Collaborative Librarianship Volume 11 Issue 4 Article 6 2-21-2020 Working Across Disciplines and Library Units to Develop a Suite of Systematic Review Services for Researchers Nedelina Tchangalova University of Maryland, STEM Library, College Park, MD, nedelina@umd.edu Eileen G. Harrington The Universities at Shady Grove, Priddy Library, Rockville, MD, eharring@umd.edu Stephanie Ritchie University of Maryland, STEM Library, College Park, MD, sritchie@umd.edu Sarah Over University of Maryland, STEM Library, College Park, MD, sover@umd.edu Jodi Coalter University of Maryland, STEM Library, College Park, MD, jcoalter@umd.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Education Commons, Engineering Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Tchangalova, Nedelina; Harrington, Eileen G.; Ritchie, Stephanie; Over, Sarah; and Coalter, Jodi (2020) "Working Across Disciplines and Library Units to Develop a Suite of Systematic Review Services for Researchers," Collaborative Librarianship: Vol. 11 : Iss. 4 , Article 6. Available at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol11/iss4/6 This Peer Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Collaborative Librarianship by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. Working Across Disciplines and Library Units to Develop a Suite of Systematic Review Services for Researchers Cover Page Footnote NOTE This article is based on a presentation at the Congress of Academic Library Directors (CALD) of Maryland, Loyola Graduate Center, Columbia Campus 8890 McGaw Rd., Columbia, MD 21045, April 26, 2019 and a poster at the Mid-Atlantic Chapter of the Medical Library Association Annual Conference, Durham, NC, October 5-7, 2019. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We extend special thanks to Kelsey Corlett-Rivera, Head of Research Commons, and Antonya Huntenburg, Administrative Assistant, Research Commons/ Research & Learning, UMD Libraries for providing valuable assistance and support in the development and marketing the systematic review workshop series. This peer reviewed article is available in Collaborative Librarianship: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/ collaborativelibrarianship/vol11/iss4/6 Tchangalova et al.: Develop a Suite of Systematic Review Services for Researchers Tchangalova et al.: Working Across Disciplines and Library Units Peer Reviewed Article Working Across Disciplines and Library Units to Develop a Suite of Systematic Review Services for Researchers Nedelina Tchangalova (nedelina@umd.edu) Public Health Librarian, University of Maryland Libraries, College Park Eileen G. Harrington (eharring@umd.edu) Assistant Director and Health & Life Sciences Librarian, The Universities at Shady Grove Stephanie Ritchie (sritchie@umd.edu) Agriculture & Natural Resources Librarian, University of Maryland Libraries, College Park Sarah Over (sover@umd.edu) STEM Librarian, University of Maryland Libraries, College Park Jodi Coalter (jcoalter@umd.edu) STEM Librarian, University of Maryland Libraries, College Park Abstract Since their inception in the health sciences field, systematic reviews have expanded into many other sub- ject disciplines. To address this growing need, subject librarians at the University of Maryland Libraries collaborated on a pilot program in three phases to introduce researchers to the process of conducting sys- tematic and scoping reviews. This article describes the design and development of a workshop series based on participant feedback. Assessment and evaluation techniques are shared to encourage further refinement of the systematic review service. Keywords: systematic reviews, research syntheses, librarian as a research partner, research services, ex- pert searching, STEM libraries, participant feedback, participant-centered workshop design, social sci- ences, humanities, engineering, scientists Introduction and Background for systematic review services have increased at the University of Maryland (UMD) Libraries in Systematic reviews proliferated in the health College Park not only in the public health sector and medical sciences in the late 1990s and re- but in other subject disciplines as well.4 This ar- cently have grown exponentially.1,2,3 Requests Collaborative Librarianship 11(4): 267-281 (2019) 267 Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2019 1 Collaborative Librarianship, Vol. 11 [2019], Iss. 4, Art. 6 Tchangalova et al.: Working Across Disciplines and Library Units ticle describes the development of various col- Systematic review methodology emphasizes a laborative efforts leading to a new systematic re- transparent, structured, and comprehensive ap- view service within the existing infrastructure of proach to searching literature that concludes the UMD Libraries. Collaborations during this with a formal synthesis of research findings. service have been between various subject li- Due to this approach, it is necessary for librari- brarians, librarians from different campuses, li- ans to acquire new skills for every step of the brary functional units and subject librarians, and systematic review process in order to meet the librarians and researchers. The service includes needs of researchers. Townsend et al.17 identi- three tiered levels of research support and a se- fied a set of six core competencies for librarians ries of workshops developed based on partici- who are involved in systematic reviews: pant feedback. Benefits and challenges during the pilot phase have been outlined, including 1. Systematic review foundations training of subject librarians across disciplines 2. Process management and communica- and developing a sustainable, collaborative ser- tion vice model. Finally, assessment and evaluation 3. Research methodology techniques are shared, highlighting efforts to 4. Comprehensive searching further refine the systematic review service. 