Evidence Synthesis Methods Interest Group

Hello! I am working with a team who are being pretty staunch about keeping the searches for their "systematic review" quite specific. (I believe they are completely unaware of the difference between specific & senistive searches, or that SRs call for sensitive searches, or why).

Because I am kind of tired of working with them, I am inclined to run the searches they way they ask, but to explain to them that a better name for their project might be one of the alternatives offered by Grant & Booth (2009). Also, inform them that savvy editors or reviewers would be critical of this specific search strategy for a SR (although of course many SRs have been published that were based on so-so search strategies, and not all editors/reviewers are well versed on the SR methodology).

What have you done in a similar situation? I've successfully gotten other teams to see that a different review type actually more accurately describes their project. But I'm dealing in part with a hotshot from a big-name institution who says things like, "Well, Jane, of course you're the expert, but...." and proceeds to tell me I'm wrong in my search approach

Tell your stories! And thanks for being here.

Jane

------------------------------
Jane Yatcilla
Health & Life Sciences Information Specialist
Purdue University Libraries
------------------------------

Hi! This was pretty common for me at certain points in my career. Did you send along the Cochrane Handbook or any supporting literature that encourages sensitivity over specificity? You have a couple of options, IMHO: do it as they want (we have so little control over the final product most of the time), ask to be removed from the project unless they aim for greater specificity, or continue to try to persuade with literature and guidance documents supporting your point of view. Good luck!

------------------------------
Carrie Price
Health Professions Librarian
Towson University
She/Her/Hers
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Nov 03, 2021 08:47 AM
From: Jane Yatcilla
Subject: Specific vs. sensitive searching

Hello! I am working with a team who are being pretty staunch about keeping the searches for their "systematic review" quite specific. (I believe they are completely unaware of the difference between specific & senistive searches, or that SRs call for sensitive searches, or why).

Because I am kind of tired of working with them, I am inclined to run the searches they way they ask, but to explain to them that a better name for their project might be one of the alternatives offered by Grant & Booth (2009). Also, inform them that savvy editors or reviewers would be critical of this specific search strategy for a SR (although of course many SRs have been published that were based on so-so search strategies, and not all editors/reviewers are well versed on the SR methodology).

What have you done in a similar situation? I've successfully gotten other teams to see that a different review type actually more accurately describes their project. But I'm dealing in part with a hotshot from a big-name institution who says things like, "Well, Jane, of course you're the expert, but...." and proceeds to tell me I'm wrong in my search approach

Tell your stories! And thanks for being here.

Jane

------------------------------
Jane Yatcilla
Health & Life Sciences Information Specialist
Purdue University Libraries
------------------------------

I meant *sensitivity!

------------------------------
Carrie Price
Health Professions Librarian
Towson University
She/Her/Hers
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Nov 03, 2021 01:42 PM
From: Carrie Price
Subject: Specific vs. sensitive searching

Hi! This was pretty common for me at certain points in my career. Did you send along the Cochrane Handbook or any supporting literature that encourages sensitivity over specificity? You have a couple of options, IMHO: do it as they want (we have so little control over the final product most of the time), ask to be removed from the project unless they aim for greater specificity, or continue to try to persuade with literature and guidance documents supporting your point of view. Good luck!

------------------------------
Carrie Price
Health Professions Librarian
Towson University
She/Her/Hers

Original Message:
Sent: Nov 03, 2021 08:47 AM
From: Jane Yatcilla
Subject: Specific vs. sensitive searching

Hello! I am working with a team who are being pretty staunch about keeping the searches for their "systematic review" quite specific. (I believe they are completely unaware of the difference between specific & senistive searches, or that SRs call for sensitive searches, or why).

Because I am kind of tired of working with them, I am inclined to run the searches they way they ask, but to explain to them that a better name for their project might be one of the alternatives offered by Grant & Booth (2009). Also, inform them that savvy editors or reviewers would be critical of this specific search strategy for a SR (although of course many SRs have been published that were based on so-so search strategies, and not all editors/reviewers are well versed on the SR methodology).

What have you done in a similar situation? I've successfully gotten other teams to see that a different review type actually more accurately describes their project. But I'm dealing in part with a hotshot from a big-name institution who says things like, "Well, Jane, of course you're the expert, but...." and proceeds to tell me I'm wrong in my search approach

Tell your stories! And thanks for being here.

Jane

------------------------------
Jane Yatcilla
Health & Life Sciences Information Specialist
Purdue University Libraries
------------------------------

Haha, Carrie, I knew you meant "sensitivity."

I'm glad I pushed on the team, because they actually came back with their rationale for not using certain terms, further clarifying their research question & revealing a deeper understanding of the process than I had previously seen. And now I have the email trail of our discussion to refer back to.

Jane


------------------------------
Jane Yatcilla
Health & Life Sciences Information Specialist
Purdue University Libraries
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Nov 03, 2021 02:23 PM
From: Carrie Price
Subject: Specific vs. sensitive searching

I meant *sensitivity!

------------------------------
Carrie Price
Health Professions Librarian
Towson University
She/Her/Hers

Original Message:
Sent: Nov 03, 2021 01:42 PM
From: Carrie Price
Subject: Specific vs. sensitive searching

Hi! This was pretty common for me at certain points in my career. Did you send along the Cochrane Handbook or any supporting literature that encourages sensitivity over specificity? You have a couple of options, IMHO: do it as they want (we have so little control over the final product most of the time), ask to be removed from the project unless they aim for greater specificity, or continue to try to persuade with literature and guidance documents supporting your point of view. Good luck!

------------------------------
Carrie Price
Health Professions Librarian
Towson University
She/Her/Hers

Original Message:
Sent: Nov 03, 2021 08:47 AM
From: Jane Yatcilla
Subject: Specific vs. sensitive searching

Hello! I am working with a team who are being pretty staunch about keeping the searches for their "systematic review" quite specific. (I believe they are completely unaware of the difference between specific & senistive searches, or that SRs call for sensitive searches, or why).

Because I am kind of tired of working with them, I am inclined to run the searches they way they ask, but to explain to them that a better name for their project might be one of the alternatives offered by Grant & Booth (2009). Also, inform them that savvy editors or reviewers would be critical of this specific search strategy for a SR (although of course many SRs have been published that were based on so-so search strategies, and not all editors/reviewers are well versed on the SR methodology).

What have you done in a similar situation? I've successfully gotten other teams to see that a different review type actually more accurately describes their project. But I'm dealing in part with a hotshot from a big-name institution who says things like, "Well, Jane, of course you're the expert, but...." and proceeds to tell me I'm wrong in my search approach

Tell your stories! And thanks for being here.

Jane

------------------------------
Jane Yatcilla
Health & Life Sciences Information Specialist
Purdue University Libraries
------------------------------