EN:

Objective – Researchers at an academic library consortium examined whether the service model, staffing choices, and policies of its chat reference service were associated with user dissatisfaction, aiming to identify areas where the collaboration is successful and areas which could be improved.

Methods – The researchers examined transcripts, metadata, and survey results from 473 chat interactions originating from 13 universities between June and December 2016. Transcripts were coded for user, operator, and question type; mismatches between the chat operator and user’s institutions, and reveals of such a mismatch; how busy the shift was; proximity to the end of a shift or service closure; and reveals of such aspects of scheduling. Chi-square tests and a binary logistic regression were performed to compare variables to user dissatisfaction.

Results – There were no significant relationships between user dissatisfaction and user type, question type, institutional mismatch, busy shifts, chats initiated near the end of a shift or service closure time, or reveals about aspects of scheduling. However, revealing an institutional mismatch was correlated with user dissatisfaction. Operator type was also a significant variable; users expressed less dissatisfaction with graduate student staff hired by the consortium.

Conclusions – The study largely reaffirmed the consortium’s service model, staffing practices, and policies. Users are not dissatisfied with the service received from chat operators at partner institutions, or by service provided by non-librarians. Current policies for scheduling, handling shift changes, and service closure are appropriate, but best practices related to disclosing institutional mismatches may need to be changed. This exercise demonstrates that institutions can trust the consortium with their local users’ needs, and underscores the need for periodic service review.

EN:

Objective – This study analyzes scholarly publications supported by library open access funds, including author demographics, journal trends, and article impact. It also identifies and summarizes open access fund criteria and viability. The goal is to better understand the sustainability of open access funds, as well as identify potential best practices for institutions with open access funds.

Methods – Publication data was solicited from universities with open access (OA) funds, and supplemented with publication and author metrics, including Journal Impact Factor, Altmetric Attention Score, and author h-index. Additionally, data was collected from OA fund websites, including fund criteria and guidelines.

Results – Library OA funds tend to support faculty in science and medical fields. Impact varied widely, especially between disciplines, but a limited measurement indicated an overall smaller relative impact of publications funded by library OA funds. Many open access funds operate using similar criteria related to author and publication eligibility, which seem to be largely successful at avoiding the funding of articles published in predatory journals.

Conclusions – Libraries have successfully funded many publications using criteria that could constitute best practices in this area. However, institutions with OA funds may need to identify opportunities to increase support for high-impact publications, as well as consider the financial stability of these funds. Alternative models for OA support are discussed in the context of an ever-changing open access landscape.

EN:

Objective – Electronic resource management challenges and “big deal” cancellations at one Canadian university library contributed to a situation where a number of electronic journal subscriptions at the university’s health sciences library lacked article level linking. The aim of this study was to compare the usage of journals with article level linking enabled to journals where only journal level linking was available or enabled.

Methods – A list of electronic journal title subscriptions was generated from vendor and subscription agent invoices. Journal titles were eligible for inclusion if the subscription was available throughout 2018 on the publisher’s platform, if the subscription costs were fully funded by the health sciences library, and if management of the subscription required title-by-title intervention by library staff. Of the 356 journal titles considered, 302 were included in the study. Negative binomial regression was performed to determine the effect of journal vs. article level linking on total COUNTER Journal Report 1 (JR1) successful full-text article requests for 2018, controlling for journal publisher, subject area, journal ranking, and alternate aggregator access.

Results – The negative binomial regression model demonstrated that article level linking had a significant, positive effect on total 2018 JR1 (coef: 0.645; p < 0.001). Article level linking increased the expected total JR1 by 90.7% when compared to journals where article level linking was not available or enabled. Differences in predicted usage between journals with article level linking and those without article level linking remained significant at various journal ranking levels. This suggests that usage of both smaller, more specialized journals (e.g., Journal of Vascular Research) and larger, general journals (e.g., New England Journal of Medicine) increases when article level linking is enabled.

Conclusions – This study provides statistical evidence that enabling article level linking has a positive impact on journal usage at one academic health sciences library. Although further study is needed, academic libraries should consider enabling article level linking wherever possible in order to facilitate user access, maximize the value of journal subscriptions, and improve convenience for users.

EN:

Objective – The objective of this study was to assess the current state of digital library publishing (DLP) in university libraries in the Ukraine. The study was conducted in the hopes of gaining a better understanding of the DLP landscape, namely institutional operations, as well as their varying publishing initiatives, processes, and scope.

Methods – The current study was conducted from January to June 2017 using a mixed methods approach, involving semi-structured interviews and an online questionnaire. Semi-structured interviews were conducted (n = 11) to gain insight into participants’ experiences with DLP. The interviews helped in the creation of the questions included in our online questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to 195 representatives (directors and leading specialists) of university libraries in the Ukraine. Replies were received from 111 of those institutions. The questionnaire consisted of 11 open- and closed-ended questions to allow the researchers to obtain a holistic picture of the process under investigation.