5. Data management 6. Reporting Literature review Furthermore, Spencer and Eldredge18 conducted Scholarly communities are producing more arti- a scoping review of the literature and described cles every year due to the implementation of 18 different roles performed by librarians and more rapid review processes and innovative other information professionals that could be technologies for research dissemination. To easily mapped to the core competencies. These quickly inform best practices and policies, sys- roles include searching the literature, guiding tematic reviews have emerged beyond the researchers in using technological tools, plan- health and medical sciences. Systematic reviews ning and data management, and more. Ginier involve a rigorous, concise, and transparent pro- and Anderson19 presented over 60 librarian?s cess of identifying, critically appraising, and roles at the 2017 Medical Library Association synthesizing relevant findings.5 Researchers Annual Meeting. They grouped the roles in the from other subject disciplines including agricul- broad categories of: ture, education, engineering, humanities, library science, and social sciences, have also begun to 1. Project management explore ways to compile, analyze, and evaluate 2. Support and training the best evidence in a systematic way to inform 3. Literature searching future practices. To address this growing need 4. Generation and delivery of results and for research support, librarians are creating new data services6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 following the guidelines 5. Post-search process created by teams of experts who develop sys- 6. Publication process tematic review standards. Systematic review 7. Post-publication process standards that address the librarian?s role in- A recent study by Johnson20 highlights examples clude the Cochrane Collaboration,14 the Camp- of various ways librarians engage with faculty bell Collaboration15 and the Institute of Medi- and students to facilitate the research process for cine of the National Academies of Sciences, En- their users. The roles described in the literature gineering and Medicine.16 Collaborative Librarianship 11(4): 267-281 (2019) 268 https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol11/iss4/6 2 Tchangalova et al.: Develop a Suite of Systematic Review Services for Researchers Tchangalova et al.: Working Across Disciplines and Library Units provide a useful map for librarians and manag- The Priddy Library is an off-campus branch at ers who embark on planning, developing, im- the Universities at Shady Grove (USG) in Rock- plementing, and assessing a systematic review ville, 19 miles away from College Park, and service. It is imperative to take into considera- meets the research, instruction, and curriculum tion the skills current librarians and infor- needs of students and faculty for a range of dis- mationists have and create a plan for profes- ciplines including biological and health sciences. sional development in order to answer specific Serving around 4,000 students, it offers more and more in-depth requests from researchers. than 80 upper-level undergraduate, graduate degree and certificate programs from nine USM Based on the librarians? skills, time commitment, institutions on a non-residential campus.31 USG and job responsibilities, as well as patrons? re- has a strong focus on student success and work- search needs, Jewell et al.21 provide an overview force development, and many of the faculty who of two different service configurations for offer- teach at this campus are adjuncts. Until recently ing systematic review services: a team model there has not been a focus on research at USG. and a tiered model. Also, several case studies ex- However, the new Biomedical Sciences and En- plain various approaches for developing a sys- gineering Education Facility (BSE) opened in fall tematic review service such as a team-based 2019, and this will bring new research-intensive model,22 a fee-based model,23,24 strategies for programs to USG, as well as an increase in ten- managing the demand for library support,25 ured and tenure-track faculty. contributions and challenges of librarians in the systematic review collaborations,26 and specific Phases of the Development of the Systematic recommendations for developing, launching, Review Services and promoting a systematic review service to re- searchers on campus.27,28 In addition to this sys- Launching the systematic review service at tematic review specific guidance, consulting the UMD Libraries did not happen in isolation. Primer for Managers by Gore and Jones29 would What started as a demand from library users be the first step for any librarian who wants to (mainly in the health sciences), continued to build an infrastructure for a successful system- spread to other areas of research. Once a need atic review service. for the service emerged in other subject disci- plines, we (a newly formed systematic review Institutional profile team) initiated a pilot program. Many stake- holders were involved in this interdisciplinary A team of five subject librarians from two and functional collaboration activity, including branch libraries of the University of Maryland subject librarians, functional library units, disci- (UMD), College Park, partnered to develop a plinary faculty, and library administration. suite of systematic review services. One branch, the STEM Library, is located on the main UMD Phase 1: Laying the Groundwork campus and provides resources and research support to students in science and technology In order to create a new service, STEM librarians disciplines. UMD offers more than 90 majors at UMD College Park explored various service and over 200 graduate degrees through pro- models to gain an understanding of the chal- grams within 12 colleges and schools with lenges surrounding the planning, development, 40,000+ students, faculty, and staff.30 implementation, and evaluation of a systematic review service. We also took into consideration some of the associated challenges outlined in Gore and Jones32 during this process: training, Collaborative Librarianship 11(4): 