Category Archives: Searching

Fair’s Fair: Librarian Authorship, Systematic Reviews, and Applying ICMJE Authorship Criteria

After experiencing three different cases of this in as many months, I thought this might make a good post.

I care about authorship. Here’s why:

  1. I am a researcher. If I have contributed substantially to a project (we will discuss this in detail in just a moment), I expect to continue to be offered the same privileges and considerations as other authors on the paper – the opportunity to contribute to the manuscript, especially when reporting the work I did; and reviewing said manuscript when it’s completed, to make sure that my work is well represented in the cohesive whole (and also as a last chance to make sure I didn’t forget anything!).
  2. I have student loans, just sold a house in a crap real estate market, and like most early career librarians, I have been working on contract since I finished my MLIS degree. When I apply to jobs and tell interview panels that I am experienced in supporting systematic and scoping reviews, they are going to want to see that reflected in my CV.

So not only do I want credit for the work I’ve done (on average 15-20 hours per review), but publications are important to my continuing to secure gainful employment, just as it would be a research fellow or a post-doc.

But here’s the problem. Despite the many articles in the literature that discuss the importance of having librarians involved on knowledge synthesis projects (1–6), and despite agreements up front with all my teams that the work I contribute merits authorship, for some reason a lot of the honest, smart, funny, overwhelmingly lovely researchers I work with seem to forget this somewhere along the way. In several cases this last year, my authorship and/or rights don’t seem to make the cut when it came to manuscript submission time.

Like I said, these researchers aren’t bad people. So what’s going on?

According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), authorship should be based on the following four criteria:

  • “Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
  • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  • Final approval of the version to be published; AND
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.” (7)

According to my reading of these criteria, in the case of a systematic review, if the librarian creates the search, runs the searches and exports the results, they have substantially contributed to the acquisition of your data for that review project. If the librarian writes the search methods portion of the manuscript, they are involved in drafting the work.

But here’s where the principal investigator comes in – if they’ve agreed that the librarian is an author and has put in all this work for the team, they need to continue to respect their authorship status and give them the chance to provide input on the manuscript as a whole, and most importantly, approve the final version before submission.

In my case, I had three projects where things kind of went off the rails to varying degrees, but which mainly sum up to:

  1. not seeing a manuscript (like, zilch beyond my own contribution) before submission; or
  2. not being included as an author come submission time

In isolation, there are pretty good reasons for this kind of thing to happen. A lot of health researchers are incredibly busy people with full clinical workloads, and many conduct research off the side of their desks. Projects get transferred, information gets lost along the way. Emails and affiliations change over time. In each of these cases, it was during a periodic follow-up email to my team that I learned what had happened, and because they are well meaning, lovely people, each have been taking steps to rectify the issue once I bring it to their attention. But what I wonder is why this is happening in the first place?

This reminds me a bit about a continuing education session I took through MLA a year ago. One of our instructors told us that it was important to cite search filters when we make use of them in systematic review strategies. I remember everyone in the room pausing in horror as we all mentally went through the reviews we had worked on where we hadn’t cited any search filters. She didn’t make us feel like horrible people or anything, but you better believe that I have since changed my practices; documenting the searches that inform my own, and citing them where applicable in my methods write-ups.

Maybe we need that. Maybe our (awesome!) research colleagues need to have that “Ah ha! …. Oh, no!” moment and think of all the people they may have inadvertently written off of a manuscript or not acknowledged, and then just move on and try their best to not to do it again.

Fair’s fair, right?

References

  1.        Dudden RF, Protzko SL. The systematic review team: contributions of the health sciences librarian. Med Ref Serv Q. 2011;
  2.        Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews [Internet]. Washington; 2011 [cited 2017 Mar 16]. Available from: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews/Standards.aspx
  3.        Koffel JB. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS One. United States; 2015;10(5):e0125931.
  4.        Mcgowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers(IRP). J Med Libr Assoc. Chicago; 2005;93(1):74–80.
  5.        Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. United States; 2015 Jun;68(6):617–26.
  6.        Rethlefsen ML, Murad MH, Livingston EH. Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review articles. Jama [Internet]. 2014;312(10):999–1000. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25203078
  7.        ICMJE. Defining the role of authors and contributors [Internet]. 2017. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

Organizing your Systematic Review: Project Notes Template for Librarians

Updated January 15, 2017

Do you ever find that sometimes it’s the most practical information that we often fail to share or teach?

As a librarian designing search strategies for systematic reviews and supporting review teams for over two years now basically as a full-time job, I feel like I’ve finally streamlined things. The processes that I’ve developed make planning, executing, and reporting the search strategy for a systematic review really straightforward – but it wasn’t always this way. Everything I use is based on trial and error, and in speaking with other librarians. 

Knowing that this kind of uber practical stuff isn’t often shared online, I figured I’d put some of it up in the hopes that maybe some of you might find it useful, or better yet, generate discussion and maybe sharing of your own tools or processes you use to keep things organized (email meeee!).

For starters I figured I’d begin with the core working document that I use basically from day one, and which absolutely saves my butt every time we roll around to manuscript writing time, because it contains every conceivable detail and thought process throughout the search strategy design:

Systematic Review Project Notes Template for Librarians

http://bit.ly/Template-SRProjectNotes-SV 


Systematic Review Project Notes Document by Sarah Visintini is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Creative Commons License

The Way I Use this Form:

Team & Project Information

Basically how I use this thing is I keep all the research group and project information at the top, along with any key decision items, so that: a) I don’t have to go digging through emails to see what we ended up deciding on or b) so that I’m not constantly asking them what databases they have considered or review management software they want to use.

When I’m juggling lots of systematic reviews at the same time keeping them all straight from memory alone can be challenging, and I rely on this section of the document to help me re-immerse myself in the important details of the project, either when I’m ready to have another crack at the search strategy design, or in preparation for a meeting with the investigators.

Databases Table

This table remains empty for the majority of the time that I’m working on this document, but I like to keep it at the top so that when I come back to these notes to write the search methods section, most of my key information is front and centre. I also like to copy and paste this table into my final search results email with researchers so that they have a lot of the core information regarding what databases were run and when for their own records.

Search Strategy Design

This is probably the messiest section and has most of my testing and ideas popped in. I don’t usually use this section much after the fact (favouring the search histories and databases table for the majority of my write up) but it doesn’t hurt either.

Relevant Systematic Reviews

This is a new section I have recently started adding to prompt me to make sure I search for any reviews on the same topic in case the topic has been scooped or there is overlap, as well as to have a tidy place to list out some of the search strategies others have used for similar (but not significantly overlapping) topics. So for example if I was conducting a systematic review on X and Y I would have two subcategories here where I’d copy and paste some good search strategies for X and some good ones for Y so that I could make a beautiful Frankenbaby search* and ensure I wasn’t missing any good terms. 

*This may also come into play come manuscript writing time, when you might be citing the review as the basis for your own search strategy.

Target Articles

Any articles that the team provide to me as being “target articles”/”pearls”/”definite includes” go in this section. Often I will have them in a variety of formats (in a reference list, in a PubMed PMID list for search testing, or in the Ovid Medline .ui. chain – again for search testing). If I end up finding some additional articles that the team deems include-worthy I will also add these here, usually with most current at the top, so that I always know that I am using the latest list of target articles.

Emails

I obviously don’t include everything here, but if there were any decision points in the emails I exchange between myself and the researchers I like to paste them in here for reference so that I can just skim the essentials rather than digging through email threads. This has actually saved me  when I went back to write search methods for a review after having moved to a new position – I had lost all my old emails but still had the salient details in my project notes.

Search Histories

Arguably the most important part of the document, I copy and paste my search history every time I search a database for the project. Typically by the end of a search strategy design process there will be between 5 and 15 entries here by date and database, so that if I have any doubts or questions I can go back through my process and look at what my searches were pulling in. On particularly tricky searches or when I’m testing out a lot of stuff, I’ll often leave myself notes using the Comments features in Word. This has actually come in handy a number of times when either peer reviewers or researchers have asked, “Have you thought of using term….?” and saves me time duplicating tests I’ve already conducted.

Happy systematic searching!