Journal Cover
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
Journal Prestige (SJR): 0.257
Number of Followers: 483  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 1715-720X - ISSN (Online) 1715-720X
Published by U of Alberta Homepage  [11 journals]
  • Editorial responsibilities

    • Authors: . .
      Pages: 1 - 1
      PubDate: 2018-12-12
      DOI: 10.18438/eblip29538
      Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 4 (2018)
  • Making Meaningful Connections and Relationships in Cataloguing Practices:
           The Decolonizing Description Project at University of Alberta Libraries

    • Authors: Sheila Laroque
      First page: 2
      Abstract: Overview This paper seeks to examine some of the history behind the work that led to the Decolonizing Description Working Group (DDWG) and the efforts that have come from the further Decolonizing Description Project at the University of Alberta Libraries (UAL). Within universities and a variety of memory institutions, there has been a shift since the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) report (2015). This paper seeks to give those who are interested in this type of work some insight into the processes that have been underway at the UAL, and into ways that this could be replicated within their own institutions.
      PubDate: 2018-12-13
      DOI: 10.18438/eblip29440
      Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 4 (2018)
  • Impacts and Reflections on the Making Meaning Symposium for Small,
           Independent Libraries

    • Authors: Eric Leonhardt
      First page: 7
      Abstract: This paper discusses how a small volunteer library changed after attending a symposium on Indigenous Librarianship and metadata. It provides an introduction to the Aboriginal Teacher Education Program Library, how it was formed, and the decision making process behind it. The paper goes on to summarize key points from speakers at the Making Meaning Symposium, and how they challenge the choices made by volunteers. The results have all been positive, and continue to shape discussions about how to best implement what was learned. When we think we know, we think we own something, and we take away from what it represents. -Ambrose Cardinal, personal communication
      PubDate: 2018-12-12
      DOI: 10.18438/eblip29441
      Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 4 (2018)
  • Research Support Priorities of and Relationships among Librarians and
           Research Administrators: A Content Analysis of the Professional Literature

    • Authors: Cara Bradley
      First page: 15
      Abstract: Objective - This research studied the recent literature of two professions, library and information studies (LIS) and research administration (RA), to map the priorities and concerns of each with regard to research support. Specifically, the research sought to answer these research questions: (1) What are the similarities and differences emerging from the LIS and RA literatures on research support' (2) How do librarians and research administrators understand and engage with each other’s activities through their professional literatures' (3) Do Whitchurch’s (2008a, 2008b, 2015) concepts of bounded-cross-boundary-unbounded professionals and theory of the “third space” provide a useful framework for understanding research support' Methods - The research method was a content analysis of journal articles on research-related topics published in select journals in the LIS (n = 195) and RA (n = 95) fields from 2012-2017. The titles and abstracts of articles to be included were reviewed to guide the creation of thematic coding categories. The coded articles were then analyzed to characterize and compare the topics and concerns addressed by the literature of each profession. Results - Only two (2.2%) RA articles referred to librarians and libraries in their exploration of research support topics, while six (3.1%) LIS articles referred to the research office or research administrators in a meaningful way. Of these six, two focused on undergraduate research programs, two on research data management, and two on scholarly communications. Thematic coding revealed five broad topics that appeared repeatedly in both bodies of literature: research funding, research impact, research methodologies, research infrastructure, and use of research. However, within these broad categories, the focus varied widely between the professions. There were also several topics that received considerable attention in the literature of one field without a major presence in that of the other, including research collaboration in the RA literature, and institutional repositories, research data management, citation analysis or bibliometrics, scholarly communication, and open access in the LIS literature. Conclusion - This content analysis of the LIS and RA literature provided insight into the priorities and concerns of each profession with respect to research support. It found that, even in instances where the professions engaged on the same broad topics, they largely focused on different aspects of issues. The literature of each profession demonstrated little awareness of the activities and concerns of the other. In Whitchurch’s (2008a) taxonomy, librarians and research administrators are largely working as “bounded” professionals, with occasional forays into “cross-boundary” activities (p. 377). There is not yet evidence of “unbounded” professionalism or a move to a “third space” of research support activity involving these professions (Whitchurch, 2015, p. 85). Librarians and research administrators will benefit from a better understanding of the current research support landscape and new modes of working, like the third space, that could prove transformative.
      PubDate: 2018-11-01
      DOI: 10.18438/eblip29478
      Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 4 (2018)
  • The Library Assessment Capability Maturity Model: A Means of Optimizing
           How Libraries Measure Effectiveness