267-281 (2019) 269 Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2019 3 Collaborative Librarianship, Vol. 11 [2019], Iss. 4, Art. 6 Tchangalova et al.: Working Across Disciplines and Library Units mentoring, time commitment, workload, and We continue to solicit the experts in the field to tenure and promotion. gain various ideas on future professional devel- opment opportunities.33,34,35,36 Professional Development, Continuing Education and Mentoring Levels of Time Commitment ? Tiered Model Unlike librarians in medical libraries who often Lack of time is one of the main barriers for li- have core responsibilities in assisting research- brarian?s involvement in systematic reviews. ers with literature syntheses, librarians on cam- This is true for the researchers themselves, as puses without a medical school are less likely to well. However, librarians? subject expertise can offer a systematic review service. However, as assist a systematic review team in completing systematic reviews become more prevalent in their research within tight deadlines. We sought other fields, the needs of researchers are also an opportunity to expand our library services changing. These changes led to the necessity for while at the same time factoring in the compet- the STEM librarians at UMD and USG to acquire ing priorities and responsibilities of each mem- new skills. We attended several paid in-person ber of the research team. The UMD Libraries? are workshops locally and nationally, as well as free committed to increasing access to information, and paid online webinars, exploring different and we work together to enrich learning and re- aspects of the systematic review process. The fi- search. We decided against a fee-based service nancial support from upper level administration (common in many libraries with greater demand was crucial in these training opportunities. for this service), so we could focus on collabora- tion and supporting research. To this end, we In the summer of 2018, we assembled a system- developed a free, tiered systematic review ser- atic review team consisting of librarians with vice with clear expectations for service and col- various subject expertise (liaisons to depart- laboration at each tier: ments in engineering, natural sciences, health sciences, and agriculture) and different levels of ? Tier 1: General consulting. In a one-hour in- systematic review knowledge to collaborate on person consultation, we provide a basic this effort. This collaboration between subject li- overview of the systematic review process brarians happened naturally since several UMD such as developing a protocol, designing a degree programs are offered at USG and some search strategy, selecting relevant data- UMD faculty teach on both campuses, and the bases, collecting and organizing studies, subject librarians often collaborate in other areas screening the results, or writing the manu- of work. Less experienced librarians on the script. team relied on those with additional training ? Tier 2: Credit given as acknowledgement. We and experience to learn about the systematic re- offer assistance in generating key terms, view process, while providing specialized creating search strings for specific data- knowledge about how reviews and evidence- bases, and/or reviewing search strings based information is utilized in their disciplines. created by the researcher. The researcher Additionally, we consulted with library col- should acknowledge the librarian in the fi- leagues who had implemented systematic re- nal publication. view services at their institutions at various con- ? Tier 3: Credit given as co-authorship. We de- ferences, monitored LISTSERVs (including ex- velop the search strategy, execute the pertsearching@pss.mlanet.org and acr-srr- searching in various databases, manage mig@lists.ala.org), and explored the literature the resulting citations, prepare them for related to systematic review services in libraries. screening by the research team, and write Collaborative Librarianship 11(4): 267-281 (2019) 270 https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol11/iss4/6 4 Tchangalova et al.: Develop a Suite of Systematic Review Services for Researchers Tchangalova et al.: Working Across Disciplines and Library Units the search methodology. The researcher shop Request, streamlined requests from teach- should agree to include the librarian as a ing faculty or research teams who wished to middle author. have a themed workshop delivered within their departmental location. We also designed flyers These expectations offer an overview of the time and handouts for outreach at various events. commitment necessary and provide a base for discussion between the subject librarian and all Phase 2: Delivering the Introductory members of the research team. They also estab- Workshops lish the magnitude of the workload and provide a justification for librarians during a profes- In the fall of 2018, we piloted four introductory sional review process. workshops at both the UMD and USG cam- puses. At the end of each session, we distributed Online Resources and Marketing the Service a feedback form to gain insight into three items participants had learned, two items they still did To promote the service and to introduce the pro- not understand, and one item they would like to cess of conducting a systematic review, we de- see in our future programming - commonly re- veloped an introductory workshop and estab- ferred to as a 3-2-1 Reflection. The feedback was lished an online presence. We created a System- overwhelmingly positive, and participants atic Review LibGuide outlining the systematic asked for more discipline-focused workshops, review process and the tools needed at every searching strategies, dissertation writing, step. This extensive LibGuide complemented the streaming presentations, video tutorials, and introductory workshop for those who could not more. attend in person and outlines the UMD Libraries systematic review services. We also created