Health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: a scoping review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1256Keywords:
health sciences libraries, health sciences librarians, open scienceAbstract
Objectives: To identify the engagement of health sciences librarians (HSLs) in open science (OS) through the delivery of library services, support, and programs for researchers.
Methods: We performed a scoping review guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and Joanna Briggs’ Manual for Scoping Reviews. Our search methods consisted of searching five bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LISTA, and Web of Science Core Collection), reference harvesting, and targeted website and journal searching. To determine study eligibility, we applied predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria and reached consensus when there was disagreement. We extracted data in duplicate and performed qualitative analysis to map key themes.
Results: We included fifty-four studies. Research methods included descriptive or narrative approaches (76%); surveys, questionnaires, and interviews (15%); or mixed methods (9%). We labeled studies with one or more of FOSTER's six OS themes: open access (54%), open data (43%), open science (24%), open education (6%), open source (6%), and citizen science (6%). Key drivers in OS were scientific integrity and transparency, openness as a guiding principle in research, and funder mandates making research publicly accessible.
Conclusions: HSLs play key roles in advancing OS worldwide. Formal studies are needed to assess the impact of HSLs’ engagement in OS. HSLs should promote adoption of OS within their research communities and develop strategic plans aligned with institutional partners. HSLs can promote OS by adopting more rigorous and transparent research practices of their own. Future research should examine HSLs’ engagement in OS through social justice and equity perspectives.
References
Rockhold F, Bromley C, Wagner EK, Buyse M. Open science: the open clinical trials data journey. Clin Trials. 2019;16(5):539–46.
Watson M. When will “open science” become simply “science”? Genome Biol. 2015;16(100960660, dxp):101.
Rahal R-M, Havemann J. Science in crisis. Is open science the solution? MetaArXiv [Preprint]. 2019 May 3. Available from: https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/3hb6g/.
Giustini D, Read K, Deardorff A, Federer LM, Rethlefsen ML. Health sciences librarians’ support of researchers and engagement in open science: a scoping review (protocol). OSF. 2020. Available from: https://osf.io/3se47/.
Vicente-Saez R, Martinez-Fuentes C. Open Science now: a systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research. 2018 Jul;88:428–36.
Schmidt B, Orth A, Franck G, Kuchma I, Knoth P, Carvalho J. Stepping up Open Science training for European research. Publications. 2016;4(2):16.
Brinken H, Mehlberg M, Heller L. The Open Science training handbook: written by 14 international experts during the FOSTER Book Sprint. 2018 [Internet]. Available from: https://book.fosteropenscience.eu.
Sarcina A. Open Science: a review of definitions with a regional perspective. Impakter. 2019. Available from: https://impakter.com/open-science-a-review-of-definitions-with-a-regional-perspective/.
Abbott P, Cox A. The potential of Open Science for research visibility in the Global South: Rwandan librarians’ perspectives. In: International Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries. Springer; 2020. p. 41–53.
Albert KM. Open access: implications for scholarly publishing and medical libraries. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94(3):253.
Federer LM, Qin J. Beyond the data management plan: expanding roles for librarians in data science and open science. Proc Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2019;56(1):529–31.
Perrier L, Blondal E, Ayala AP, Dearborn D, Kenny T, Lightfoot D, Reka R, Thuna M, Trimble L, MacDonald H. Research data management in academic institutions: a scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(5):1–14.
Morrison H, Waller A. Open access for the medical librarian. J Can Health Libr Assoc JCHLA. 2006;27(3):69–73.
Stimson NF. National Institutes of Health public access policy assistance: one library’s approach. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009;97(4):238.
Barnett MC, Keener MW. Expanding medical library support in response to the National Institutes of Health public access policy. J Med Libr Assoc. 2007;95(4):450.
Tennant JP, Waldner F, Jacques DC, Masuzzo P, Collister LB, Hartgerink CH. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000 Research. 2016;5.
Tenopir C, Rice NM, Allard S, Baird L, Borycz J, Christian L, Grant B, Olendorf R, Sandusky RJ. Data sharing, management, use, and reuse: practices and perceptions of scientists worldwide. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(3):e0229003.
