Filtering by
- All Subjects: Academic libraries -- Collection development
- Creators: farrelly, deg
- Creators: Hutchison Surdi, Jane
- Creators: Pardon, Kevin
- Creators: Arougheti, Stephen
Survey instrument used in Survey of Academic Library Streaming Video Revisited, 2015
Background & Objective:
Over the past several decades, systematic reviews have become a major part of the biomedical research literature landscape. While systematic reviews were originally developed for medicine and its related fields, they are now published in other disciplines. Our initial goal was to broadly investigate and describe the non-health sciences subject areas and disciplines that are publishing systematic reviews. Specifically, our research questions were,“What disciplines outside of the health sciences are adopting systematic reviews as a research method?” and “What implications may this have for health sciences librarianship?” Based on our initial findings, we will propose avenues for future research.
Methods & Discussion:
We conducted a search in the Scopus database to serve as a representative sample of the research literature. We searched for the phrase “systematic review*” in the article title or abstract, and limited the results to review articles from journals. We filtered out articles published in health sciences disciplines using the Scopus subject categories, and examined the articles that remained. The resulting set of titles was screened by two independent reviewers in a stepwise fashion. First we read the titles, then the abstracts, then the full text of remaining articles to determine if each was a systematic review and addressed a topic outside of the health sciences. We reconciled any differences for citations on which there was not initial consensus between reviewers. Lastly, we examined each remaining article to categorize its subject area or discipline. Our initial search included a number of systematic reviews outside the health science disciplines, and will yield data that has implications for librarians in the health sciences and in disciplines outside the health sciences field.
PDA involves the inclusion of bibliographic records to the catalog for titles the library does not own and permits the patron an opportunity to initiate a purchase. Beyond the practical implications of managing costs and liberating staff time, the PDA model provides patrons easier and quicker access to the widest range of information possible. The service model of populating a collection to protect against the possibility of patrons requiring access is increasingly unsustainable. Although not without its challenges, allowing the patron to provide a collaborative role with librarians in developing a collection serves to manage costs and streamlines the process of creating a collection which best addresses the needs of a constituency.
The essay seeks to effectively identify and compare strategies used by libraries throughout the United States. Beyond analyzing the structure of author funds, the essay explores the value of such programs in promoting OA values of not only free to read, but free to publish. Asking the question, are libraries best suited to expend resources by paying publishing fees and does it achieve its purpose of promoting OA journals? Overall, the essay outlines the role of OA in expanding the potential for libraries to develop its role in scholarly publishing; particularly by promoting researchers’ publications in OA journals using author funds.
Originally developed for medicine and related fields in support of evidence-based practice, systematic reviews (SRs) are now published in other fields. We investigated non-health sciences disciplines that are publishing systematic reviews.
Research questions:
“What disciplines outside the health sciences are adopting systematic reviews?”
“How do systematic reviews outside the health sciences compare with health sciences systematic reviews?”
Methods:
We conducted a search in the Scopus database for articles with the phrase “systematic review*” in the title or abstract. We limited our results to review articles, and eliminated health science focused articles using the Scopus Subject area categories. Articles were examined by reviewers to determine if they a) were classified as SRs by the authors b) exhibited accepted characteristics of systematic reviews, such as a comprehensive search, adherence to a predetermined protocol, and assessment of bias and quality, and c) addressed a non-health sciences topic. We eliminated articles based on 1) title, 2) abstract, and finally 3) the full text of each article. We reconciled differences for articles on which there was not initial consensus, and grouped remaining articles according to Scopus subject areas.
Discussion:
We found a significant number of systematic reviews outside the health science disciplines, particularly in the physical and social sciences. We compared similarities as well as differences to the protocols and processes used in health sciences systematic reviews. These findings have implications for librarians both inside and outside the health sciences arena who participate in systematic review projects.
In spring 2013, the presenters developed a survey on academic library streaming video and distributed it broadly through various discussion and mailing lists.
This is the first large-scale and most comprehensive effort to date to collect data on streaming video funding, licensing, acquisition, and hosting in academic libraries. Its results will provide benchmark data for future explorations of this rapidly expanding approach to video in academic libraries.
Streaming video is becoming a common occurrence on many campuses today. Its fast growth is due in part to the steady growth of online classes and programs. Technology has also played a role in this growth as alternatives for ingesting and accessing content have expanded. Multiple options are now available including in-house approaches, cloud storage, and third party vendors.
This survey collected data on how academic institutions address the day-to-day operations related to streaming video as well as perceived directions for future action.
Survey questions addressed selection and acquisition of video in both hard copy and streaming formats, funding for acquisitions, current and planned hosting interfaces, cataloging and access, and current practice and policy on digitization of hard copy titles for streaming. This session reviews the instrument used, and provides a preliminary look at some of the key data collected.