Taking it a step farther: acknowledging librarians’ systematic review work in the promotion or tenure process
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.2202Keywords:
Systematic Reviews, Evidence Synthesis, Annual Review, Interdisciplinary, Promotion, TenureAbstract
Librarians’ contributions to systematic review projects receive inconsistent recognition within promotion or tenure processes. A review of thirty-six academic libraries’ norms and procedures revealed only two that mentioned systematic reviews. Recognition and inclusion of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis is further complicated by variance in recognition of interdisciplinary work. This commentary provides recommendations for academic library leadership to establish standards for documenting and evaluating systematic review work in annual reviews and promotion or tenure, explicitly recognizing the value of participation in interdisciplinary scholarship, inclusion of search strategies as a scholarly output, and providing guidance for the external review process. We close with a call to action for professional organizations to establish centralized guidelines to ensure the full recognition of librarianship and scholarly participation in systematic reviews.
References
1. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, editors. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011 [cited 2025 Mar 24]. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13059/finding-what-works-in-health-care-standards-for-systematic-reviews.
2. McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan;93(1):74.
3. Weller AC. Mounting evidence that librarians are essential for comprehensive literature searches for meta-analyses and Cochrane reports. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004 Apr;92(2):163–4.
4. Clark JM, Beller E, Glasziou P, Sanders S. The decisions and processes involved in a systematic search strategy: a hierarchical framework. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Apr;109(2):201–11. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1086.
5. Esmailzadeh M, Bahrami M, Soleymani MR. Competences of academic librarians in providing health research services: A qualitative study. J Educ Health Promot. 2020 Aug 31; 9:220.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_254_20.
6. Farris DP, Lebo RA, Price C. Designing a framework for curriculum building in systematic review competencies for librarians: a case report. J Med Libr Assoc. 2024 Oct;112(4):357–63. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1930.
7. Townsend WA, Anderson PF, Ginier EC, MacEachern MP, Saylor KM, Shipman BL, Smith JE. A competency framework for librarians involved in systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jul;105(3):268–75. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.189.
8. Lackey MJ, Greenberg H, Rethlefsen ML. Building the systematic review core in an academic health sciences library. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Oct;107(4):588–94. https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.711.
9. Ludeman E, Downton K, Shipper AG, Fu Y. Developing a library systematic review service: a case study. Med Ref Serv Q. 2015;34(2):173–80. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2015.1019323.
10. McKeown S, Ross-White A. Building capacity for librarian support and addressing collaboration challenges by formalizing library systematic review services. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Jul;107(3):411–9. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.443.
11. Pasipamire N. Integrating evidence synthesis services in Zimbabwean state university libraries. IFLA J. 2024 Sep 5;94–108. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03400352241276844.
12. Roth SC. Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(4):514–20. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.430.
13. Russell F, Muir R. A return to librarian mediated searching in a pilot systematic search service. J Aust Libr Inf Assoc. 2020 Jun;69(2):262–73. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2020.1749333.
14. Russell F, Grbin L, Beard F, Higgins J, Kelly B. The evolution of a mediated systematic review search service. J Aust Libr Inf Assoc. 2022 Mar;71(1):89–107. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2022.2029143.
15. Tchangalova N, Harrington EG, Ritchie S, Over S. Working across disciplines and library units to develop a suite of systematic review services for researchers. Collab Librariansh. 2019 Oct;11(4):267–81. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.3.015.
16. Demetres MR, Wright DN, Hickner A, Jedlicka C, Delgado D. A decade of systematic reviews: an assessment of Weill Cornell Medicine’s systematic review service. J Med Libr Assoc. 2023 Jul;111(3):728–32. DOI: https://dx.doi/org/10.5195/jmla.2023.1628.
17. Gann LB, Pratt GF. Using library search service metrics to demonstrate library value and manage workload. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 Jul;101(3):227–9. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2023.1628.
18. Lyon JA, Garcia-Milian R, Norton HF, Tennant MR. The use of research electronic data capture (REDCap) software to create a database of librarian-mediated literature searches. Med Ref Serv Q. 2014 Jul;33(3):241–52. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2014.925379.
19. Campbell S, Dorgan M. What to do when everyone wants you to collaborate: managing the demand for library support in systematic review searching. J Can Health Libr Assoc J L’Assoc Bibl Santé Can. 2015;36(1):11–9. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29173/jchla/jabsc.v36i1.24353.
20. O’Dwyer LC, Wafford QE. Addressing challenges with systematic review teams through effective communication: a case report. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Oct 1;109(4):643–7.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1222.
21. Wafford QE, O’Dwyer LC. Adopting a toolkit to manage time, resources, and expectations in the systematic review process: a case report. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Oct 1;109(4):637–42.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1221.
22. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel JB, Blunt H, Brigham T, Chang S, Clark J, Conway A, Couban R, de Kock S, Farrah K, Fehrmann P, Foster M, Fowler SA, Glanville J, Harris E, Hoffecker L, Isojarvi J, Kaunelis D, Ket H, Levay P, Lyon J, McGowan J, Murad MH, Nicholson J, Pannabecker V, Paynter R, Pinotti R, Ross-White A, Sampson M, Shields T, Stevens A, Sutton A, Weinfurter E, Wright K, Young S, PRISMA-S Group. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021 Jan 26;10(1):39. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z.
23. Glanville J, Lefebvre C, Manson P, Robinson S, Brbre I, Woods L. The InterTASC Information Specialists’ Sub-Group [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://sites.google.com/a/
york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/home.
