Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37101919›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2022

Health sciences and medical librarians conducting research and their experiences asking for co-authorship.

Jamie E Bloss, Kerry Sewell, Jana Schellinger, Amanda Haberstroh

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jamie E Blossblossj19@ecu.edu, Laupus Health Sciences Library, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0706-7684
Kerry Sewellbrowderk@ecu.edu, Laupus Health Sciences Library, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0405-3789
Jana Schellingerjlschellinger@ehc.edu, E&H Library, Emory & Henry College School of Health Sciences, Marion, VA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5571-4754
Amanda Haberstrohhaberstroha17@ecu.edu, Laupus Health Sciences Library, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3718-781X
East Carolina University · USEmory and Henry College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Health sciences librarians frequently engage in scholarly publication, both with other librarians undertaking intradisciplinary scholarship, and increasingly as members of research teams centered in other disciplines. We sought to assess the emotional and institutional context of authorship among health sciences librarians, including emotions experienced during authorship negotiation, the frequency with which authorship is denied, and the correlation of perceived support from supervisors and the research community with the number of publications produced. Methods: 342 medical and health sciences librarians took an online survey of 47 questions regarding emotions experienced when asking for authorship, denial of authorship, if they have been given authorship without asking, and the extent to which they felt supported to conduct research in their current job. Results: Authorship negotiation creates varied and complex emotions among librarians. The emotions reported differed when negotiating authorship with librarian colleagues and when negotiating authorship with professionals in another field. Negative emotions were reported when asking either type of colleague for authorship. Respondents reported feeling mostly supported and encouraged by their supervisors, research communities, and workplaces. Nearly one quarter (24.4%) of respondents reported being denied authorship by colleagues outside of their departments. Perceived research appreciation and support by the research community is correlated with the total number of articles or publications produced by librarians. Conclusion: Authorship negotiation among health sciences librarians involves complex and frequently negative emotions. Denial of authorship is frequently reported. Institutional and professional support appear to be critical to publication among health sciences librarians.

Indexed as

LibrariansLibraries, MedicalAuthorshipHumansResearch PersonnelSurveys and QuestionnairesAuthorshiphealth science librariansintradisciplinary scholarshiplibrariansmedical librariansnegotiationprofessional supportresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID37101919
PMCPMC10124612
OpenAlexW4360849357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.