2026-03-16
Leyla Cabugos, Zahra Premji
Objective – In 2009, a typology by Grant and Booth introduced the concept of a systematized review in which authors (typically students) selectively employ various elements of the systematic review process. As academic librarians who help research teams to select and conduct a variety of evidence synthesis types, we have fielded inquiries from teams interested in conducting systematized reviews for publication. While the typology is widely referenced, we were aware of no formal methodological guide to a systematized review type. The objective of this scoping review is to identify and describe the extent of published systematized reviews, and to 1) identify and collate, where available, sources used for the conceptualization and conduct of the systematized reviews, 2) determine if explanations provided were based on constraints, and 3) describe common methodological characteristics. Methods – Articles titled as a systematized review that attempted the collocation and synthesis of literature and included an adequate description of their methodology were included. We searched on September 1, 2023, the following five sources: Google Scholar, Lens.org, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and MEDLINE. We performed screening and data extraction in duplicate. Data extraction elements included common methodological characteristics relating to various steps of the evidence synthesis process. Descriptive, aggregate statistics, and categorization of reasons for selecting the systematized review type were the primary analysis for this review. Results – Our review found 171 systematized reviews that met inclusion criteria. These were published between 2013 and 2023, and the number has increased each year. Resources or constraints were mentioned in only 32 included reviews, and only 19 had a single author. The methodological attributes of published systematized reviews vary significantly. A small number (15) of reviews searched only one database or source, while the majority searched between 2 and 6 sources. The majority (134) provided no search details or a non-reproducible search strategy. Only 36 included reviews mentioned librarian involvement. Conclusion – Librarians should stay abreast of emerging evidence synthesis practices and the context in which researchers operate. It is unclear why and how authors choose the systematized review type because most did not report a source for their conceptualization, nor justify their choice. The majority of published reviews did not connect their methodological departures to the kinds of resource constraints typically associated with student work. The expectation that the elements of the systematic review process that authors chose to incorporate should be conducted and reported according to standards was not widely met. Librarians, as methodological guides, participants, or evaluators can play a key role in reinforcing the expectations of this review type and the standards that should be met when publishing a systematized review. Publishers and consumers of systematized reviews are advised to consider how each modification of standard systematic review methodology may introduce bias and affect the value of the evidence presented in published systematized reviews.
2026-03-16
Lisa Shamchuk
A Review of: Saulnier Lange, J., Johnson, C., & Martin, P. (2024). Service, interrupted: Analyzing chat reference referrals. The Reference Librarian, 65 (1–2), 34–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2024.2304360 Objective – To analyze service interruptions in chat reference interactions to determine best practices for chat reference delivery and training. Design – Mixed methods analysis of chat reference transcripts using grounded theory. Setting – One large university library in the United States. Subjects – Three hundred chat reference transcripts from the period during and after COVID-19 pandemic closure, that included an identified service interruption such as a referral, deferral, or missed referral. Methods – Researchers analyzed a random sample of relevant chat reference transcripts from May 2020 to June 2022, using a standardized data collection form based on observed transcript patterns and established coding schemes from relevant studies. The analysis considered the following factors: Query type, whether a referral was warranted, frequency of disconnected chats, operator actions, referral recipients, reference strategies employed, knowledge gaps, customer service level, and patron satisfaction level. Main Results – Most service disruptions involved referrals, with reference, library account, and item requests being the most common query types. Disconnected chat rates were lower than expected. In most cases, operators either directly contacted the referred person/unit or provided contact information. They used reference strategies such as asking clarifying questions, attempting to solve the patron’s issue, ensuring correct patron contact information, and inviting additional questions before closing the conversation. Most interactions on the patron satisfaction level were labelled as “polite” (choices were: "active dissatisfaction," "polite," and "extreme gratitude/happiness"), particularly when there was an attempt by the operator to resolve the issue. Customer service level ratings were mostly “satisfactory” (choices were: "poor," "satisfactory," and "excellent"), with higher ratings associated with the use of multiple strategies. Lower ratings were linked to disinterested operators, long wait times, extended searching for information, and the absence of a reference interview. While most questions warranted referral, unwarranted referrals often stemmed from knowledge gaps, a lack of clarifying questions, or operators rushing to refer. Most referrals were directed to other library staff or to Access Services, highlighting gaps in reference operators’ knowledge better aligned with Access Services expertise. Although not measured as a variable, the results also suggested additional challenges for student operators. Conclusion – Based on the analysis, recommendations included: improving communication between Reference and Access Services staff, adding targeted canned chat responses that demonstrate empathy, providing options, managing patron expectations, and improving training to include identified best practices. Additional research is needed to assess student follow through from chat referrals.
2026-03-16
Megan Kocher, Amy Riegelman, Matthew Kibbee, Molly Bostrom, Scott Marsalis, Sarah Young, Zahra Premji, Lindsay Bahureksa, Natasha Bishop, Gracian Chimwaza, Cozette Comer, Elizabeth DiGiovine
Objective – Seeing an absence of training opportunities for librarians supporting evidence synthesis outside of the health sciences, a collaborative team of librarians sought grant funding, developed a curriculum, and facilitated community building to provide this training. Methods – The present case study describes the identification of a training gap, multi-faceted efforts made to fill that gap, and evaluation via pretests and post-tests to continuously improve the program. Results – The Evidence Synthesis Institute (ESI) was launched in 2020. An application process is used to select the 50-person ESI cohort, with an average acceptance rate of 37%. To date, over 500 individuals have attended the Evidence Synthesis Institutes. Pre- and post-institute surveys show consistent gains in confidence to perform a variety of evidence synthesis skills. Additionally, we developed a self-paced online course which has over 750 enrolled learners with 118 having completed at least 90% of the course. Conclusion – This case study provides a model for designing, implementing, and assessing a training program and community of practice for an emergent skillset in academic librarianship. As shown by the program’s acceptance rate, demand remains high for participation in evidence synthesis training. Future programming could build on past success, such as continuing to offer synchronous virtual Institutes, training additional instructors, and expanding the asynchronous online course to include more content and summative assessments.