a Phase 3: Developing and Delivering a Suite of website under the UMD Research Commons Themed Workshops Unit, which offers a range of research support services, such as statistical consulting, data and After successfully implementing the introduc- text mining, and geographical information sys- tory workshops during fall 2018 and receiving tems (GIS). The mode of support varies and in- feedback from participants, the team developed cludes workshops, customized lectures by li- more specialized workshops covering different brarians, course support, faculty and graduate areas related to systematic reviews. In spring student research support, and one-on-one con- 2019, we offered four workshops on search strat- sultations. The UMD Research Commons col- egy design, two workshops on tools for system- leagues were instrumental in providing the tools atic reviews and two different citation managers to manage the scheduling process and work- (EndNote? and Zotero). The citation manager shop registration. workshops were spread out over two sessions. The collaboration between both campuses al- To separate the routine research consultation re- lowed us to offer these workshops at two loca- quests from the systematic review inquiries, we tions thus providing flexible workshop times developed a separate online form, a Systematic and locations based on the scheduling needs of Review Appointment Request, which included participants. additional information pertinent to systematic reviews (e.g. the research question, benchmark The search strategy design workshop was one of articles, deadline for completing the review, the most popular, exemplified by requests for etc.). Another form, a Systematic Review Work- instructional collaboration from two faculty members asking us to spend a class period cov- ering this topic for their students. We continued Collaborative Librarianship 11(4): 267-281 (2019) 271 Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2019 5 Collaborative Librarianship, Vol. 11 [2019], Iss. 4, Art. 6 Tchangalova et al.: Working Across Disciplines and Library Units to provide the 3-2-1 Reflection form to partici- (Figure 1). They discovered our services through pants at our workshops and received further the online training materials we posted on the feedback on this suite of workshops. UMD Research Commons website. They also found that the LibGuide suited their immediate The suite of workshops expanded beyond the needs. The timing for preparation was just right, UMD Libraries. Per a request from a coordinator as the end of the semester provided some free in a research institute from Nigeria, we took our time for us to focus on reworking the workshop skill-building workshops on the road by provid- content for a webinar. ing a webinar to ten international researchers Figure 1. A screenshot from the webinar with international researchers via the WebEx platform. Due to the time difference, we agreed to offer a brainstorm some keywords for a research ques- 2-day webinar with three hours of presentations tion we set up in advance. We walked the group per day. The international coordinators supple- through collaborative work using Google Sheets mented the curriculum with their own trainers to transfer the keywords according to the PICO after consulting with us on the appropriate re- framework. At the end of each session, we in- sources to meet the learning objectives. During vited participants to complete the 3-2-1 Reflec- the webinar sessions, we used active learning tion form via Google Forms. Not all participants techniques to engage the attendees with the con- completed the form after each session, so the tent. Using Mentimer.com, an open-source web- numbers below reflect the total number of re- based application, we invited participants to sponses across the entire webinar training. Collaborative Librarianship 11(4): 267-281 (2019) 272 https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol11/iss4/6 6 Tchangalova et al.: Develop a Suite of Systematic Review Services for Researchers Tchangalova et al.: Working Across Disciplines and Library Units Measures of Success the Clark School of Engineering and the College of Agriculture and Natural Sciences. Reviewing the registration lists (Figure 2), inter- est came from many colleges and schools on A total of 18 workshops in two locations were campus. It is not surprising that the UMD offered during the academic year of 2018-2019, School of Public Health led the list as the subject including a 2-day webinar (3 hours/day) to a area most closely relates to medical and health group of ten international researchers (Figure 3). sciences research. Interest in systematic reviews originated from this subject discipline, and due to the close relationship of our systematic re- view team with respective departments, our liai- son colleges also populated the top of this list ? Figure 2. Workshop attendees? affiliations. School/College vs. Percentage (Number) of Registrants School of Public Health School of Engineering 10.67% (16) 43.33% (65) College of Agriculture and Natural Resources 10.67% (16) College of Behavioral and Social Sciences 8.00% (12) UMD Libraries 6.67% (10) College of Education 5.33% (8) College of Computer, Mathematical & Natural? 