ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2026
Academic librarians as navigators of institutional data policies: developing resources to facilitate compliant research data management.
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
Background: Proper research data management requires complying with data policies that ensure the ethical, effective, and efficient collection, storage, and sharing of research data. Medical librarians have made increasing inroads to leading research data management instruction and institutional efforts to comply with federal policies like the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy. However, there has been less discussion about how medical librarians can support researcher compliance with institutional data policies. After observing patterns in requests for guidance, two data services librarians developed decision-making tools to help researchers identify appropriate local resources for their data sharing and re-use needs. Case Presentation: The paper describes four projects that were developed with a similar methodology for the purpose of guiding patrons through institutional policies and processes: (1) a decision tree for determining when a data transfer or use agreement is required; (2) a matching tool that identifies appropriate data transfer platforms for specific data characteristics or scenarios; (3) a decision tree for determining whether a researcher needs to seek out Institutional Review Board (IRB) review for a project that uses secondary data analysis; and (4) a flowchart detailing data de-identification processes and institutional tools available for specific data formats. The creation of each resource entailed information gathering from local experts as well as review of internal policies to produce action-oriented guidance to solve common researcher problems. Conclusions: These efforts demonstrate how librarians can utilize their skills and develop cross-departmental collaborations to help patrons navigate an increasingly complicated data ecosystem, particularly where that ecosystem is informed both by external policies (e.g., policies for de-identification) and internal tools (e.g., data transfer tools). The decision trees have helped researchers make choices about their own data management approaches so that they comply with external and internal policies. These documents also enable stakeholders to identify gaps in institutional policies and resources. The development of these resources has had the additional benefit of strengthening partnerships and positioning librarians as collaborators for policy decisions involving research data.
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.