    • Authors: Simon Hart, Howard Amos
      First page: 31
      Abstract: Objective – This paper presents a Library Assessment Capability Maturity Model (LACMM) that can assist library managers to improve assessment. The process of developing the LACMM is detailed to provide an evidence trail to foster confidence in its utility and value. Methods – The LACMM was developed during a series of library benchmarking activities across an international network of universities. The utility and value of the LACMM was tested by the benchmarking libraries and other practitioners; feedback from this testing was applied to improve it. Guidance was taken from a procedures model for developing maturity models that draws on design science research methodology where an iterative and reflective approach is taken.  Results – The activities decision making junctures and the LACMM as an artifact make up the results of this research. The LACMM has five levels. Each level represents a measure of the effectiveness of any assessment process or program, from ad-hoc processes to mature and continuously improving processes. At each level there are criteria and characteristics that need to be fulfilled in order to reach a particular maturity level. Corresponding to each level of maturity, four stages of the assessment cycle were identified as further elements of the LACMM template. These included (1) Objectives, (2) Methods and data collection, (3) Analysis and interpretation, and (4) Use of results. Several attempts were needed to determine the criteria for each maturity level corresponding to the stages of the assessment cycle. Three versions of the LACMM were developed to introduce managers to using it. Each version corresponded to a different kind of assessment activity: data, discussion, and comparison. A generic version was developed for those who have become more familiar with using it. Through a process of review, capability maturity levels can be identified for each stage in the assessment cycle; so too can plans to improve processes toward continuous improvement. Conclusion – The LACMM will add to the plethora of resources already available. However, it is hoped that the simplicity of the tool as a means of assessing assessment and identifying an improvement path will be its strength. It can act as a quick aide-mémoire or form the basis of a comprehensive self-review or an inter-institutional benchmarking project. It is expected that the tool will be adapted and improved upon as library managers apply it.
      PubDate: 2018-12-12
      DOI: 10.18438/eblip29471
      Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 4 (2018)
  • Visualization of the Scholarly Output on Evidence Based Librarianship: A
           Social Network Analysis

    • Authors: Nafiseh Vahed, Vahideh Zarea Gavgani, Rashid Jafarzadeh, Ziba Tusi, Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh
      First page: 50
      Abstract: Objective – This paper aimed to analyze worldwide research on evidence based librarianship (EBL) using Social Network Analysis (SNA). Methods – This descriptive study has been conducted using scientometrics and a SNA approach. The researchers identified 523 publications on EBL, as indexed by Scopus and Web of Science with no date limitation. A range of software tools (Ravar PreMap, Netdraw, UCINet and VOSviewer) were utilized for data visualization and analysis. Results – Results of the study revealed that the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) occupied the topmost positions regarding centrality measures, clearly indicating their important structural roles in EBL research. The network of EBL research in terms of the degree of connectedness showed low density in the co-authorship networks of both authors (0.013) and countries (0.214). Seven subject clusters were identified in the EBL research network, four of which related to health and medicine. The occurrence of the keywords related to these four subject clusters suggested that EBL research had a greater association with the setting of health and medicine than with traditional librarianship elements such as human resources or library collection management. Conclusion – This study provided a systematic understanding of topics, research, and researchers in EBL by visualizing the networks and may thus inform the development of future aspects of EBL research and education.
      PubDate: 2018-12-12
      DOI: 10.18438/eblip29396
      Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 4 (2018)
  • Academic E-book Usability from the Student’s Perspective

    • Authors: Esta Tovstiadi, Natalia Tingle, Gabrielle Wiersma
      First page: 70
      Abstract: Objective – This article describes how librarians systematically compared different e-book platforms to identify which features and design impact usability and user satisfaction. Methods – This study employed task-based usability testing, including the “think-aloud protocol.” Students at the University of Colorado Boulder completed a series of typical tasks to compare the usability and measure user satisfaction with academic e-books. For each title, five students completed the tasks on three e-book platforms: the publisher platform and two aggregators. Thirty-five students evaluated seven titles on nine academic e-book platforms. Results – This study identified each platform’s strengths and weaknesses based on students’ experiences and preferences. The usability tests indicated that students preferred Ebook Central over EBSCO and strongly preferred the aggregators over publisher platforms. Conclusions – Librarians can use student expectations and preferences to guide e-book purchasing decisions. Preferences may vary by institution, but variations in e-book layout and functionality impact students’ ability to successfully complete tasks and influences their affinity for or satisfaction with any given platform. Usability testing is a useful tool for gauging user expectations and identifying preferences for features, functionality, and layout.
      PubDate: 2018-12-12
      DOI: 10.18438/eblip29457
      Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 4 (2018)
  • Increasing Objectivity in eResource Selection Using a Priority Matrix