4.00% (6) School of Public Policy 2.67% (4) Entomology, Office of Extended Studies 2.00% (3) College of Information Studies 2.00% (3) College of Arts and Humanities 1.33% (2) Univeristy of Maryland University College Library 0.67% (1) School of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures 0.67% (1) School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation 0.67% (1) Graduate School 0.67% (1) College of Journalism 0.67% (1) Collaborative Librarianship 11(4): 267-281 (2019) 273 Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2019 7 Collaborative Librarianship, Vol. 11 [2019], Iss. 4, Art. 6 Tchangalova et al.: Working Across Disciplines and Library Units Figure 3. Number of workshops per location. Figure 4. Number of research products. Collaborative Librarianship 11(4): 267-281 (2019) 274 https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol11/iss4/6 8 Tchangalova et al.: Develop a Suite of Systematic Review Services for Researchers Tchangalova et al.: Working Across Disciplines and Library Units The workshops were attended by 150 partici- to designing literature searches, managing find- pants, including undergraduate and graduate ings, and using tools for conducting the research students, faculty, and librarians with a 75% at- process. Conducting a systematic review at the tendance rate from the registrants? pool of 200. early stages of their doctoral program allows New relationships with faculty were established them to thoroughly and deeply scan the litera- resulting in three co-authored peer-reviewed ture. This helps them identify gaps that could be publications, four joint projects underway, and developed into feasible research questions for one co-authored grant proposal (Figure 4). We their final dissertations. received eight requests for consultations follow- ing, or instead of, in-person workshops. Another These workshops were beneficial not only to our 12 research teams inquired via email about re- participants but to our library colleagues, as search assistance or workshops recordings. well. Several librarians attended the workshops to learn more about the systematic review pro- Attendance and use of the service have been cess. Additionally, we advised the UMD Re- higher at UMD than at USG, but in general, search Commons Unit about how to implement workshop attendance at USG tends to be lower a tiered services model into their own practices for all workshops as they serve a non-residential for statistical consulting and data management student body and a smaller overall number of services. students and faculty. This also makes sense in light of USG?s reduced focus on research. How- The webinar attendees took away both new ever, this is expected to change over the next tools and knowledge. We utilized a 3-2-1 Reflec- few years, prompting USG to also offer work- tion form to assess learning: three things they shop services. We found that many UMD gradu- learned, two things they still did not under- ate students live closer to USG than UMD, and stand, and one suggestion for improvement. so providing workshops in an alternate location Feedback from international participants is is often more convenient for them. Through our highlighted below for each question. collaborative efforts, the UMD Libraries are 3 Things Learned: meeting researchers where they are. ? Better understanding of the complex sys- At USG, we attracted two attendees from Uni- tematic review process versity of Maryland, Baltimore?s School of Phar- ? PICO framework macy, one attendee from Montgomery College ? The functionality of Google Scholar and who is part of the UMD-USG Terp Transfer Pro- PubMed databases gram and will be attending UMD?s Accounting ? Specific searching techniques (phrase Program at USG, and one attendee from Univer- searching and truncation) sity of Maryland, Baltimore County?s Industrial ? Usefulness of free management tools (e.g. and Organizational Psychology Program. Other Zotero, Cadima, Rayyan) registrants, also at USG, were from the Univer- 2 Things still not understood: sity of Maryland, Baltimore Social Work pro- ? Specifics of database searching and man- gram, the UMD Information Science program agement of search results and the University of Baltimore?s Simulation ? Cochrane reviews and Game Design Program. 1 Suggestion for improvement: Some participants were Ph.D. students who ? Technology issues need to be addressed found the systematic review workshops benefi- ? Add structured short periods for practice cial for their dissertation writing when it came Collaborative Librarianship 11(4): 267-281 (2019) 275 Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2019 9 Collaborative Librarianship, Vol. 11 [2019], Iss. 4, Art. 6 Tchangalova et al.: Working Across Disciplines and Library Units ? Cover techniques for randomization and but not with the functionality of tradi- blinding studies tional abstracting and indexing databases? search features. Within the 3-2-1 Reflection evaluation form, we 3. Streaming presentations for those partici- also included a section for comments. Partici- pants who cannot attend in person, as pants expressed satisfaction with the webinar well as for the international researchers and most importantly, they valued the open ac- who found our Systematic Review Lib- cess resources provided. One participant com- Guide online and asked us to deliver a mented, ?Thank you for this question because webinar. most questionnaires don?t give this oppor- tunity.? One of the international participants Various Modes of Collaboration also expressed that the biggest problem for them in an academic institution in Nigeria, is that HI- Collaboration infused all aspects of the develop- NARI (which gives free access to current high ment and implementation of this new suite of quality journal articles) is no longer available as systematic review services, as shown in the de- the economic situation of Nigeria has improved scription above. Collaboration occurred between and they have lost eligibility. Overall the work- different groups and in different ways, and, shops were well received, and participants overall, the benefits of working together far out- gained skills to assist them in their systematic weighed any challenges. The initial collaborative reviews. This outcome would not have been group for this project was the systematic review possible without the collaboration of different li- team, consisting of subject librarians from vari- brarians each bringing instructional knowledge ous disciplines and two campuses. This collabo- for their subjects and technical expertise to run a ration allowed for each librarian to bring their webinar. expertise to this service, with those more knowl- edgeable in systematic reviews drafting the ini- Demand for Additional