Library Faculty/Staff Scholarship and Research
Permanent URI for this collectionhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/11
Browse
11 results
Search Results
Item Systematic Review Task Force Report(2020-01) Coalter, Jodi; Gammons, Rachel; Over, Sarah; Ritchie, Stephanie; Tchangalova, NedelinaIn today’s busy research university library, many advanced level researchers need specialized research support. Literature review workshops have been very popular at the UMD Libraries in the last couple of years. Systematic reviews, originally relevant for research in medical research, are a type of literature review that is getting increasingly commonly used in all other sciences where data are collected and published in the literature. UMD Libraries evaluated the feasibility of offering Systematic Review services to the UMD community and beyond. In this report, short and long term recommendations are provided to enhance the service.Item Working Across Disciplines and Library Units to Develop a Suite of Systematic Review Services for Researchers(Collaborative Librarianship, 2020-02-21) Tchangalova, Nedelina; Harrington, Eileen G.; Ritchie, Stephanie; Over, Sarah; Coalter, JodiSince their inception in the health sciences field, systematic reviews have expanded into many other sub-ject disciplines. To address this growing need, subject librarians at the University of Maryland Libraries collaborated on a pilot program in three phases to introduce researchers to the process of conducting sys-tematic and scoping reviews. This article describes the design and development of a workshop series based on participant feedback. Assessment and evaluation techniques are shared to encourage further refinement of the systematic review service.Item The Time Has Come...To Build, Reflect, and Analyze Connections Between Qualitative and Quantitative Data(Charleston Conference, 2019, 2019-11-06) Sly, Jordan; DePope, Leigh Ann; Frank, Cindy; Ritchie, StephanieThis poster will address the development process of a qualitative evaluation tool to aid in the thorough analysis of library resources at the University of Maryland. Specifically, our project looks at the use and added value of this tool for the building, reflecting, and analyzing connections between qualitative and quantitative data. This will allow for more meaningful justifications of budgetary decisions than compared to cost and use metrics alone. Given the necessity for meticulous review of continuing resources, our project addresses a request for enhanced transparency from the university faculty and library oversight body and serves as a useful tool for accountability and justification of impactful decisions for stakeholders internally and externally. We will discuss the extant literature and the need for this type of tool, the development process including the output planning and data input format, the initial reception of the project, and future goals and planning for our initial usageItem You choose, we deliver: Providing educational opportunities to researchers in STEM(2019-10-05) Tchangalova, Nedelina; Harrington, Eileen; Over, Sarah; Ritchie, StephanieOBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Subject librarians at the University of Maryland (UMD) Libraries have experienced an increased demand for research support not only in the health and medical sciences but also from education, engineering, agriculture, library science, humanities, and social sciences. With the goal to provide sustainable support to graduate students and faculty who are writing scientific texts, we developed a suite of systematic review services. METHODS: To introduce researchers to the process of compiling the best evidence on a particular topic, we developed online materials with resources supporting the systematic review cycle. To justify the librarian's time and efforts, we provided a description of the three-tiered free service. In addition, we designed a face-to-face workshop series based on participants’ feedback. The pilot program was launched in three phases during the academic year of 2018-2019 under the UMD Libraries’ Research Commons Unit. RESULTS: A total of 18 workshops in two locations were offered, including a webinar to a group of 10 international researchers. The workshops were attended by 124 including undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, and librarians with 62% attendance from the registrants’ pool of 200. New relationships with faculty were established resulting in three co-authored peer-reviewed publications, four joint projects underway, and one co-authored grant proposal. We received eight requests for consultation following or instead of in-person workshops. Another 12 research teams requested research assistance or workshops recordings. CONCLUSIONS: The Systematic Review workshop series at UMD Libraries has been successful during the pilot phase. Benefits for librarians include increased expertise in conducting systematic reviews, familiarity with tools and techniques involved with it, creating new relationships with faculty and students, and co-authoring publications and grants. Designing online materials exposed this service to an international audience.Item Combining ALEPH and GreenGlass Data(2019-05) Ritchie, Stephanie; Ritchie, StephanieOCLC’s GreenGlass tool is designed to help librarians make data-driven decisions and contains a powerful report builder. However, while USMAI libraries have access to GreenGlass through the end of August 2019, the data in GreenGlass is a static snapshot from June 2017. In order to look at items added since June 2017 and at updated circulation statistics, librarians need to supplement the GreenGlass reports with data from ALEPH. Stephanie Ritchie will walk attendees through the process of merging data from GreenGlass and Aleph to create usable, up-to-date reports which