Case study from Future Science OA looks into differences between researchers and librarians when it comes to scholarly literature review
As we are all aware, comprehensive literature reviews are essential to evidence-based medicine. Bejoy Thomas and colleagues, from Cumming School of Medicine (University of Calgary, Canada) have recently published a case study in Future Science OA emphasizing the need for such reviews to be a collaborative process including the researchers and the healthcare librarian.
They created two teams, one containing the researcher and one the librarian (plus a PI in each), who performed parallel, segregated literature searches on the same topic. The research team identified 215 manuscripts, whilst the librarian team identified 129. There were only 55 manuscripts identified by both teams.
The case study goes on to discuss why these differences occured, and to highlight the need for collaboration between such parties when performing literature searches across the field. We look forward to further research looking to expand upon these findings.
You can read the full, Open Access article here.
Citation: Thomas B, Tachble A, Peiris D et al. Making literature reviews more ethical: a researcher and health sciences librarian collaborative process. Future Science OA, FSO78, doi:10.4155/fso.15.78 (2015).