Services tial content, while others refined and adapted it to ensure the appropriate application to specific The 3-2-1 Reflection forms were instrumental in disciplines. This also involved embracing the understanding the areas where participants opportunity to learn new skills from each other. needed further assistance. In addition to the In addition, as demand for systematic review themed workshops outlined in Phase 3, partici- services has grown in a variety of fields, having pants suggested the following themes to be con- a team of librarians allowed us to better serve sidered in future workshop designs: our own liaison populations and distribute the 1. Discipline-focused workshops. We derived workload. The systematic review team also the guidelines and practices for workshop reached out to other subject liaison librarians content from the health disciplines. How- and provided suggested email content to be for- ever, much of this could be applied to warded to their respective departments to help other disciplines and some disciplines market this new service. have begun to develop their own system- The systematic review team?s partnering with atic review guidelines. Describing these other functional units within the library pro- standards for specific departments may be vided invaluable outreach and marketing sup- helpful. port. The UMD Libraries? Research Commons 2. Workshops on database searching. Partici- Unit had already established a robust communi- pants were familiar with Google Scholar cations system using the Springshare.com calen- dar platform and other tools. Coordinating with Collaborative Librarianship 11(4): 267-281 (2019) 276 https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol11/iss4/6 10 Tchangalova et al.: Develop a Suite of Systematic Review Services for Researchers Tchangalova et al.: Working Across Disciplines and Library Units our colleagues from this unit provided us with sity in STEM fields. She connected with a psy- insight into the pitfalls of the calendaring system chology professor through this suite of services and offered valuable advice on how to seam- and is now working on a comprehensive litera- lessly handle the workshop registration process. ture review on the female African American stu- The Research Commons staff was instrumental dent experience in engineering. As mentioned in sending out weekly emails to UMD Graduate previously, several systematic review standards Student Life, which aims to disseminate infor- stress the importance of involving a librarian in mation about programs, services, and advocacy the systematic review process. Partnering with for graduate students. Additionally, monthly librarians can lead to higher quality research emails were pushed to our Graduate Student outputs and/or greater success with grant pro- Mailchimp list (with approximately 1,000 mem- posals. One librarian on the systematic review bers), the campus calendar, heads of graduate team received a request to collaborate with a re- programs, as well as to the Graduate Student searcher who has had her manuscript rejected Government. In addition, the workshops series by several journals and received feedback from were also promoted through a system created to one reviewer to seek out the assistance of a li- link UMD?s Living and Learning Communities brarian. In several instances, too, librarians as- to the library?s outreach and instruction pro- sisted researchers in meeting tight publication grams. deadlines through their efficient searching skills. Faculty, graduate students, postdoctoral re- The faculty-librarian collaboration provides ben- searchers, and librarians represent another core efits to the faculty but also impacts the profes- collaborative group of this initiative. In response sional growth of librarians. Less skilled librari- to an increase in requests from various research- ans acquired deeper knowledge on research ers on campus, the collaborating librarians methods and searching strategies, while more reached out to academic departments through experienced librarians were inspired to deepen online materials via a LibGuide and themed their subject knowledge. For instance, one librar- workshops tailored to researchers? needs. In- ian applied for a Sewell Stipend to offset the cost stead of offering services without demand, our of attending the American Public Health Associ- collaboration and user feedback ensured we of- ation (APHA) conference. This non-library con- fered introductory workshops outlining the sys- ference exposed the librarian to public health di- tematic review process and asked the partici- versity, which is not always obvious when pants to identify where in this process they working directly with students and faculty. This needed more knowledge and training. Through attendance allowed for meeting with public this suite of services, the librarians became health faculty and identifying further research stronger research partners rather than simply collaborations. service providers. By working on various re- search projects, the librarians gained a better un- Working with faculty and graduate students is derstanding of research being conducted on not without its challenges, however. Balancing campus. For certain projects, it has also allowed expectations in terms of what type of work li- the librarians to tap into skills and knowledge brarians can do, on what timeline, and with they have from previous positions or their own what type of acknowledgement is crucial. This research agendas. For example, one librarian on also needs to be delineated prior to starting the the systematic review team has a background in work. In some instances, given the realities of STEM education and promoting greater diver- the life of a faculty member, projects might start, the librarian does months of work on develop- ing and implementing search strategies, and Collaborative Librarianship 11(4): 267-281 (2019) 277 Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2019 11 Collaborative