ArticleJournal of escience librarianship2016
Assessing the National Library of Medicine's Informationist Awards.
Article in Journal of escience librarianship, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Promoting new and expanded roles for librarians and information specialists.Information services & use · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo understand the experience of the informationist recipients of NLM-funded Administrative Supplements for Informationist Services and gather evidence for their impact on NIH-funded biomedical research.
methodsA mixed methods approach consisting of a survey of principal investigators and a focus group of informationists.
resultsInformationists appeared to have a positive impact on their team's research, especially in the areas of data storage, data management planning, data organization, and literature searching. In addition, many informationists felt that their involvement had increased their research skills and made them true research partners. Assessing their own impact was a challenge for the award recipients, and questions remain about the best evaluation methods. The overall experience of the informationists and researchers was mixed but largely positive.
conclusionThe NLM-funded informationist supplement award appears to be a successful mechanism for immersing informationists into research teams and improving data management in the supported projects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.