Evidence Synthesis Methods Interest Group

 View Only
last person joined: 2 days ago 

Charge: To promote and develop competencies around evidence synthesis including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, scoping reviews, and other related methods of research synthesis, through activities such as: Facilitating discussion and peer-support; Creating and managing a resource page; Encouraging programming and publications around systematic reviews through ACRL.
Community members can post as a new Discussion or email ALA-acrlesmig@ConnectedCommunity.org
Before you post: please note job postings are prohibited on ALA Connect. Please see the Code of Conduct for more information.

Call for (more) Evidence Synthesis Mentors

  • 1.  Call for (more) Evidence Synthesis Mentors

    Posted Mar 18, 2024 04:21 PM

    Dear colleagues,

    Are you a librarian who considers yourself an Evidence Synthesis (ES) expert? Do you want to share your knowledge and expertise to help librarians new to ES develop their practice?

    The ACRL Evidence Synthesis Methods Interest Group (ESM-IG) facilitates the Peer Mentorship program specifically focused on ES support. Our program pairs experienced librarians/expert searchers with librarians who are new to ES. 

    At this time, we are looking to build our pool/database of mentors who can be called upon when a mentee applies into the program. Further details of the program and link to a sign-up form are provided below. 

    Program description: This point-of-need peer mentorship program is intended for librarians or information specialists involved in their first or second Evidence Synthesis project and who require guidance from an experienced peer. The goal is for the mentee to have support from someone who is familiar with the messiness and nuances around implementation of ES methodology in practice. The mentor would be able to provide guidance and talk through any areas of concern or steps which seem challenging for the mentee to work through alone.

    Mentor eligibility criteria: The mentor must be experienced with ES methods, as evidenced by co-authorship in at least 2 published evidence synthesis reviews or review protocols in any discipline.

    Timeframe: The total amount of support to which a mentor is expected to commit over the course of the entire mentorship period is a maximum of 10 hours, typically over the course of 3 months, but this time frame will be negotiated with the mentee to fit the needs of the project. 

    Scope: The scope of the mentorship is limited to: regular or as-needed consultations (via Zoom or other means), email exchanges, PRESS (Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies) of the primary database search. If this is done, it is expected that the mentor librarian will be acknowledged in the mentee's subsequent published work.

    Matching process: Matches are made based on discipline and stages of the review requested by the mentee, and mentor availability. The name of the mentee and mentor will be shared with the involved individuals prior to confirming a match, to avoid conflicts of interest. 

    Response time: If you have been identified as a suitable match, you will receive an email containing information about the mentee and their project, and be given an opportunity to agree or decline the mentorship match depending on your availability and interest. You will have 2-3 days to respond to the request, to ensure a timely match.

    Signing up to be a mentor: To sign up to join our pool of potential mentors, please fill out the following form: https://forms.gle/Nv2LKzrjXLgdZQY58 This does not commit you to serve as a mentor, only to join our pool of potential mentors for future mentee requests.

    Please consider signing up to be a mentor. 

    Sincerely,

    Aimee Sgourakis Jenkins and Amy Riegelman  (ACRL ESM-IG co-chairs)



    --

    Amy Riegelman (she, her, hers)
    Social Sciences & Evidence Synthesis Librarian, University of Minnesota
    Information Specialist for Campbell Disability Coordinating Group

    New National Center for Educational Outcomes (NCEO) Report!  �� Universal Design and K-12 Academic Assessments: A Scoping Review of the Literature