Librarianship, Vol. 11 [2019], Iss. 4, Art. 6 Tchangalova et al.: Working Across Disciplines and Library Units then the research is dropped due to funding involved with it. Additionally, it supports creat- loss, changes in teaching loads, or the emer- ing new relationships with faculty and students, gence of other research priorities. With doctoral and co-authoring publications and grants. students who are tackling a systematic review project, there is a time challenge for librarians as To explore where this service might go in the fu- students seek face-to-face consultations several ture, we held a debriefing meeting and reflected times throughout their research project. Often li- on our experiences at the end of the year. Dur- brarian?s work may remain invisible and not ing this session, several ideas came up that will acknowledged in students? publications. guide our next steps. In the short term, we are planning to explore the development of an As the program grew, encompassing more of online self-paced course within the UMD Librar- the librarian's time, there was some concern ies? Electronic Learning Management System from the administration about where the pro- (ELMS) - Canvas, as an alternative training tool gram was heading. In August 2019, administra- for those participants who cannot attend the in- tors charged a task force of four librarians work- person workshops. Various factors such as ing in the program to determine the scope of workload, time commitment, and administrative other research institution's programs, resources and financial support will play crucial roles in that may be required in the future, and any providing this course as an open access educa- changes to the program's organization that tional training to audiences outside the Univer- might be helpful. Recommendations from this sity of Maryland. A long-term goal is to explore task force will help a formal systematic review the need and possibility to develop a for-credit team better collaborate with fellow subject li- course. Finally, we will continue to evaluate this brarians and communicate both progress and service model and make recommendations for need to administrators. future re-alignment of activities based on an en- vironmental scan, staffing needs, space, and Conclusion and Future Plans equipment needs. The systematic review workshop series at UMD Libraries has been successful during the pilot phase. The success of this initiative was possible due to various collaborations, particularly with our UMD Libraries Research Commons col- leagues, as well as the commitment of the librar- ians on the Systematic Review Team. This initia- tive also benefits librarians as it allows for the opportunity to learn about the systematic re- view process, including the tools and techniques Note This article is based on a presentation37 at the Congress of Academic Library Directors (CALD) of Mary- land, Loyola Graduate Center, Columbia Campus 8890 McGaw Rd., Columbia, MD 21045, April 26, 2019 and a poster38 at the Mid-Atlantic Chapter of the Medical Library Association Annual Conference, Durham, NC, October 5-7, 2019. Collaborative Librarianship 11(4): 267-281 (2019) 278 https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol11/iss4/6 12 Tchangalova et al.: Develop a Suite of Systematic Review Services for Researchers Tchangalova et al.: Working Across Disciplines and Library Units Acknowledgments We extend special thanks to Kelsey Corlett-Rivera, Head of Research Commons, and Antonya Hunten- burg, Administrative Assistant, Research Commons/Research & Learning, UMD Libraries for providing valuable assistance and support in the development and marketing the systematic review workshop se- ries. 1 Jessica Gurevitch et al., ?Meta-Analysis and the 7 Angela C. Hardi and Susan A. Fowler, ?Evi- Science of Research Synthesis,? Nature 555, no. dence-Based Medicine and Systematic Review 7695 (March 2018): 175?82, Services at Becker Medical Library,? Missouri https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25753. Medicine 111, no. 5 (2014): 416. 2 Wen-Lin Lee, R. Barker Bausell, and Brian M. 8 Amy Knehans, Esther Dell, and Cynthia Robin- Berman, ?The Growth of Health-Related Meta- son, ?Starting a Fee-Based Systematic Review Analyses Published from 1980 to 2000,? Evalua- Service,? Medical Reference Services Quarterly 35, tion & the Health Professions 24, no. 3 (2001): 327? no. 3 (July 2, 2016): 266?73, 335. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2016.1189779 . 3 Matthew J. Page, Larissa Shamseer, and An- drea C. Tricco, ?Registration of Systematic Re- 9 Janice Yu Chen Kung and Thane Chambers, views in PROSPERO: 30,000 Records and Count- ?Implementation of a Fee-Based Service Model ing,? Systematic Reviews 7, no. 1 (2018): 32. to University-Affiliated Researchers at the Uni- versity of Alberta,? Journal of the Medical Library 4 Nedelina Tchangalova et al., ?Researchers Ask, Association?: JMLA 107, no. 2 (April 2019): 238?43, Librarians Deliver: Meeting the Needs of Schol- https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.497. ars through a Suite of Systematic Review Ser- vices for Every Subject Discipline? (presentation 10 Emilie Ludeman et al., ?Developing a Library at the Congress of Academic Library Directors Systematic Review Service: A Case Study,? Med- of Maryland, Columbia, MD, April 26, 2019), ical Reference Services Quarterly 34, no. 2 (April 3, https://doi.org/10.13016/ea3g-8tot. 2015): 173?80, https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2015.1019323 5 Deborah J. Cook, Cynthia D. Mulrow, and R. . Bryan Haynes, ?Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions,? Annals 11 Mala Mann and Alison Weightman, ?Support of Internal Medicine 126, no. 5 (March 1, 1997): Unit for Research Evidence: Supporting Staff 376?80. and Students Conducting Systematic Reviews,? ALISS Quarterly 8, no. 3 (2013): 13?15. 