24. Borrego Á, Ardanuy J, Urbano C. Librarians as Research Partners: Their contribution to the scholarly endeavour beyond library and information science. J Acad Librariansh. 2018;44(5):663–70.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.07.012.
25. Brunskill A, Hanneke R. The case of the disappearing librarians: analyzing documentation of librarians’ contributions to systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2022 Oct;110(4):409–18.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1505.
26. Desmeules R, Dorgan M, Campbell S. Acknowledging librarians’ contributions to systematic review searching. J Can Health Libr Assoc J L’Assoc Bibl Santé Can. 2016 Aug;37(2):44–52.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5596/c16-014.
27. Medical Library Association. MLA competencies for lifelong learning and professional success. [cited 2025 Mar 24]. https://www.mlanet.org/professional-development/mla-competencies/.
28. Slingsby L. ALIA HLA competencies. ALIA Library. 2019 [cited 2024 Nov 18]. https://read.alia.org.
au/alia-hla-competencies.
29. Frati F, Oja LA, Kleinberg J, CHLA-ABSC Standards Task Force. CHLA standards for library and information services in Canadian health & social services institutions 2020. J Can Health Libr Assoc J L’Assoc Bibl Santé Can. 2021 Apr;42(1):14–44. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29173/jchla29526.
30. Ritchie, Ann. Guidelines for Australian health libraries, 5th edition 2022. 5th ed. Canberra, ACT: Australian Library and Information Association Health Libraries Australia; 2025 [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://library.alia.org.au/guidelines-australian-health-libraries-5th-edition-2022.
31. Medical Library Association. Systematic review services specialization. 2024 [cited 2025 Mar 24]. https://www.mlanet.org/Specializations/systematic-review-services-specialization/.
32. Medical Library Association. AHIP points index [Internet]. MLA. [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://www.mlanet.org/professional-development/ahip-points-index/.
33. University of Michigan Libraries. Systematic reviews workshop. [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://www.lib.umich.edu/research-and-scholarship/library-workshops-and-credit-courses/systematic-reviews-workshop.
34. University of Minnesota. Evidence synthesis institute. [cited 2025 Jun 24]. https://www.lib.umn.edu/
about/evidence-synthesis-institute.
35. The Campbell Collaboration. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis — open & free. Carnegie Mellon University. 2023 [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://oli.cmu.edu/courses/systematic-reviews-and-meta-analysis-o-f/.
36. Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library. Retention, promotion, and tenure (RPT) statement for tenure‐line faculty. University of Utah; 2016.
37. University of Florida. By-Laws: departmental libraries, health science center libraries, Marston Science Library, special and area studies collections, and technology and support services. University of Florida; 2020.
38. Bullers K, Howard AM, Hanson A, Kearns WD, Orriola JJ, Polo RL, Sakmar KA. It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Apr;106(2):198–207. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.323.
39. Gore GC, Jones J. Systematic reviews and librarians: a primer for managers. Partnersh Can J Libr Inf Pract Res. 2015 Jul 10 [cited 2025 Apr 4];10(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v10i1.3343
40. O’Dwyer L. Galter Library memorandum of understanding (v1.0.0). DigitalHub. Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center; 2021 [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://dx.doi.org/10.18131/g3-eb6d-3f03.
41. ICMJE | Recommendations | Defining the role of authors and contributors. [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html.
42. Rod AB, Boruff JT. Searches as data: archiving and sharing search strategies using an institutional data repository. J Med Libr Assoc. 2024 Jan;112(1):42–7. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1791
43. Dalhousie University Dataverse. Dalhousie librarian knowledge synthesis search materials repository. [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://borealisdata.ca/dataverse/dalhousie_librarian_ks_search_repository.
44. McGill University Dataverse. McGill librarian knowledge synthesis search materials repository. [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://borealisdata.ca/dataverse/mcgill_librarian_ks_search_repository.
45. Université de Montréal Dataverse. Bibliothèque du CHUM stratégies de recherche pour les synthèses des connaissances. [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://borealisdata.ca/dataverse/bibliochum.
46. University of Toronto Dataverse. HSIC knowledge synthesis search strategies. [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://borealisdata.ca/dataverse/hsicsearches.
47. CABI Digital Library. searchRxiv - Home | CABI Digital Library searchRxiv. 2024 [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/journal/searchrxiv.
48. Haddaway NR, Rethlefsen ML, Davies M, Glanville J, McGowan B, Nyhan K, Young S. A suggested data structure for transparent and repeatable reporting of bibliographic searching. Campbell Syst Rev. 2022;18(4):e1288. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1288.
49. University of Illinois Chicago. P&T 25-26 Part III - Tenure & non-tenure system guidelines. 2025 [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://uofi.app.box.com/v/ptguidelines3.
50. CRediT. Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT). Contributor Role Taxonomy. 2025 [cited 2025 Jun 24]. https://credit.niso.org/.
51. Beverley CA, Booth A, Bath PA. The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: a health information case study. Health Inf Libr J. 2003 Jun;20(2):65–74.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-1842.2003.00411.x.
52. Cooper D, Crum JA New activities and changing roles of health sciences librarians: a systematic review, 1990-2012. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013;101(4):268–77. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.008.
53. Spencer AJ, Eldredge JD. Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Jan;106(1):46–56. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82.
54. Cumpston M, Lasserson T, Flemyng E, Page M. Chapter III: Reporting the review. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 65. Cochrane; 2023 [cited 2025 Mar 24]. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-iii.
Published
Versions
- 2026-04-13 (2)
- 2026-04-13 (1)
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Rebecca Raszewski, Abigail Goben
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