Ayris P, Ignat T. Defining the role of libraries in the Open Science landscape: a reflection on current European practice. Open Inf Sci. 2018;2(1):1–22.
Martin ER. Democratic librarianship: the role of the medical library in promoting democracy and social justice. J Med Libr Assoc. 2020;108(1):131.
Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IjJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, Blomberg N, Boiten JW, da Silva Santos LB, Bourne PE, Bouwman J. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016;3(1):1–9.
Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.
Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Baldini Soares C, Khalil H, Parker D. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. In: Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017. Available from: https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/.
Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel JB, PRISMA-S Group. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):1–19.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MD, Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.
Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, McInerney P, Godfrey CM, Khalil H. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26.
McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75(jce, 8801383):40–46.
Ayris P, Bernal I, Cavalli B, Dorch B, Frey J. LIBER Open Science Roadmap. Liber - Eur Res Libr Netw. 2018. Available from: https://zenodo.org/record/1303002.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, Levac D, Ng C, Sharpe JP, Wilson K, Kenny M. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):15.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77–101.
Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):45.
National Library of Medicine. Bibliographic Services Division. MEDLINE Indexing Online Training Course: Category V - Publication Characteristics [Internet]. Bethesda, MD; 17 Jan 2020. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/indexing/training/PUB_009.html
Anyaoku EN. Data librarianship: open data awareness, perceptions and services in medical libraries in Nigeria. IFLA Conference. 2019;1–12. Available from: http://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/2786/
Arning U, Blortz U, Brüggemann-Hasler B, Herrmann-Krotz G, Müller E, Zängl U. ZB MED – Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften: Eine wissenschaftliche Fachbibliothek versteht sich als Motor für Open Access. GMS Med-Bibl-Inf. 2019;19(1/2):1–5.
Azzam A, Bresler D, Leon A, Maggio L, Whitaker E, Heilman J, Orlowitz J, Swisher V, Rasberry L, Otoide K, Trotter F. Why medical schools should embrace Wikipedia: final-year medical student contributions to Wikipedia articles for academic credit at one school. Acad Med. 2017;92(2):193–200.
Banks MA, Persily GL. Campus perspective on the National Institutes of Health public access policy: University of California, San Francisco, library experience. J Med Libr Assoc. 2010;98(3):256–9.
Bauer B. Kooperationen bei der Literatur- und Informations-versorgung von medizinischen Fakultäten und Hochschulen in Österreich. GMS Med-Bibl-Inf. 2018;18(1/2):1–10.
Blobaum P. It’s the law: impact and response to an unfunded open access act. Nursing and Allied Health Resources Section (NAHRS) Newsletter. 2016;36(4):5–7.
Borghi J, Cuddy C. The library as an active collaborator in meta-science, open science, and data science. Poster session at the MetaScience Symposium, Sept 5 - 8th, 2019. Stanford, CA. Available from: https://www.metascience2019.org/poster-session/john-borghi/
Buys CM, Shaw PL. Data management practices across an institution: survey and report. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 2015;3(2):1–24.
Coates HL, Carlson J, Clement R, Henderson M, Johnston LR, Shorish Y. How are we measuring up? Evaluating research data services in academic libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 2018;6:1–33.
Deardorff A. Why do biomedical researchers learn to program? An exploratory investigation. J Med Libr Assoc. 2020;108(1):29–35.
Di Salvo I, Mwoka M, Kwaga T, Rukundo PA, Ernest DS, Osaheni LA, John K, Shafik K, de Sousa AM. Open access, open education resources and open data in Uganda. Pan Afr Med J. 2015;21.
Federer L. Research data management in the age of big data: roles and opportunities for librarians. Information Services & Use. 2016;36(1/2):35–43.
Féret R, Cros M. The embedded research librarian: a project partner. Liber Q J Eur Res Libr. 2019;29(1):1–20.
Flitner U, Grimm S. Einführung von Open-Access-Services an der Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Ein Praxisbericht. GMS Med-Bibl-Inf. 2019;19(1/2):1–6.
Foster ED, Coates HL. Raising the visibility of protected data: a pilot data catalog project. In: Open Praxis, Open Access: Digital Scholarship in Action. Chicago, IL: ALA Editions; 2020.
