Dataset Information

Research evaluation support services in biomedical libraries.

ABSTRACT: Objective:The paper provides a review of current practices related to evaluation support services reported by seven biomedical and research libraries. Methods:A group of seven libraries from the United States and Canada described their experiences with establishing evaluation support services at their libraries. A questionnaire was distributed among the libraries to elicit information as to program development, service and staffing models, campus partnerships, training, products such as tools and reports, and resources used for evaluation support services. The libraries also reported interesting projects, lessons learned, and future plans. Results:The seven libraries profiled in this paper report a variety of service models in providing evaluation support services to meet the needs of campus stakeholders. The service models range from research center cores, partnerships with research groups, and library programs with staff dedicated to evaluation support services. A variety of products and services were described such as an automated tool to develop rank-based metrics, consultation on appropriate metrics to use for evaluation, customized publication and citation reports, resource guides, classes and training, and others. Implementing these services has allowed the libraries to expand their roles on campus and to contribute more directly to the research missions of their institutions. Conclusions:Libraries can leverage a variety of evaluation support services as an opportunity to successfully meet an array of challenges confronting the biomedical research community, including robust efforts to report and demonstrate tangible and meaningful outcomes of biomedical research and clinical care. These services represent a transformative direction that can be emulated by other biomedical and research libraries.

SUBMITTER: Gutzman KE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5764574 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Research evaluation support services in biomedical libraries.

Gutzman Karen Elizabeth KE Bales Michael E ME Belter Christopher W CW Chambers Thane T Chan Liza L Holmes Kristi L KL Lu Ya-Ling YL Palmer Lisa A LA Reznik-Zellen Rebecca C RC Sarli Cathy C CC Suiter Amy M AM Wheeler Terrie R TR

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20180102 1

<h4>Objective</h4>The paper provides a review of current practices related to evaluation support services reported by seven biomedical and research libraries.<h4>Methods</h4>A group of seven libraries from the United States and Canada described their experiences with establishing evaluation support services at their libraries. A questionnaire was distributed among the libraries to elicit information as to program development, service and staffing models, campus partnerships, training, products s ...[more]

PMID: 29339930

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: International development partners and research councils are increasingly funding research management and support (RMS) capacity strengthening initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as part of a broader investment in strengthening national and regional research systems. However, the evidence-base to inform RMS capacity strengthening initiatives is limited at present. This research note presents a synthesis of 28 RMS capacity assessments completed in 25 universities/research institutions from across 15 SSA countries between 2014 and 2018. Methods: All 28 capacity assessments were completed following a standardised methodology consisting of semi-structured interviews conducted with research and research support staff at the respective institution as well as document reviews and observation of onsite facilities. Data were extracted from the 28 reports detailing the findings of each assessment according to a framework synthesis approach. Results: In total, 13 distinct capacity gap categories emerged from across the 28 RMS capacity assessment reports. Almost all the institutions assessed faced multiple gaps in RMS capacity within and across each of these 13 categories. The 13 categories were not independent of each other and were often closely inter-connected. Commonalities were also evident across multiple categories, the two most obvious of which were severe fiscal constraints and the often-complex bureaucracy of the institutional operating environment. Conclusions: The synthesis findings reveal multiple, commonly shared RMS capacity gaps in universities and research institutions across SSA. No single intervention type, or focus, would be sufficient to strengthen capacity across all 13 areas; rather, what is needed to facilitate a significant shift in RMS capacity within such SSA universities and research institutions is a combination of interventions, consisting of differing levels of cost and complexity, variously led (or supported) by both internal and external actors.

Project description:Biomedical applications have become increasingly complex, and they often require large-scale high-performance computing resources with a large number of processors and memory. The complexity of application deployment and the advances in cluster, grid and cloud computing require new modes of support for biomedical research. Scientific Software as a Service (sSaaS) enables scalable and transparent access to biomedical applications through simple standards-based Web interfaces. Towards this end, we built a production web server (http://ws.nbcr.net) in August 2007 to support the bioinformatics application called MEME. The server has grown since to include docking analysis with AutoDock and AutoDock Vina, electrostatic calculations using PDB2PQR and APBS, and off-target analysis using SMAP. All the applications on the servers are powered by Opal, a toolkit that allows users to wrap scientific applications easily as web services without any modification to the scientific codes, by writing simple XML configuration files. Opal allows both web forms-based access and programmatic access of all our applications. The Opal toolkit currently supports SOAP-based Web service access to a number of popular applications from the National Biomedical Computation Resource (NBCR) and affiliated collaborative and service projects. In addition, Opal's programmatic access capability allows our applications to be accessed through many workflow tools, including Vision, Kepler, Nimrod/K and VisTrails. From mid-August 2007 to the end of 2009, we have successfully executed 239,814 jobs. The number of successfully executed jobs more than doubled from 205 to 411 per day between 2008 and 2009. The Opal-enabled service model is useful for a wide range of applications. It provides for interoperation with other applications with Web Service interfaces, and allows application developers to focus on the scientific tool and workflow development. Web server availability: http://ws.nbcr.net.

Project description:PurposeThe analysis of existing institutional research proposal databases can provide novel insights into science funding parity. The purpose of this study was to analyze the relationship between race/ethnicity and extramural research proposal and award rates across a medical school faculty and to determine whether there was evidence that researchers changed their submission strategies because of differential inequities across submission categories.MethodThe authors performed an analysis of 14,263 biomedical research proposals with proposed start dates between 2010-2022 from the University of Michigan Medical School, measuring the proposal submission and award rates for each racial/ethnic group across 4 possible submission categories (R01 & Equivalent programs, other federal, industry, and non-profit).ResultsResearchers from each self-identified racial/ethnic group (Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino) pursued a different proposal submission strategy than the majority group (White). The authors found that Black/African American researchers experienced negative award rate differentials across all submission categories, which resulted in the lowest R01 & Equivalent and Other Federal submission rates of any racial/ethnic group and the highest submission rate to non-profit sources. The authors did not find support for the hypothesis that researchers changed submission strategies in response to award rate inequalities across submission categories.ConclusionsBiomedical researchers from different racial/ethnic groups follow markedly different proposal submission strategies within the University of Michigan Medical School. There is also a clear relationship between race/ethnicity and rates of proposal award. Black/African American and Asian researchers appear disadvantaged across all submission categories relative to White researchers. This study can be easily replicated by other academic research institutions, revealing opportunities for positive intervention.

Dataset Information

Research evaluation support services in biomedical libraries.

Publications

Research evaluation support services in biomedical libraries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets