Recognizing the value of meta-research and making it easier to find
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2023.1758Keywords:
meta-research, Indexing, research on researchAbstract
Meta-research is a bourgeoning field studying topics with significant relevance to health sciences librarianship, such as research reproducibility, peer review, and open access. As a discipline that studies research itself and the practices of researchers, meta-research spans disciplines and encompasses a broad spectrum of topics and methods. The breadth of meta-research presents a significant challenge for identifying published meta-research studies. Introducing a subject heading for meta-research in the controlled vocabularies of literature databases has the potential to increase the visibility of meta-research, further advance the field, and expand its impact on research practices. Given the relatively recent designation of meta-research as a field and its expanding use as a term, now is the time to develop appropriate indexing vocabulary. We seek to call attention to the value of meta-research for health sciences librarianship, describe the challenges of identifying meta-research literature with currently available key terms, and highlight the need to establish controlled vocabulary specific to meta-research.
References
Okerson A, O'Donnell J, O'Donnell JJ. Scholarly journals at the crossroads: a subversive proposal for electronic publishing: Association of Research Libr 1995.
Ross-Hellauer T, Görögh E. Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Res Integr Peer Rev 2019;4(1):4. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9
Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, et al. SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS. Promoting an open research culture. Science 2015;348(6242):1422-5. DOI: 10.1126/science.aab2374.
Ioannidis JP, Fanelli D, Dunne DD, et al. Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices. PLOS Biol 2015;13(10):e1002264. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264 [published Online First: 20151002]
Ioannidis JPA. Meta-research: Why research on research matters. PLOS Biol 2018;16(3):e2005468. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468.
Gerberi D, Taylor JM, Beeler CJ. Educating Authors and Users of the Literature to Increase Vigilance of Predatory Publishing. Journal of Hospital Librarianship 2021;21(3):207-16. DOI: 10.1080/15323269.2021.1942691.
Ross-White A, Godfrey CM, Sears KA, et al. Predatory publications in evidence syntheses. J Med Libr Assoc 2019;107(1):57-61. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2019.491 [published Online First: 20190101].
Surkis A, Spore S. The relative citation ratio: what is it and why should medical librarians care? J Med Libr Assoc 2018;106(4):508-13. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2018.499 [published Online First: 20181001].
Lapidow A, Scudder P. Shared first authorship. J Med Libr Assoc 2019;107(4):618-20. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2019.700 [published Online First: 20191001].
Nicholson J, McCrillis A, Williams JD. Collaboration challenges in systematic reviews: a survey of health sciences librarians. J Med Libr Assoc 2017;105(4):385-93. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2017.176 [published Online First: 20171001].
Spencer AJ, Eldredge JD. Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review. J Med Libr Assoc 2018;106(1):46-56. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2018.82 [published Online First: 20180102].
Deardorff A. Why do biomedical researchers learn to program? An exploratory investigation. J Med Libr Assoc 2020;108(1):29-35. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2020.819 [published Online First: 20200101].
DeMars MM, Perruso C. MeSH and text-word search strategies: precision, recall, and their implications for library instruction. J Med Libr Assoc 2022;110(1):23-33. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1283.
Houghton F. Keep calm and carry on: moral panic, predatory publishers, peer review, and the emperor's new clothes. J Med Libr Assoc 2022;110(2):233-39. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1441.
Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, et al. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc 2018;106(4):531-41. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2018.283 [published Online First: 2018/10/03].
Harpe SE. Meta-research in pharmacy: Time for a look in the mirror. Res Social Adm Pharm 2021;17(12):2028-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.04.006.
Hersh W. Information retrieval: a health and biomedical perspective: Springer Science & Business Media 2008.
Liu Y-H, Wacholder N. Evaluating the impact of MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms on different types of searchers. Information Processing & Management 2017;53(4):851-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2017.03.004.
Ioannidis JPA. Modeling and Research on Research. Clinical Chemistry 2014;60(9):1238-39. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2013.218453
National Library of Medicine. User Suggestions for Medical Subject Headings 2021. [cited 2023 April 4]. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshsugg.html.
Minguet F, Van Den Boogerd L, Salgado TM, et al. Characterization of the Medical Subject Headings thesaurus for pharmacy. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 2014;71(22):1965-72. DOI: 10.2146/ajhp140073
Fernandez-Llimos F, Minguet F, Salgado TM. New pharmacy-specific Medical Subject Headings included in the 2017 database. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2017;74(15):1128-29. DOI: 10.2146/ajhp170046.
Nelson S. Vocabulary Development and Maintenance: The Example of MeSH: University of New Mexico; 2004. [cited 2023 May 5]. Available from: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/hslic-historical-administrative/25.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Elizabeth Stevens, Gregory Laynor
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