    • Authors: Megan L Anderson, Linda L Crosby
      First page: 88
      PubDate: 2018-12-13
      DOI: 10.18438/eblip29499
      Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 4 (2018)
  • The 360-Degree Temporal Benefits Model Reimagines Value-Based Assessment
           of User-Centred Design Services

    • Authors: Melissa Goertzen
      First page: 96
      Abstract: A Review of: Kautonen, H., & Nieminen, M. (2018). Conceptualising benefits of user-centred design for digital library services. LIBER Quarterly, 28(1), 1-34. Objectives – The study has two central objectives: to examine the conceptual elements of evaluating and managing user-centred design (UCD) performance in library settings; and to propose a new framework, the 360-Degree Temporal Benefits Model (360°TB Model), that assesses value-based evaluation of UCD performance in libraries. Design – Data collection and analysis were conducted through literature reviews, case studies, semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, and reviews of digital library service documents. Setting – Two digital library service environments in Finland that use UCD approaches: one located at the National Digital Library and the other at a medium-sized special library. Subjects – There were 17 participants representing internal and external stakeholder groups such as digital service designers, end-users, and consumer organizations. Method – Through a literature review, the authors studied several topics related to UCD services including digital services, design management, public value frameworks, and services. They examined literature from two theoretical perspectives: 1) performance management, which explains why and how performance evaluation is necessary for public services, and 2) temporality, the concept of time in relation to service provision. This lens allowed the authors to identify existing knowledge gaps in professional literature and define key concepts. The literature review informed the framework for the 360°TB Model. Two digital library settings tested the model and served as case studies in the paper. Data collection activities in this phase included reviews of existing project documentation and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, at which time participants were also asked to complete an online questionnaire. The authors recorded and transcribed the interviews and combined these results with comments derived from questionnaires. Finally, participants received the data collected from their interview sessions and were asked to review and validate their answers. Main Results – The most significant result is the development of the 360°TB Model. The framework combines three components to evaluate UCD design: the identification of stakeholders; the benefits of UCD services; and the temporal phases (e.g., process-time, use time, and future service provisions) of UCD design efforts and outcomes. The authors summarize the relationship between the components of the framework as follows: “a Stakeholder anticipates Benefits of the design in different Phases” (p. 8). Regarding the case studies, the authors captured a range of diverse opinions through semi-structured interviews and questionnaires. Participants in Case 1 selected a range of benefits and there was little consistency in responses. However, two-thirds of participants in Case 2 selected quality of services as the most desirable benefit of UCD, while the remaining one-third selected options such as process time and societal problem solving. The participants stated that the 360°TB Model provided authority in matters of design goals. It was challenging to capture temporality in design performance because it is not easy to specify goals or state the anticipated benefits of design activities in library settings. This is because the impact of design is indirect and cannot be easily quantified or isolated from the larger context of the library environment. The model provides a method to justify managerial choices regarding UCD and frame service changes around phases of development (e.g., process-time, use-time, and future service provisions). Conclusion – The 360°TB Model pushes assessment activities beyond organization-centric evaluations and into intra-organizational and polycentric perspectives. It reaches beyond the boundaries of the institution to capture diverse viewpoints and service needs of external stakeholders. Finally, the 360°TB Model bridges the theoretical gap between Public Value frameworks and real-world information environments through the use of three key concepts: stakeholders, benefits, and phases. 
      PubDate: 2018-12-12
      DOI: 10.18438/eblip29473
      Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 4 (2018)
  • The Potential of a Cost-Per-Use Analysis to Assess the Value of Library
           Open-Access Funds

