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, , CINAHL, LISTA, and Web of Science Core Collection), tracking , 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 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; 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 ● 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 Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Results PRISMA

Total studies identified (n=8173)

Full text screening (n=319)

Studies included (n=54)

HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 54 Studies categorized using FOSTER OS Taxonomy

Foster Open Science Taxonomy Themes Number of studies (%)

Open Access 29 (54%)

Open Data 23 (43%)

Open Science 13 (24%)

Open Education 3 (6%)

Citizen Science 3 (6%)

Open Source 3 (6%)

HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 HSL-specific / OS publications by country

HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 HSL-specific / OS publications by year

HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 OPEN ACCESS OPEN DATA OPEN SCIENCE ● Raising awareness of OA ● Open data education ● Coordinating OS conferences, principles ● Assigning DOIs to data service meetups, etc. ● OA deposit infrastructure ● Open Science Framework ● Research reproducibility and ● Institutional repositories support transparency training ● Compliance with funder ● Data catalogs and repositories ● Improving researcher policies workflows ● Supporting OA funds

CITIZEN SCIENCE OPEN EDUCATION OPEN SOURCE ● Provide access to tools and ● Supporting faculty in selecting ● Hosting open source technology for local community open educational resources mapathons ● Build citizen science toolkits for ● Supporting med students ● Open source data and software researchers and the general editing and updating wikipedia education public ● Copyright/fair use training ● Wiki use to increase ● Training citizens in science collaboration among med topics students

HSL services and support

HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Key OS drivers in health sciences libraries

● OS aligns with HSLs’ core principles ● A need to align library services with (n=23, 43%); institutional drivers (n=8, 15%); ● Participating in national initiatives to ● Develop cross-institutional projects improve openness in research (e.g., to initiate or improve OA (n=4, 7%); Europe’s Plan S Initiative, U.S. OSTP ● Initiating OS services because other Memo) (n=16, 30%); libraries were doing so (n=3, 6%). ● Assisting researchers comply with funder mandates (n=11, 20%);

HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Health sciences librarians’ roles in supporting OS

1. Advocacy and compliance of OS throughout the research process (n=20, 37%); 2. Collaborating on institutional OS-related policy development, specifically policy as it relates to OA and open data (n=6, 11%); 3. Building community within institutions with respect to OS principles, and in Europe, establishing connections with ongoing OS national initiatives (n=4, 7%); and, 4. Providing metadata support (n=1, 2%) and digital preservation (n=1, 2%) for OA and open data initiatives in academic institutions.

HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Health sciences libraries OS stakeholders

1. University leadership (n=11, 20%); 2. Research support units in academic institutions (n=9, 17%); 3. National partners, specifically federal and local governments participating in OS initiatives (n=6, 11%); 4. Information Technology (IT) departments and personnel (n=7, 13%); 5. CTSA (Clinical and Translational Science Award) (n=5, 9%); 6. Faculty in biomedical and health programs (n=5, 9%); and 7. Other campus and local libraries (n=4, 7%).

HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Discussion Geographic concentration of OS support

Studies published in European countries: ● Revealed strong coordination between national efforts and adoption of these efforts at the institutional level. North American studies: ● Demonstrated that HSLs use national policies to justify their development of OS services ● These services are rarely created in direct coordination with national governments and stakeholders.

HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Open science and social justice

Equity and social justice were not mentioned as drivers of OS services.

HSLs with institutional diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives could align OS services with these initiatives to support:

● OA publishing fees for early career and underrepresented researchers. ● Opportunities to groups that have been marginalized or excluded from open research practices due to disparities in power and privilege.

https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=social+justice&i=3338998 HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 OS-specific gaps in the literature

No studies in clinical or hospital settings, or solo hospital libraries.

Only a small number of studies discussed providing targeted OS support to specific groups (e.g., , basic science).

Need for additional research into HSL-supported citizen science, open education, and open source services.

https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=gaps&i=3203257 HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Lack of evidence of the success of HSL OS services

We could not assess OS services provided by HSLs, or determine for whom the OS services were intended beyond general mention of students and faculty.

More empirical research is needed to demonstrate impact, cost-benefit and value over time, including rigorous assessment and sustainability of service models. ?

https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=evidence&i=3858623

HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Summary and takeaways HSLs are engaged in providing various OS library services and programs, and play key roles in advancing OS practices and principles. More formal studies should be conducted to: A. Assess the quality of HSL OS support for OS researchers, and B. Determine the best and most sustainable library services and programs going forward. Future research should focus on: ● Researchers’ needs in OS, and the assessment of library service models specifically designed to meet them, and ● HSLs’ engagement in OS through equity and social justice perspectives.

HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 References

● Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. ● Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. ● Giustini D, Read K, Deardorff A, Federer LM, Rethlefsen ML. Health sciences librarians’ support of researchers and engagement in open science: a scoping review (protocol) []. Open Science Framework; 2020. Available from: https://osf.io/3se47/ ● Peters, MDJ, Godfrey, C, McInerney, P, Baldini Soares, C, Khalil, H, Parker, D. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). In: Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual [Internet]. The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017.; Available from: https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/ ● Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26. ● Rahal R-M, Havemann J. Science in Crisis. Is Open Science the Solution? MetaArXiv Prepr [Internet]. 2019 May 3; Available from: https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/3hb6g/ ● Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):1–19. ● Sarcina A. Open Science: a review of definitions with a regional perspective [Internet]. Impakter. 2019. Available from: https://impakter.com/open-science-a-review-of-definitions-with-a-regional-perspective/ ● Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):45. ● Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. ● Watson M. When will “open science” become simply “science”?. Genome Biol. 2015;16(100960660, dxp):101.

HSL Open Science Scoping Review / Giustini, Read, Deardorff, Federer, Rethlefsen / MLA ‘21 Contact us

Co-principal investigators: Protocol & search documentation (OSF): Dean Giustini ● [email protected] ● https://osf.io/3se47/

Kevin Read ● [email protected]

Watch for our accepted JMLA paper, October 2021!