ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2019
Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving peer review of systematic reviews and related review types by involving librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers: a randomised controlled trial.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Trial
- Article
- Effect of librarian collaboration on otolaryngology systematic review and meta-analysis quality.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: ways to minimise inappropriate citation and use of retracted data.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2024Article
- Librarians and information specialists as methodological peer-reviewers: a case-study of the International Journal of Health Governance.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- Article
- International health library associations urge the ICMJE to seek information specialists as peer reviewers for knowledge synthesis publications.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to Eye Donation in Hospice and Palliative Care Settings: A Scoping Review.Palliative medicine reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeveloping a comprehensive, reproducible literature search is the basis for a high-quality systematic review (SR). Librarians and information professionals, as expert searchers, can improve the quality of systematic review searches, methodology, and reporting. Likewise, journal editors and authors often seek to improve the quality of published SRs and other evidence syntheses through peer review. Health sciences librarians contribute to systematic review production but little is known about their involvement in peer reviewing SR manuscripts.
methodsThis survey aimed to assess how frequently librarians are asked to peer review systematic review manuscripts and to determine characteristics associated with those invited to review. The survey was distributed to a purposive sample through three health sciences information professional listservs.
resultsThere were 291 complete survey responses. Results indicated that 22% (
conclusionsDespite being experts in conducting literature searches and supporting SR teams through the review process, few librarians have been asked to review SR manuscripts, or even just search strategies; yet many are willing to provide this service. Editors should involve experienced librarians with peer review and we suggest some strategies to consider.
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.