Social science researchers continue to choose scoping reviews as a means of synthesizing the literature in their field, though search reporting is inconsistent. Many projects could benefit from the application of tools such as PRISMA-S, use of supplementary search strategies, and support of an LIS professional. Open Access
'Searchsmart.org is a free website that guides researchers to particularly suitable search options for their particular disciplines, offering a wide array of resources, including search engines, aggregators, journal platforms, repositories, clinical trials databases, bibliographic databases, and digital libraries. Search Smart currently evaluates the coverage and functionality of more than a hundred leading scholarly databases, including most major multidisciplinary databases and many that are discipline-specific'
The application-based evaluation model integrates BDA in health sciences libraries for improving library services and performance. The study proposed a need for skilled professionals with the knowledge and experience both professionally and technically.
he review revealed that the policies could be grouped into several key categories: educational programs, laws and regulations, knowledge sharing, national programs, and different information sources. The development of these policies involved multifaceted processes influenced by political, scientific, economic, cultural and social factors, as well as the involvement of multiple stakeholders.
Case presentation: This case compares two biomedical databases, Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed, to see if either is reliable enough to confidently recommend to students for use when writing papers. A total of 60 citations were assessed, 30 citations from each citation generator, based on the top 30 articles in PubMed from 2010 to 2020.
Conclusions: Error rates were higher in Ovid MEDLINE than PubMed but neither database platform provided error-free references. The auto-cite tools were not reliable. Zero of the 60 citations examined were 100% correct. Librarians should continue to advise students not to rely solely upon citation generators in these biomedical databases.
Description of a game where nursing students work in groups to come up with a question that they can challenge the librarian to answer (and explain how to search at the same time).
"We are refreshing our reminiscence collection, looking to create resources from more recent decades, e.g. focusing more on 1970s-90s." This was a suggestion from the OT students we hosted.
'While this is a promising area of development, AI-based evidence synthesis tools should not be
considered a ‘panacea’ or ‘cure all’ for the pressures imposed by an ever-expanding evidence base.
Given potential trade-offs, and a lack of information on unintended consequences, it is important that tools aren’t applied uncritically to resolve workload pressures'
“Our conversations with CILIP and attending the CILIP conference, is about helping make as many librarians as possible aware of the YouTube health initiative, and the credible health information available on the platform. And also that YouTube is a place you should feel comfortable directing your library visitors to for health information.” News release from CILIP - worth being aware of for patient information?
Key findings highlight Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Semantic Scholar, and Lens as leading options for FWC searching, with Lens providing superior download capabilities. For BWC searching, the Web of Science Core Collection can be recommended over Scopus for accuracy. BWC information from publisher databases such as IEEE Xplore or ScienceDirect was generally found to be the most accurate, yet only available for a limited number of articles
Editorial. Digital platforms and artificial intelligence's (AI) influence on our daily lives often go unnoticed. From the algorithms that support our smartphones and driverless vehicles to the medical diagnostic systems used by health professionals, AI is increasingly taking over decision-making tasks traditionally performed by humans. While enhancing human efficiency, this shift also introduces a myriad of ethical and legal uncertainties that demand our attention.
Free Access Article
his study aimed to examine health information seeking attitudes and behaviors in an academic-based employee wellness program before and after health literacy workshops were developed and facilitated by an academic health sciences librarian.
To read the full article, choose Open Athens “Institutional Login” and search for “Midlands Partnership”.
Given the vast quantity of literature available, a key challenge of conducting rapid evidence syntheses is the time and effort required to manually screen large search results sets to identify and include all studies relevant to the research question within an accelerated timeline. To overcome this challenge, the NCCMT investigated the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies into the title and abstract screening stage of the rapid review process to expedite the identification of studies relevant to the research question.
To read the full article, choose Open Athens “Institutional Login” and search for “Midlands Partnership”.
This study aimed to establish quality criteria to assist patients, caregivers, and the public in evaluating the reliability of online health information.
While ChatGPT has gained popularity in various domains, it may not be the ideal focus for medical professionals due to its reliance on language pattern prediction rather than direct fact retrieval, potentially leading to inaccurate outputs. We emphasize the limitations of ChatGPT's training data, which mainly come from non-specialized sources and may result in misleading answers in highly specialized medical domains. We advocate for a shift towards specialized medical large language models (LLMs) that are trained using authoritative medical databases, supplemented by human validation, to ensure accuracy and completeness of data.
How to optimize the systematic review process using AI tools
Nicholas Fabiano, Arnav Gupta, Nishaant Bhambra, Brandon Luu, Stanley Wong, Muhammad Maaz, Jess G. Fiedorowicz … See all authors
First published: 23 April 2024
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcv2.12234
Nicholas Fabiano, Arnav Gupta and Nishaant Bhambra contributed equally to this paper.
We introduce Get Free Copy (https://getfreecopy.com), a web-based platform designed to streamline the search for biomedical literature across major repositories like arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, and PubMed Central (PMC). Addressing challenges posed by paywalls and fragmented databases, it offers a unified interface for efficient retrieval of free, legitimate copies of biomedical literature. The platform's implementation involves a Node.js backend and dynamic front-end display, enhancing accessibility and research efficiency. As an open-source project, Get Free Copy represents a significant contribution to the open-access movement, inviting global researcher collaboration for further development.
With the enormous growth in interest and use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems seen since the launch of ChatGPT in autumn 2022 have come questions both about the legal status of AI outputs, and of using protected works as training inputs. It is inevitable that UK higher education institution (HEI) library copyright advice services will see an increase in questions around use of works with AI as a result. Staff working in such library services are not lawyers or able to offer legal advice to their academic researchers. Nonetheless, they must look at the issues raised, consider how to advise in analogous situations of using copyright material, and offer opinion to researchers accordingly. While the legal questions remain to be answered definitively, copyright librarians can still offer advice on both open licences and use of copyright material under permitted exceptions. We look here at how library services can address questions on copyright and open licences for generative AI for researchers in UK HEIs.