Research evaluation support services in biomedical libraries
Keywords:Research Evaluation, Research Impact, Research Assessment, Bibliometrics, Library Services
Objective: The paper review provides a review of current practices related to evaluating support services reported by seven biomedical and research libraries.
Methods: A group of seven libraries from the United States and Canada described their experiences with establishing evaluation support services at their libraries. A questionnaire was distributed among the libraries to elicit information as to program development, service and staffing models, campus partnerships, training, products such as tools and reports, and resources used for evaluation support services. The libraries also reported interesting projects, lessons learned, and future plans.
Results: The seven libraries profiled in this paper report a variety of service models in providing evaluation support services to meet the needs of campus stakeholders. The service models range from research center cores, partnerships with research groups, and library programs with staff dedicated to evaluation support services. A variety of products and services were described such as an automated tool to develop rank-based metrics, consultation on appropriate metrics to use for evaluation, customized publication and citation reports, resource guides, classes and training, and others. Implementing these services has allowed the libraries to expand their roles on campus and to contribute more directly to the research missions of their institutions.Conclusions: Libraries can leverage a variety of evaluation support services as an opportunity to successfully meet an array of challenges confronting the biomedical research community, including robust efforts to report and demonstrate tangible and meaningful outcomes of biomedical research and clinical care. These services represent a transformative direction that can be emulated by other biomedical and research libraries.
Guthrie S, Wamae W, Diepeveen S, Wooding S, Grant J. Measuring research: a guide to research evaluation frameworks and tools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2013.
Aguillo IF. Informetrics for librarians: describing their important role in the evaluation process. El Profesional de la Información. 2016 Jan–Feb;25(1):5–10.
Hendrix D. Tenure metrics: bibliometric education and services for academic faculty. Med Ref Serv Q. 2010 Apr;29(2):183–9.
Donovan C, Hanney S. The ‘Payback Framework’ explained. Res Eval. 2011 Sep;20(3):181–3.
Sarli CC, Dubinsky EK, Holmes KL. Beyond citation analysis: a model for assessment of research impact. J Med Libr Assoc. 2010 Jan;98(1):17–23. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3163/1536-5050.98.1.008.
Canadian Academy of Health Sciences. Making an impact: a preferred framework and indicators to measure returns on investment in health research [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: The Academy; 2009 [cited 17 Oct 2017]. <http://cahs-acss.ca/making-an-impact>.
Corrall S, Kennan MA, Afzal W. Bibliometrics and research data management services: emerging trends in library support for research. Libr Trends. 2013 Winter;61(3):636–74.
Lewis R, Sarli CC, Suiter AM. Scholarly output assessment activities, SPEC kit 346. Association of Research Libraries; 2015.
Suiter AM, Moulaison HL. Supporting scholars: an analysis of academic library websites’ documentation on metrics and impact. J Acad Librariansh. 2015 Nov;41(6):814–20.
Petersohn S. Bibliometric services in research evaluation: a new task area strengthening the jurisdiction of academic librarians? IATUL Annual Conference Proceedings. 2014 Jun;(35):1–8.
O’Brien LS, ed. The changing scholarly information landscape: reinventing information services to increase research impact. 14th International Conference on Electronic Publishing; 2010; Helsinki, Finland: Hanken School of Economics.
Research impact services. Google groups [Internet]. [cited 17 Oct 2017]. <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/res-impact>.
Ball R, Tunger D. Bibliometric analysis - a new business area for information professionals in libraries? support for scientific research by perception and trend analysis. Scientometrics. 2006;66(3):561–77.
Johnson S, Bales M, Dine D, Bakken S, Albert P, Weng C. Automatic generation of investigator bibliographies for institutional research networking systems. J Biomed Inform. 2014 Oct;51:8–14.
Albert P, Bales M. ReCiter: GitHub [Internet]. 2014 [cited 17 Oct 2017]. <https://github.com/wcmc-its/ReCiter>.
Lamar Soutter Library. eScholarship@UMMS [Internet]. Worcester, MA: University of Massachusetts Medical School [cited 17 Oct 2017]. <http://escholarship.umassmed.edu>.
Weill Cornell Medicine. Citation impact tool: GitHub [Internet]. Weill Cornell Medicine [cited 17 Oct 2017]. <https://github.com/wcmc-its/citation-impact/>.
Sci2 Team. Science of science (Sci2) tool [Internet]. Indiana University and SciTech Strategies; 2009 [cited 17 Oct 2017]. <https://sci2.cns.iu.edu>.
Europeana Labs. Linked open data [Internet]. The Labs [cited 17 Oct 2017]. <http://labs.europeana.eu/api/linked-open-data-introduction>.