Results – Analysis of the 111 questionnaires showed that for 26 libraries, DLP services were performed by employees of a separate structural unit of the library. For 34 libraries, employees of various departments were involved in performing certain types of services. The other 40 respondents’ libraries were planning to do this in the near future. Only 11 respondents replied that they did provide DLP services now nor planned to in the future. Among the libraries providing DLP services, the following results were observed: 54 of 60 work with digital repositories, 47 provide digital publishing platforms for journals, 26 provide digital publishing platforms for books, and 23 provide digital publishing platforms for conferences.

Conclusions – The results obtained indicate a growing trend of expanding digital services in university libraries to support study, teaching, and research. Despite the still spontaneous, chaotic, and poorly explored nature of the development of the library publishing movement in the university libraries of the Ukraine, the readiness of librarians to implement publishing activities is notable. At the same time, the survey results point to specific aspects, such as organizational, economic, personnel, and motivational, that require further study.

EN:

Objective - Seeking information is a key element of evidence based practice and successful healthcare delivery. Significant literature exists on both the information seeking behaviour of professional nurses and information literacy teaching methods, but scarce evidence connects nurses’ information behaviour and environments with their education. This study sought to use data from nursing alumni to answer the following research questions: What are the current information practices of professional bachelor’s-prepared nurses? How do recently-graduated nurses suggest that their education could have better prepared them to find and evaluate information in the workplace?

Methods - The researchers conducted a descriptive study using a 59-item survey instrument with a variety of question formats including short-answer, multiple choice, Likert, and open response. The researchers distributed the survey to baccalaureate nursing alumni who graduated in 2012-2017 from four universities in the state of Utah in the United States.

Results - Nurses seek practical information primarily to provide informed patient care, while also clarifying medical situations and expanding their health care knowledge. They frequently consult nursing colleagues and physicians when seeking information. The majority of nurses consult electronic health records daily. Respondents described time as the biggest barrier to accessing information. They requested authentic, clinically-focused scenarios, training on freely-accessible resources, and more explicit teaching of lifelong learning skills, such as critical thinking.

Conclusion - Information literacy education should prepare student nurses for the fast-paced information environment they will face in the workplace. This means incorporating more patient-focused scenarios, freely available quality resources, and time-based activities in their education. The researchers suggest areas to prepare nurses for information seeking, including problem-based clinical scenarios, building guides with databases accessible for free or little cost, and added emphasis on critical thinking and self-motivated learning.

EN:

Objective - To explore the prevalence of systematic reviews (SRs) and librarians’ involvement in them, and to investigate whether librarian co-authorship of SRs was associated with lower risk of bias.

Methods - SRs by researchers at University of Oslo or Oslo University Hospital were counted and categorized by extent of librarian involvement and assessed for risk of bias using the tool Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS).

Results - Of 2,737 identified reviews, 324 (11.84%) were SRs as defined by the review authors. Of the 324 SRs, 4 (1.23%) had librarian co-authors, in 85 (26.23%) librarians were acknowledged or mentioned in the methods section. In the remaining 235 SRs (72.53%), there was no clear evidence that a librarian had been involved. Librarian co-authored SRs were associated with lower risk of bias compared to SRs with acknowledgement or no participation by librarians.

Conclusion - SRs constitute a small portion of published reviews. Librarians rarely co-author SRs and are only acknowledged or mentioned in a quarter of our sample. The quality and documentation of literature searches in SRs remains a challenge. To minimise the risk of bias in SRs, librarians should advocate for co-authorship.

EN:

Objective – The objective of this review was to examine research instrument characteristics, and to examine the validity and reliability of research instruments developed by practicing librarians, which measure the construct of patron satisfaction with academic library reference services. The authors were also interested in the extent to which instruments could be reused

Methods – Authors searched three major library and information science databases: Library and Information Science Technology Abstracts (LISTA); Library Science Database (LD); and Library Literature & Information Science Index. Other databases searched were Current Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); Education Resources Information Center (ERIC); Google Scholar; PubMed; and Web of Science. The authors identified studies of patron satisfaction with academic library reference services in which the researcher(s) developed an instrument to study the satisfaction construct. In this rapid-review study, the studies were from 2015 and 2016 only. All retrieved studies were examined for evidence of validity and reliability as primary indicators of instrument quality, and data was extracted for country of study, research design, mode of reference service, data collection method, types of questions, number of items related to satisfaction, and content of items representing the satisfaction construct. Instrument reusability was also determined.

Results – At the end of the screening stage of the review, a total of 29 instruments were examined. Nearly all studies were quantitative or mixed quantitative/qualitative in design. Twenty-six (90%) of the studies employed surveys alone to gather data. Twelve publications (41%) included a discussion of any type of validity; five (17%) included discussion of any type of reliability. Three articles (10%) demonstrated more than one type of validity evidence. Nine articles (31%) included the instrument in full in an appendix, and eight instruments (28%) were not appended but were described adequately so as to be reusable. 

Conclusions – This review identified a range of quality in librarians’ research instruments for evaluating satisfaction with reference services. We encourage librarians to perform similar reviews to locate the highest-quality instrument on which to model their own, thereby increasing the rigor of Library and Information Science (LIS) research in general. This study shows that even a two-year rapid review is sufficient to locate a large quantity of research instruments to assist librarians in developing instruments.