ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2026
Taking it a step farther: acknowledging librarians' systematic review work in the promotion or tenure process.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Librarians' contributions to systematic review projects receive inconsistent recognition within promotion or tenure processes. A review of thirty-six academic libraries' norms and procedures revealed only two that mentioned systematic reviews. Recognition and inclusion of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis is further complicated by variance in recognition of interdisciplinary work. This commentary provides recommendations for academic library leadership to establish standards for documenting and evaluating systematic review work in annual reviews and promotion or tenure, explicitly recognizing the value of participation in interdisciplinary scholarship, inclusion of search strategies as a scholarly output, and providing guidance for the external review process. We close with a call to action for professional organizations to establish centralized guidelines to ensure the full recognition of librarianship and scholarly participation in systematic reviews.
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.