Gordon S. Why libraries aren’t dead: open access and the evolving liaison role. J Can Health Libr Assoc JCHLA. 2011;32(3):165–7.
Gore SA. E-science and data management resources on the web. Med Ref Serv Q. 2011;30(2):167–77.
Greyson D. Open access and health librarians in 2011. J Can Health Libr Assoc JCHLA. 2011;32(2):45–9.
Heselden M, Malliarakis KD, Lunsford B, Linton A, Sullo E, Cardenas D, LeGal M, Guzzetta CE. Establishing an open access repository for doctor of nursing practice projects. J Prof Nurs. 2019;35(6):467–72.
Ignat T, Ayris P, Labastida i Juan I, Reilly S, Dorch B, Kaarsted T, Overgaard AK. Merry work: libraries and citizen science. Insights. 2018;31(9):35.
Ilik V, Hebal P, Olson A, Wishnetsky S, Pastva J, Kubilius R, Shank J, Gutzman K, Chung M, Holmes K. DigitalHub: a repository focused on the future. Med Ref Serv Q. 2018;37(1):31–42.
Johnson LM, Butler JT, Johnston LR. Developing e-science and research services and support at the University of Minnesota Health Sciences Libraries. J Libr Adm. 2012;52(8):754–69.
Kafel D. Activities of regional consortia in planning e-science continuing education programs for librarians in New England. In: Special Issues in Data Management. American Chemical Society; 2012. p. 69–96. Available from: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bk-2012-1110.ch005.
Ketchum AM. The research life cycle and the health sciences librarian: responding to change in scholarly communication. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017;105(1):80–3.
Kipnis DG, Palmer LA, Kubilius RK. The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107(4):488–98.
Kipnis DG, Palmer LA. Medical institutional repositories in a changing scholarly communication landscape. Against the Grain. 2018;30(4):33–6.
Lapinski PS, Osterbur D, Parker J, McCray AT. Supporting public access to research results. Coll Res Libr. 2014;75(1):20–33.
Lawton A. Communicating the open access message: a case study from Ireland. New Review of Academic Librarianship. 2016 Jan 2;22(1):60–77.
Lin N, Hinegardner PG. Discovering the present, preserving the past: the development of a digital archive at the University of Maryland. J Electron Resour Med Libr. 2012;9(4):247–60.
Lindstädt B. Management und Publikation von Forschungsdaten - Serviceleistungen einer wissenschaftlichen Bibliothek. Bibliotheksdienst. 2016;50(7):636–48.
MacMillan D. Developing data literacy competencies to enhance faculty collaborations. Liber Q J Eur Res Libr. 2015;24(3):140–60.
Mani NS, Rosenzweig M, Masters CM. Improving clarity of compliance procedures associated with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy (NIHPAP) via process mapping. J Libr Adm. 2015;55(2):79–91.
McGowan BS. OpenStreetMap mapathons support critical data and visual literacy instruction. J Med Libr Assoc. 2020;108(4):649–50.
Mundoma C, Ruhs N, Meth M, Glerum A, Lopez M, Julian R. Research Resource Identifiers (RRID) for core facilities and research equipment. J Biomol Tech. 2019;30(Supplement):S35.
Nguyen-Truong CKY, Graves JM, Enslow E, Williams-Gilbert W. Academic and community–engaged approach to integrating open educational resources in population health course. Nurse Educ. 2019;44(6):300–3.
Novak Gustainis ER. Ever-evolving: introducing the Medical Heritage Library, Inc. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107(2):265–9.
Overgaard AK, Kaarsted T. A new trend in media and library collaboration within citizen science? The case of ‘a healthier funen.’ Liber Q. 2018;28(1):1–17.
Palmer LA. Cultivating scholarships: the role of institutional repositories in health sciences libraries. Against the Grain. 2014;26(2):24–8.
Read KB, Surkis A, Larson C, McCrillis A, Graff A, Nicholson J, Xu J. Starting the data conversation: Informing data services at an academic health sciences library. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015;103(3):131–5.
Rethlefsen ML, Lackey MJ, Zhao S. Building capacity to encourage research reproducibility and #MakeResearchTrue. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(1):113–9.
