacts of Agriculture on Nutrition: Nature of the Evidence and Research GapsFood and Nutrition Bulletin, 2014
- The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development researchJournal of Development Effectiveness, 2012
- Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions2008
- Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic ReviewsPLOS Medicine, 2007