    • Authors: Jessica Koos
      First page: 99
      Abstract: A Review of: Hampson, C., & Stregger, E. (2017). Measuring cost per use of library-funded open access article processing charges: Examination and implications of one method. Journal of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication, 5(1), eP2182. Objective – To determine the feasibility and potential effects of a cost-per-use analysis of library funds dedicated to open access. Design – Cost-per-use analysis, case study. Setting – PLOS and BioMed Central. Subjects – 591 articles published in PLOS ONE, 165 articles published in PLOS Biology, and 17 articles published in BioMed Central. Methods – Three specific examples are provided of how academic libraries can employ a cost-per-use analysis in order to determine the impact of library-based open access (OA) funds. This method is modeled after the traditional cost-per-use method of analyzing a library collection, and facilitates comparison to other non-OA items. The first example consisted of using a formula dividing the total library-funded article processing charges (APCs) by the total global use of the specific PLOS journal articles that were funded. The second and third examples demonstrated what a library-funded OA membership to BioMed Central would cost alone, and then with APCs that cost could be divided by the total usage of the funded articles to determine cost-per-use. Main Results – The authors found both of the examples described in the article to be potential ways of determining cost-per-use of OA articles, with some limitations. For instance, counting article usage through the publisher’s website may not capture the true usage of an article, as it does not take altmetrics into consideration. In addition, article-level data is not always readily available. In addition, the cost-per-use of OA articles was found to be very low, ranging from $0.01 to $1.51 after the first three years of publication based on the cost of library-funded APCs. The second and third methods revealed a cost-per-use of $0.10 using membership-only payments, while using the cost of membership plus APCs resulted in a cost-per-use of $0.41. Conclusion – Libraries may wish to consider using these methods for demonstrating the value of OA funds in terms of return on investment, as these techniques allow for direct comparison to the usage of traditional journals. However, several barriers need to be overcome in how article-level usage is obtained in order for these methods to be more accurate and efficient. In addition, while the authors report that "The specific examples in this study suggest that OA APCs may compare favorably to traditional publishing when considering value for money based on cost per use," they also caution that the study was not designed to answer the question if the ROI is greater for OA publications than for traditional articles, stating that "...the data in this study should not be interpreted as a verification of such an argument, as this study was not designed to answer that question, nor can it do so given the limitations on the data. This paper was designed to present and illustrate a method. Further study would be necessary to verify or refute this possibility" (p. 15).
      PubDate: 2018-12-12
      DOI: 10.18438/eblip29453
      Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 4 (2018)
  • Religious Studies Scholarship is Not Widely Available via Open Access, but
           Some Authors Share Their Work through Institutional Repositories or Social
           Networking Sites

    • Authors: Elaine Sullo
      First page: 102
      Abstract: A Review of: Avery, J. M. (2018). The open access availability of articles from highly ranked religious studies journals: A study of ten journals. Theological Librarianship, 11(1), 12-17. Retrieved from Objective – To examine the current state of open access scholarship among the most highly rated religious studies journals. Design – Quantitative analysis. Setting – Research articles published in 2014, in the ten most highly rated religious studies journals. Subjects – 377 peer-reviewed articles. Methods – Using the SCImago Journal & Country Rank, the researcher identified the top ten most cited religious studies journals from mid-2015. Articles published in these journals during 2014 were evaluated. The researcher identified 377 research articles through online databases and journal websites. The researcher then used both Google and Google Scholar to search for these articles using titles and authors. If the article was not found, other search strategies were employed, such as the use of additional search terms, limits, and quotes, as well as other search engines. Main Results – Open access (OA) versions were found for 132 of the 377 articles (35%), and the percent of OA articles by journal ranged from 5% to 100%. The researcher found 70 OA articles in institutional repositories (53%), 70 in or (53%), 19 from organizational websites (14.4%), 13 on personal websites (9.8%), and 4 on other sites (3%). The researcher found 44 articles in more than one location (33.3%). Of the 132 OA articles found, 87 (65.9%) were found by both Google and Google Scholar, and 43 (32.6%) articles were found by either Google or Google Scholar, but not both.    Conclusion – Overall, the research results reveal that finding OA content can be done via Google and Google Scholar. While articles in religious studies journals are not typically accessible through OA, authors who tend to publish in these journals who support OA may use institutional repositories or social networking sites to make their work available.
      PubDate: 2018-10-25
      DOI: 10.18438/eblip29483
      Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 4 (2018)
  • Medical Librarians may be Underutilised in EBM Training within Pediatric
           Resident Programs