Rosenzweig M, Schnitzer AE, Song J, Martin S, Ottaviani J. National Institutes of Health public access policy and the University of Michigan Libraries’ role in assisting with depositing to PubMed Central. J Med Libr Assoc. 2011;99(1):97–9.
Rusch B, Boltze J, Dierkes T, Goltz-Fellgiebel JA, Staub H. DeepGreen – DeepGold: Open-Access-Transformation – Entwicklung und Perspektiven. GMS Med-Bibl-Inf. 2019;19(1/2):1–7.
Sayre F, Riegelman A. Replicable services for reproducible research: a model for academic libraries. Coll Res Libr. 2019;80(2):260–72.
Schmidt B, Bertino A, Beucke D, Brinken H, Jahn N, Matthias L, Mimkes J, Müller K, Orth A, Bargheer M. Open science support as a portfolio of services and projects: From awareness to engagement. Publications. 2018;6(2).
Sheffield CL, Refolo LM, Petanceska SS, King RJ. A librarian’s role in improving rigor in research—AlzPED: Alzheimer’s Disease Preclinical Efficacy Database. Sci Technol Libr. 2017;36(3):296–308.
Sinn RN, Woodson SM, Cyzyk M. The Johns Hopkins Libraries open access promotion fund: an open and shut case study. Coll Res Libr News. 2017 Jan 1;78(1):32-5.
Spremberg A, Schmiel M, Hartmann K. Open Access an der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover: Erfahrungen aus der Perspektive der Bibliothek.GMS Med-Bibl-Inf. 2019;19(1/2):1–6.
Steinrisser-Allex G, Grossmaier-Stieg K. Open Access an der Medizinischen Universität Graz – Therapieentscheidungen im Spannungsfeld zwischen Forschung und klinischem Alltag. GMS Med-Bibl-Inf. 2019;19(1/2):1–10.
Taylor A. Libraries take on policy: support for open access and open data. Against the Grain. 2014;26(2):28–32.
Thomas WmJ, Blackwell L. NIH mandate one year on: how are libraries responding? Ser Libr. 2010;58(1–4):257–62.
Vieler A, Wöckel C. Vom Informationsversorger zum Forschungsdienstleister – Änderung der Wahrnehmung bibliothekarischer Arbeit durch Open Access an der Bibliothek Medizin/Naturwissenschaften der Universität Leipzig. GMS Med-Bibl-Inf. 2019;19(1/2):1–5.
Wang H, Gainey M, Gulick AV. Carnegie Mellon’s first Open Science Symposium Themes about research data and their reuse. Poster session at the Open Science Symposium, Research Data Alliance Plenary Meeting 13. April 1-4, 2019; Philadelphia, PA. Available from: https://kilthub.cmu.edu/articles/poster/Carnegie_Mellon_s_first_Open_Science_Symposium_-_Themes_about_research_data_and_their_reuse/7928714.
Wright RA. Developing a suite of online learning modules on the components of next-generation sequencing projects. Med Ref Serv Q. 2020;39(1):90–9.
Milewska A, Wiśniewska N. Poland’s first open library research data–from theory to practice. Med Libr Forum. 2019;12(1):2.
Plan S. Accelerating the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications. Sci Eur [Internet]. 2019; Available from: https://www.coalition-s.org/.
Bandy SL, Song J. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) directive: what it is and what you need to know. MLA News. 2014;54(1):12.
Novak Gustainis ER. Ever-evolving: introducing the Medical Heritage Library, Inc. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107(2):265–9.
Roh C, Gabler V. Systemic barriers and allyship in library publishing: a case study reminder that no one is safe from racism. Coll Res Libr News. 2020;81(3):141.
Bahlai C, Bartlett LJ, Burgio KR, Fournier AM, Keiser CN, Poisot T, Whitney KS. Open science isn’t always open to all scientists. Am Sci. 2019 Mar 1;107(2):78–82.
Giustini D. Information, power, and privilege in open science: some emerging lessons for health sciences librarians (closing keynote). Mountain Pacific Health Sciences Libraries Conference; 2021 Feb. Available from: https://osf.io/rua48/.
Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV, Institute P-COR. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1513–4.