can then be used for collection management or statistical purposes.Item Researchers ask, librarians deliver: Meeting the needs of scholars through a suite of systematic review services for every subject discipline(2019-04-26) Tchangalova, Nedelina; Harrington, Eileen; Over, Sarah; Ritchie, StephanieScholarly communities are producing more articles every year due to the implementation of speedy review processes and innovative technologies for research dissemination. To quickly inform best practices and policies, systematic reviews started flourishing beyond the health and medical sciences. Researchers from other subject disciplines including education, engineering, agricultural, library, humanities and social sciences, explore ways to compile, analyze and evaluate in a systematic way the best evidence to inform future practices. To address this growing need, University of Maryland Libraries launched a pilot program in two phases under the Research Commons Unit to introduce researchers to the process of conducting systematic and scoping reviews. The primary focus of this presentation will include the development of workshop series designed based on the registrants’ feedback. Future plans for assessment and evaluation will be shared as well.Item Import [Include/Exclude] Export: Using free systematic review tool Rayyan for database comparison study(2019-03) Ritchie, Stephanie; Banyas, Kelly; Sevin, CarolMany methods to analyze database content and performance have been used and share one common challenge – How to manage the large volume of data needed to accurately assess databases. As part of an ongoing project to compare databases that provide agricultural research literature, our research team collected data to analyze the retrieved content of eight research literature databases. We worked with a new, free application designed to assist teams with systematic reviews. Rayyan QCRI allows teams of researchers to include/exclude citations collected during research literature retrieval based on pre-set criteria. Our team re-purposed Rayyan as a tool for reviewing search result citations for precision and recall analysis.Item Comparison of Agricultural Database Subject Overlap(2018-05-15) Ritchie, StephanieAgricultural researchers and science librarians must understand which research literature databases provide the most comprehensive coverage of agricultural subjects to support research inquiries. Once the domain of a few specialized databases, agricultural research literature is now covered by broad, multidisciplinary databases. The purpose of this study was to determine the most comprehensive database(s) for agricultural literature searching in terms of the scope of agricultural subject content provided by each database. We compared eight databases that cover a sample set of agricultural research literature for a range of agricultural sub-topics to determine how much overlap exists and which database(s) best support discovery of agricultural research literature. We found that the multidisciplinary databases provided the most comprehensive coverage and that one of the agriculture specific databases matched the coverage provided by the multidisciplinary databases. This study will help researchers and librarians determine where to invest their effort and resources when looking to find agricultural research content.Item Comparison of Agricultural Database Subject Scope Overlap(2018-02-15) Ritchie, StephanieTechnology to provide access to research literature in the sciences is evolving at the same rapid pace as most information technology innovations. Once the domain of a few specialized databases, much research literature is now covered by broad, multidisciplinary databases. In this changing landscape, how do researchers and librarians know which existing and new tools best serve information needs? A study to determine the most comprehensive database(s) for agricultural literature searching, in terms of the scope of agricultural subject content provided by each database, was developed to help answer this question for the agricultural and related sciences. We compared eight databases that cover a sample set of agricultural research literature for a range of agricultural sub-topics to determine how much overlap exists and which database(s) best support discovery of agricultural research literature. We found that the multidisciplinary databases provided the most comprehensive coverage, but also that one of the agriculture subject specific databases matched the coverage provided by the multidisciplinary databases. In addition to comparing the subject coverage of each database, we explored data visualizations tools developed for other disciplines to determine if they could be used to display associations between the eight databases. A couple network visualizations tools including Cytoscape, helped produce figures to illustrate the connections between the sample set of literature and each database, as well the databases relative to each other. This study will help researchers and librarians determine where to invest their effort when looking to find agricultural research content.Item Using PICO in Library Instruction for STEM Disciplines(2017-05) Ritchie, StephaniePICO is understood to support evidence based practice/medicine research, part of the medical and health sciences disciplines. However, very little use of the PICO methodology found outside of these disciplines. The idea to use PICO for research question and search strategy formulation in other disciplines has been explored in the recent past, but did not seem to generate wide use outside of traditional medical and health fields. However, the use of PICO to support research at the initial exploration phase for information literacy and basic science instruction may help students with the challenging step of formulating a research question.