Evidence Synthesis Methods Interest Group

  • Private Community
 View Only
last person joined: 4 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.
Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Sept. 30 meeting - Librarian and Information Specialist Perceptions of Peer Reviewing Systematic Reviews

  • 1.  Sept. 30 meeting - Librarian and Information Specialist Perceptions of Peer Reviewing Systematic Reviews

    Posted Sep 05, 2025 11:05 AM
    ACRL ESMIG, 
    On Tuesday, 9/30 at noon CT Carrie Price (ToxStrategies, A Blue Ridge Life Sciences Company) and Melissa Rethlefsen (University of New Mexico) will be joining us to give a presentation that they gave at Peer Review Congress (details below). Q&A will follow the presentation. Attend via this Zoom link: 
    https://umn.zoom.us/j/97734866156?pwd=HiQvkl2i7y1bZCHEeYIT4k3UGY3kbJ.1

    Librarian and Information Specialist Perceptions of Peer Reviewing Systematic Reviews
    Objective: To explore the perspectives of librarians and information specialists (LISs) who participated in a randomized controlled trial of the effect of LIS involvement on reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs).
    Design: We surveyed LISs who completed a peer review of an SR in a trial conducted in BMJ, BMJ Open, and BMJ Medicine from January 3, 2023, to January 2, 2024. LISs were not told they were peer reviewing manuscripts as part of a trial but were sent invitations to review as part of the usual process. The questionnaire sought to understand their experience, what aspects of manuscripts they focused on, perceived impact on editorial decision-making and authors' revisions, and willingness to peer review again. To better understand factors that might impact decisions to review again, we contacted 27 respondents to participate in a focus group concentrating on facilitators and barriers to peer reviewing SRs.
    Results: Of the 88 LISs invited to participate in the survey, 70 (79.5%) responded. Most respondents had 6 or more years of experience as an LIS (67/70; 95.7%) and advising researchers on doing SRs (55/70; 78.6%) and had peer reviewed for a journal prior to the study (57/70; 81.4%). Most focused on the search and SR methods when reviewing but also commented on aspects such as research question formulation, plagiarism, and study results and conclusions. Two-thirds (44/66; 66.7%) believed they impacted editors' decision-making and 59.1% (39/66) believed they impacted the authors' revisions. Only 3 factors were considered extremely or very likely to impact their decision to review again: their schedule and/or lack of time, review turnaround time, and their sense of professional duty (Table 24-0830). Seventeen of 27 invited LISs (63.0%) participated in a focus group. Time was the primary barrier identified in the focus groups, followed by a sense of intimidation. LISs reported being motivated by feeling valued by editors, the enjoyment of peer reviewing, the desire to improve SR quality, and peer review as a learning experience. Several expressed surprise and delight at being asked to peer review for the journals.
    Conclusions: A select sample of highly engaged LIS respondents believed they made a difference through their peer reviews and said they were very likely to agree to peer review in the future. LISs may be an underused peer reviewing resource with methodological experience that can help editors make decisions and improve the quality of SRs.

    See you there!
    Amy R., ESMIG Past Convenor

    --

    Amy Riegelman (she, her, hers)
    Social Sciences & Evidence Synthesis Librarian, University of Minnesota