Advancing library roles in research analytics: a case study of data-driven grant proposal support service
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.2412Keywords:
Pre-award support, research analytics, research collaboration, bibliometricsAbstract
Background: This case report demonstrates how a health sciences librarian designed and delivered a data-driven research analytics service to support a multi-institutional pre-award proposal.
Case Presentation: The librarian was invited to join a multi-institutional research team. After defining the project scope, the librarian developed and executed a structured search strategy in a key research database for collaborative research publications across the participating institutions. After two reviewers independently screened search results for relevance, the librarian applied validated measures and metrics and conducted quantitative data analysis and visualization with bibliographic metadata collected from the included research publications. The findings offered quantitative evidence that illustrates the dynamics and patterns in research productivity, collaboration networks, and topic distribution within the collaborative research effort. This librarian’s work contributes to a timely delivery of actionable insights, directly informing the research team’s proposal strategy and preparation.
Conclusion: This case presents a replicable framework for embedding research analytics services within library practice to support research performance evaluation. Leveraging librarians’ expertise in literature search, research databases, bibliometrics, and data-driven workflows, librarians demonstrate their growing prominence as essential partners in research proposal development and research analytics.
References
1. Bourg C, Coleman R, Erway R. Support for the research process: an academic library manifesto. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Research; 2009.
2. John Brosz. Critical roles for libraries in today’s research enterprise. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Critical Roles for Libraries in Today’s Research Enterprise Symposium. Washington, DC; 2020.
3. Hinrichs RJ, Bakker CJ, Brigham TJ, Ginier EC, Stevens GA, Alpi KM. Exploring interprofessional collaboration and attitudes of health sciences librarians. J Med Libr Assoc. 2020 July 1;108(3):440–51.
4. Zeigen L, Hamilton A. Evolving librarian engagement in undergraduate medical education student research and scholarship. Med Ref Serv Q. 2021 July 3;40(3):337–46.
5. Mani NS, Hayes BE, Dodd A, Yu F, Cawley MA. New data-related roles for Librarians: using bibliometric analysis and visualization to increase visibility of research impact. In: Handbook of Research on Knowledge and Organization Systems in Library and Information Science [Internet]. IGI Global Scientific Publishing; 2021 [cited 2025 Dec 23]. p. 317–45. Available from: https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/new-data-related-roles-for-librarians/www.igi-global.com/chapter/new-data-related-roles-for-librarians/285502
6. Palmer M, Bredahl L, Weaver K. An environmental scan of bibliometrics and research impact open instructional trends at Canadian academic research libraries. Can J Acad Lib. 2025 Jan 21;11:1–29.
7. Gutzman KE, Bales ME, Belter CW, Chambers T, Chan L, Holmes KL, Lu YL, Palmer LA, Reznik-Zellen RC, Sarli CC, Suiter AM, Wheeler TR. Research evaluation support services in biomedical libraries. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Jan;106(1):1–14.
8. Qua K, Yu F, Patel T, Dave G, Cornelius K, Pelfrey CM. Scholarly productivity evaluation of KL2 scholars using bibliometrics and federal follow-on funding: cross-institution study. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Sept 29;23(9):e29239.
9. Yu F, Van AA, Patel T, Mani N, Carnegie A, Corbie-Smith GM, Carey T, Buse J, Dave G. Bibliometrics approach to evaluating the research impact of CTSAs: A pilot study. J Clin Trans Sci. 2020 Aug;4(4):336–44.
10. Yu F, Patel T, Carnegie A, Dave G. Evaluating the impact of a CTSA program from 2008 to 2021 through bibliometrics, social network analysis, and altmetrics. J Clin Trans Sci. 2023;7(1):e44.
11. Liu J, Yu F, Song L. A systematic investigation on the research publications that have used the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data through a bibliometrics approach. LHT. 2020 Mar 18;38(4):705–21.
12. Thomas J, Carlson R, Cawley M, Yuan Q, Fleming V, Yu F. The gap between technology and ethics, especially in low- and middle-income country health information systems: a bibliometric study. In: Otero P, Scott P, Martin SZ, Huesing E, editors. Stud Health Technol and Inform [Internet]. IOS Press; 2022 [cited 2025 Dec 23]. Available from: https://ebooks.iospress.nl/doi/10.3233/SHTI220210
13. Xing Z, Yu F, Du J, Walker JS, Paulson CB, Mani NS, Song L. Conversational interfaces for health: bibliometric analysis of grants, publications, and patents. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Nov 18;21(11):e14672.
14. Miles RA, Konkiel S, Sutton S. Scholarly communication librarians’ relationship with research impact indicators: an analysis of a national survey of academic librarians in the United States. J Librariansh Sch Commun [Internet]. 2018 July 17 [cited 2025 Dec 23];6(1). Available from: https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/jlsc/article/id/12810/
15. 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.
16. Yu F, Hayes B. Applying data analytics and visualization to assessing the research impact of the Cancer Cell Biology (CCB) Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. JeSLIB. 2018 Jan 22;7(1):e1123.
17. UNC Department of Medicine. UNC Receives NIH Diabetes Research Center Grant with Partner Institutions [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2025 Dec 23]. Available from: https://www.med.unc.edu/medicine/news/unc-receives-nih-diabetes-research-center-grant-with-partner-institutions/
18. Dimensions. Artificial Intelligence [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 23]. Available from: https://www.dimensions.ai/products/artificial-intelligence/
19. Hutchins BI, Yuan X, Anderson JM, Santangelo GM. Relative citation ratio (RCR): a new metric that uses citation rates to measure influence at the article level. PLoS Biol. 2016 Sept 6;14(9):e1002541.
20. Llewellyn N, Carter DR, DiazGranados D, Pelfrey C, Rollins L, Nehl EJ. Scope, influence, and interdisciplinary collaboration: the publication portfolio of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program from 2006 through 2017. Eval Health Prof. 2020 Sept;43(3):169–79.
21. Dimensions. What is the FCR? How is it calculated? [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 23]. Available from: https://help.dimensions.ai/en/articles/9780801
22. NIH Office of Portfolio Analysis. Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) [Internet]. iCite Support. 2024 [cited 2025 Dec 23]. Available from: https://support.icite.nih.gov/hc/en-us/articles/9105587565851-Relative-Citation-Ratio-RCR
23. Altmetric. The donut and Altmetric Attention Score [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 23]. Available from: https://www.altmetric.com/about-us/our-data/donut-and-altmetric-attention-score/
24. Hong RS, Fan CJ, Lucas JC. Online attention to articles published in otolaryngology journals. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2025 Apr 1;151(4):344-50.
25. VOSviewer. VOSviewer - Visualizing scientific landscapes [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 23]. Available from: https://www.vosviewer.com/
26. van Eck NJ, Waltman L. VOSviewer manual [Internet]. Leiden (Netherlands): CWTS, Universiteit Leiden; [cited 2025 Dec 23]. Available from: https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.20.pdf
27. North Carolina Diabetes Research Center. NCDRC [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 23]. Available from: https://ncdiabetesresearch.org.
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fei Yu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