    • Authors: Alisa Howlett
      First page: 105
      Abstract: A Review of:  Boykan, R., & Jacobson, R. M. (2017). The role of librarians in teaching evidence-based medicine to pediatric residents. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(4), 355-360. Objective – To identify the use and role of medical librarians in pediatric residency training, specifically in the teaching of evidence-based medicine (EBM) to medical residents. This research also aims to describe current strategies used for teaching evidence-based medicine in pediatric residency training programs. Design – Web-based survey. Setting – Pediatric residency programs within the United States of America. Subjects – 200 members of the Association of Pediatric Program Directors (APPD). Methods – The 13-question, web-based survey used multiple choice and short answer questions to ask how pediatric residency programs used medical librarians. The survey collected demographic information such as program name, geographic region, and program size. Where respondents indicated their programs utilised librarians, the survey asked about their specific role, including involvement in EBM curricula. For respondents who indicated their programs did not use librarians, the survey asked about their reasons for not doing so, and to describe their EBM curricula. Researchers used SPSS software to analyse the quantitative data. Main Results – Overall 91 (46%) APPD-member program directors responded to the online survey. Of these, 76% of program directors indicated a formal EBM curriculum in their residency programs. Medical librarians were responsible for teaching EBM in 37% of responding pediatric programs. However, only 17% of responding program directors stated that medical librarians were involved in teaching EBM on a regular basis. The EBM skills most commonly taught within the pediatric residency programs included framing questions using PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome), searching for relevant research literature, and critical appraisal of studies. The strategies reported as most effective for teaching EBM in pediatric residency training programs were journal clubs, regular EBM conferences or seminars, and ‘morning reports.’ Conclusion – The study concluded that medical librarians may be important in the teaching of EBM in pediatric residency programs, but are likely underutilised. The librarian might not be seen has having a significant role in forums such as journal clubs, despite these being a predominant venue for EBM teaching. The authors recommend that program directors and faculty work together to better integrate medical librarians’ expertise into clinical teaching of EBM.
      PubDate: 2018-12-12
      DOI: 10.18438/eblip29418
      Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 4 (2018)
  • Students Who Used the Library in Their First Year of University are More
           Likely to Graduate or Still be Enrolled After Four Years

    • Authors: Judith Logan
      First page: 108
      Abstract: A Review of: Soria, K. M., Fransen, J., & Nackerud, S. (2017). The impact of academic library resources on undergraduates’ degree completion. College & Research Libraries, 78(6), 812–823. Objective – The researchers sought to measure the effect of accessing library resources on academic retention and graduation after four years while accounting for external factors that may influence academic outcomes. Design – Quasi-experimental observational study. Setting – A large public university in the Midwestern United States of America. Subjects – 5,368 first-year, non-transfer undergraduates; an entire freshman class. Methods – Using already collected student and library records data, the researchers grouped the population into those that had accessed one of five library resources at least once (treatment) and those who had not (control). The five treatment variables studied were circulation use, electronic resource or website access, library computer workstation logins, enrollment in open registration or course-embedded library instruction, and use of two reference services (online chat and peer research consultations). The researchers then performed a series of propensity score matching and regression analyses to compare the treatment and control groups’ outcome measures—graduation or continued enrollment after four years. These statistical models controlled for ten covariate measures that included SAT scores, first generation status, on campus residency, college of enrollment (e.g., business, engineering, education, biological sciences, design, or food, agriculture, and natural sciences), and demographic profiles. The regressions included subset analyses of the treatment group to determine if some treatment variables were associated with better outcomes than others. Main Results – The researchers found that students in the treatment group (n = 4,415) were 1.441 times more likely to graduate and 1.389 times more likely to still be enrolled after four years than those in the control group (n = 953). Both results were statistically significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.001 respectively. The subset regression analyses revealed that accessing an electronic resource at least once was associated with the best graduation odds at 1.924 times (p < 0.001) and the best continued enrollment odds at 1.450 times (p < 0.001). Students who had accessed computer workstations and either of the two reference services studied were no more likely to have graduated or still been enrolled after four years than those who had not (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05). Conclusion – Accessing library services during the first year of university is associated with improved academic outcomes after four years. More research is needed to accurately measure this impact for methodological reasons. Libraries should document contact with students as much as possible for later assessment.
      PubDate: 2018-12-12
      DOI: 10.18438/eblip29477
      Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 4 (2018)
  • Call for Applications: Evidence Summaries Writers for Evidence Based
           Library and Information Practice

    • Authors: . .
      First page: 111
      PubDate: 2018-12-13
      Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 4 (2018)
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Your IP address:
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-