6 Jane Falconer, ?Library Support for Systematic Reviews at the London School of Hygiene & 12 Amy Riegelman and Megan Kocher, ?A Tropical Medicine,? ALISS Quarterly 10, no. 3 Model for Developing and Implementing a Sys- (2015): 17?19. tematic Review Service for Disciplines Outside Collaborative Librarianship 11(4): 267-281 (2019) 279 Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2019 13 Collaborative Librarianship, Vol. 11 [2019], Iss. 4, Art. 6 Tchangalova et al.: Working Across Disciplines and Library Units 20 Anna Marie Johnson, ?Connections, Conversa- of the Health Sciences,? Reference & User Services tions, and Visibility: How the Work of Academic Quarterly 58, no. 1 (October 10, 2018): 22?27, Reference and Liaison Librarians Is Evolving,? https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.58.1.6837. Reference & User Services Quarterly 58, no. 2 (Jan- uary 18, 2019): 91?102, 13 Stephanie Clare Roth, ?Transforming the Sys- https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.58.2.6929. tematic Review Service: A Team-Based Model to Support the Educational Needs of Researchers,? 21 Sarah T. Jewell, Margaret J. Foster, and Marga- Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA ret Dreker, ?The Art of Puzzle Solving: System- 106, no. 4 (October 2018): 514?20, atic Review Services,? in Assembling the Pieces of https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.430. a Systematic Review: Guide for Librarians, ed. Mar- garet J. Foster and Sarah T. Jewell (Lanham, MD: 14 Julian Higgins and James Thomas, eds., Rowman & Littlefield, 2017), 183?201. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Inter- ventions, Version 6 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 22 Roth, ?Transforming the Systematic Review 2019), https://training.cochrane.org/hand- Service.? book/current. 23 Gerald Beasley and Trish Rosseel, ?Leaning 15 Shannon Kugley et al., Searching for Studies: A into Sustainability at University of Alberta Li- Guide to Information Retrieval for Campbell System- braries,? Library Management 37, no. 3 (March 14, atic Reviews Version 1.1 (Oslo: The Campbell Col- 2016): 136?48, https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-04- laboration, 2017), 2016-0023. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmg.2016.1. 24 Kung and Chambers, ?Implementation of a 16 Institute of Medicine, Finding What Works in Fee-Based Service Model to University-Affili- Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews, ated Researchers at the University of Alberta.? 2011, https://doi.org/10.17226/13059. 25 Sandy Campbell and Marlene Dorgan, ?What 17 Whitney A. Townsend et al., ?A Competency to Do When Everyone Wants You to Collabo- Framework for Librarians Involved in System- rate: Managing the Demand for Library Support atic Reviews,? Journal of the Medical Library Asso- in Systematic Review Searching,? Journal of the ciation?: JMLA 105, no. 3 (July 2017): 268?75, Canadian Health Libraries Association/Journal de https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.189. l?Association Des Biblioth?ques de La Sant? Du Can- ada 36, no. 1 (2015): 11?19. 18 Angela J. Spencer and Jonathan D. Eldredge, ?Roles for Librarians in Systematic Reviews: A 26 Rosalind F. Dudden and Shandra L. Protzko, Scoping Review,? Journal of the Medical Library ?The Systematic Review Team: Contributions of Association?: JMLA 106, no. 1 (January 2018): 46? the Health Sciences Librarian,? Medical Reference 56, https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82. Services Quarterly 30, no. 3 (July 1, 2011): 301?15, https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2011.590425. 19 Emily Ginier and Patricia Anderson, ?An Evi- dence Mapping Approach to Discovering Roles 27 Ludeman et al., ?Developing a Library Sys- of Librarians in Systematic Reviews? (paper pre- tematic Review Service.? sented at the Medical Library Association An- nual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, May 30, 28 Riegelman and Kocher, ?For Your Enrich- 2017), https://www.event- ment.? scribe.com/2017/MLA/. Collaborative Librarianship 11(4): 267-281 (2019) 280 https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol11/iss4/6 14 Tchangalova et al.: Develop a Suite of Systematic Review Services for Researchers Tchangalova et al.: Working Across Disciplines and Library Units http://tamu.lib- 29 Genevieve C. Gore and Julie Jones, ?System- guides.com/c.php?g=574702&p=4298724. atic Reviews and Librarians: A Primer for Man- agers,? Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Li- 35 Trina Fyfe and Liz Dennett, ?Building Capac- brary and Information Practice and Research 10, no. ity in Systematic Review Searching: A Pilot Pro- 1 (July 10, 2015), https://doi.org/10.21083/part- gram Using Virtual Mentoring,? Journal of the nership.v10i1.3343. Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l?Association Des Biblioth?ques de La Sant? Du Can- 30 University of Maryland Institutional Research, ada 33, no. 1 (2012): 12?16, Planning & Assessment, ?Campus Counts,? n.d., https://doi.org/10.5596/c2012-009. https://www.irpa.umd.edu/Cam- 36 pusCounts/index.html. Matthew S. Howard and Lois Marshall, ?Mak- ing a Mentoring Match: Advancing the Profes- 31 ?USG at a Glance? (Rockville, MD: The Uni- sion through Technology,? December 15, 2017, versities at Shady Grove, 2017), https://sigma.nursingrepository.org/han- https://www.shadygrove.umd.edu/sites/de- dle/10755/623717. fault/files/pub- 37 lic/PDF/New%20USG%20Fact%20Sheet%20201 Tchangalova et al., ?Researchers Ask, Librari- 7.pdf. ans Deliver.? 32 38 Gore and Jones, ?Systematic Reviews and Li- Nedelina Tchangalova et al., ?You Choose, We brarians.? Deliver: Providing Educational Opportunities to Researchers in STEM? (poster presented at the 33 Campbell and Dorgan, ?What to Do When MAC/MLA Annual Meeting, October 5, 2019), Everyone Wants You to Collaborate.? https://doi.org/10.13016/neqt-mmf4. 34 Margaret Foster, ?Systematic Reviews Service: Introduction to Systematic Reviews,? 2018, Collaborative Librarianship 11(4): 267-281 (2019) 281 Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2019 15