Health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: a scoping review

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 Rev...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Dean Giustini, Kevin B. Read, Ariel Deardorff, Lisa Federer, Melissa L. Rethlefsen
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	University Library System, University of Pittsburgh 2021
Materias:	health sciences libraries health sciences librarians open science Bibliography. Library science. Information resources Z Medicine R
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/5394d61fa1eb441eb2a9d3a7da786d6a
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:5394d61fa1eb441eb2a9d3a7da786d6a
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:5394d61fa1eb441eb2a9d3a7da786d6a2021-11-22T20:41:00ZHealth sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: a scoping review1536-50501558-943910.5195/jmla.2021.1256https://doaj.org/article/5394d61fa1eb441eb2a9d3a7da786d6a2021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/1256https://doaj.org/toc/1536-5050https://doaj.org/toc/1558-9439Objectives: 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.Dean GiustiniKevin B. ReadAriel DeardorffLisa FedererMelissa L. RethlefsenUniversity Library System, University of Pittsburgharticlehealth sciences librarieshealth sciences librariansopen scienceBibliography. Library science. Information resourcesZMedicineRENJournal of the Medical Library Association, Vol 109, Iss 4 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	health sciences libraries health sciences librarians open science Bibliography. Library science. Information resources Z Medicine R
spellingShingle	health sciences libraries health sciences librarians open science Bibliography. Library science. Information resources Z Medicine R Dean Giustini Kevin B. Read Ariel Deardorff Lisa Federer Melissa L. Rethlefsen Health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: a scoping review
description	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.
format	article
author	Dean Giustini Kevin B. Read Ariel Deardorff Lisa Federer Melissa L. Rethlefsen
author_facet	Dean Giustini Kevin B. Read Ariel Deardorff Lisa Federer Melissa L. Rethlefsen
author_sort	Dean Giustini
title	Health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: a scoping review
title_short	Health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: a scoping review
title_full	Health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: a scoping review
title_fullStr	Health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed	Health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: a scoping review
title_sort	health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: a scoping review
publisher	University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/5394d61fa1eb441eb2a9d3a7da786d6a
work_keys_str_mv	AT deangiustini healthscienceslibrariansengagementinopenscienceascopingreview AT kevinbread healthscienceslibrariansengagementinopenscienceascopingreview AT arieldeardorff healthscienceslibrariansengagementinopenscienceascopingreview AT lisafederer healthscienceslibrariansengagementinopenscienceascopingreview AT melissalrethlefsen healthscienceslibrariansengagementinopenscienceascopingreview
_version_	1718417374610194432

Health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: a scoping review

Ejemplares similares