Health Sciences Librarians' Engagement in Open Science: A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: A scoping review Project Team: Dean Giustini Kevin Read Ariel Deardorff Lisa Federer Melissa Rethlefsen MLA Annual Conference, May 2021 Health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: A scoping review Objectives: To identify health sciences librarians’ (HSLs) engagement in open science (OS) through the delivery of library services, support, and programs for researchers. Methods: We performed a scoping review guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) framework and Joanna Briggs’ Manual for scoping reviews. Our search methods consisted of searching five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LISTA, and Web of Science Core Collection), tracking citations, contacting experts, and targeted web searching. We used Zotero to manage citations, and Covidence for screening. To determine study eligibility, we applied predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, achieving consensus among reviewers when there was disagreement. Finally, we extracted data in duplicate and performed qualitative analysis to map key themes. Results & discussion HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: A scoping review Results: We identified 54 included studies (after reviewing 8173 citations / 319 full text studies). Research methods included descriptive or narrative approaches (76%), surveys, questionnaires and interviews (15%) or mixed methods (9%). Using FOSTER’s Open Science Taxonomy, we labeled studies using six themes: open access (54%), open data (43%), open science (24%), and open education, open source and citizen science (17%). Key drivers in OS were scientific integrity and transparency, openness as a guiding principle, and funder mandates making research openly-accessible. HSLs engaged in OS advocacy and most examples came from academic institutions. HSLs assumed key roles by advocating for and promoting OS, and by collaborating on policy development, especially in OA and open data support. Conclusions: HSLs play key roles in advancing OS worldwide. However, formal studies are needed to assess impact of HSLs in OS to determine best practices. Future studies should identify researchers’ needs, and evaluate library service models. HSLs should promote broader adoption of OS within their research communities, and develop strategic plans aligned with institutional partners. Further, HSLs can promote OS by adopting more rigorous and transparent research practices of their own. Future research should consider examining HSLs’ engagement in OS through social justice and equity perspectives. HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: A scoping review Project Team: Dean Giustini Kevin Read Ariel Deardorff Lisa Federer Melissa Rethlefsen MLA Annual Conference, May 2021 Background Study goals ● Measure the scope of health sciences libraries’ (HSLs) support of open science (OS) ● Examine the strategic approaches HSLs have taken to support OS ● Identify impact of services and support provided to researchers ● Examine how HSLs align OS services with broader institutional goals and resources HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 OS definitions used to guide our study: Open science: ● “... is the practice of making everything in the discovery process fully and openly available, creating transparency, and driving...discovery by allowing others to build on existing work.” (Watson, 2015) ● “may take different shades according to geographic perspectives across nations and regions [and] can differ according to the stakeholders and actors involved” (Sarcina, 2019) HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Research questions RQ1 Actions, barriers, and drivers: What drivers affect HSLs’ participation in OS? How do HSLs integrate OS service models into their broader institutional missions and strategic initiatives? RQ2 Services and support: What types of OS services and support do HSLs provide for researchers and other users within their institutions? How are HSLs’ OS services evaluated? RQ3 Roles and stakeholders: What roles do HSLs play in support of OS in their library settings and institutions? Who are the key stakeholders that HSLs collaborate and partner with when providing OS services and support? HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Methods Data sources & literature searching (1/2) Bibliographic databases: ● MEDLINE (Ovid) ● Embase (Ovid) ● CINAHL (EBSCO) ● Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts (LISTA) (EBSCO), and ● Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Sciences, and Humanities, Emerging Sources Citation Index) HSL association websites and meeting abstracts: Canadian Health Libraries Association; European Association for Health Information and Libraries; Medical Library Association back to 2010 Hand searching of seven (7) key journals: Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries; Evidence Based Library and Information Practice; Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association; Journal of the Medical Library Association,; Journal of eScience Librarianship; Medical Reference Services Quarterly; and Hypothesis. HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Data sources & literature searching (2/2) Supplemental searches ● Environmental scan helped identify overall strategy and relevant sources of evidence ● Scanned OS-related HSLs’ activities, workshops and conferences: ○ Web pages, subject guides, and association websites in North America, Europe, and Australia; for Latin America and Africa ● Reference harvesting of N=145 key grey literature documents found in our early searching Scoping & pre-searches: ● Exploratory searches were conducted in LILACS, SciELO & WHO Global Index Medicus ● Figshare, Zenodo, and Open Science Framework HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Health sciences librarians Open science Actions, roles, supports, outcomes “health sciences librar*” “open science” activit* “health librar*” “open research” advis* “health information professional or “open scholarship” advoca* benefit* health information specialist” “open access” collabor* “hospital librar* “open data” competenc* “informationist” “data publishing” consult* “medical librar*” “data sharing” cost* “sharing data” course* “pre-registration” creat* (research AND transparen*) engag* expert* reproducib* guid* replicab* initiat* “open educat*” instruct* “open licensing” knowledge “open metrics” lead* “open notebook*” member* “open pedagog*” opportunit* participant* “open peer review” project* “open practice*” provid* “open protocol*” recommend* “open source” role* “open textbook*” search* “lab notebook*” skill* ((code OR data OR software) AND availab*) specialist* strateg* (software OR data) AND carpentr* success* ((computation* OR programm*) AND (R OR Python OR teach* Jupyter OR markdown) tutorial* Xenodo OR Open Science Framework, OR Github, etc. workshop* HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Inclusion / exclusion criteria Inclusion Exclusion ● OS library services or open initiatives ● Did not discuss OS library services, leadership, provided by HSLs on a university campus, or support in any way relevant to our RQs; hospital or academic health center; ● OS-related library services did not align with ● Assessment or evaluation of OS services our definitions of OS (for example, discussed and support; best practices and data management training but not for benchmarking; improved transparency or reproducibility); ● HSLs’ engagement and involvement in ● Did not discuss digitization or accessibility institution or campus-wide committees, initiatives as an OS-related library service; working groups, institutional partnerships, infrastructure development, or policy ● Did not include health sciences librarians or development. health sciences libraries; ● Published after 2010 ● Research published before 2010 HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Data extraction 1. Screening form article elements ● A full citation (with author, title, journal, year) in Vancouver style ● Countries of authors ● Publication type (peer-reviewed; published/unpublished report, etc.) ● Publication source (journal/website) 2. Study details ● Study design / methodology / type ● Aim(s) / objective(s) of study ● Study locations / countries / settings ● Population(s) studied 3. Key findings ● Description of open science program/service implemented ● How library service was initiated ● Evaluation methodology used ● Impact of program / service ● Institutional integration described ● Recommendations, if any, made by authors HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Thematic analysis Studies were analyzed using a method described by Braun and Clarke. Thomas and Harden’s work informed our thematic and narrative synthesis. Themes were then coded and placed into categories using FOSTER’s OS taxonomy. https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/resources HSL Open Science