Paul Cannon and Lynn Irvine, College Librarians, Information Services, University of Glasgow
What do College Librarians Do?
We are a conduit between the College and the library and work to ensure that the information needs of Learning & Teaching and Research are reflected in our resources and services.
‘Conduit’ sounds like a passive, functional role – but in fact our work is about relationships, partnerships, collaboration and active participation in diverse networks. We might be answering questions about copyright, publishing, artificial intelligence, grey literature, or tracking impact, and much of what we do is collaborative.
So, what’s different about our support? As research professionals will know, there are significant discipline differences throughout the colleges. The work of the College Librarians reflects these differences. We have common priorities, like ensuring that our researchers have access to high-quality scholarly materials, but how these materials are procured and managed is as diverse as the needs of the colleges and schools. Similarly, the tools we use to help track research impact are the same, but the way that impact is achieved will vary, as will the way it is contextualised and assessed.
Despite these differences, there are areas of commonality in our work. As anyone that has written a dissertation, thesis or an article will know, a librarian can be a valuable contact (listening ear, calming voice, critical friend!). There are lots of review types, each with differing purposes, and College Librarians are experts in information retrieval for the whole typology of reviews. There are still differences reflected in the choice of databases, discovery tools and resources in search strategies, and we have noticed a significant growth in rigorous review types, especially in the College of Medicine, Veterinary and Life Sciences (MVLS) and the College of Social Sciences (CoSS).
Systematic and scoping reviews
So, what is a rigorous review type, and what makes one review methodology more rigorous than another? Systematic and scoping reviews are methodological review types that aim to minimise bias by using comprehensive, reproducible methods. Both review types are complex and can take over a year to complete. They require an experienced team of subject and review methods experts – including information specialists, which is where we come in.
This is a unique space and an opportunity to collaborate closely with individual researchers or teams. Rapid reviews apply the same principles as full scoping and systematic reviews but concentrate the steps over a shorter period. They require just as much rigour and are highly valued in policymaking in health and education.
We will often collaborate on, and co-author reviews with researchers, advising on information sources, designing and testing search strategies, and managing results from different information sources. The task of interrogating the literature with researchers to analyse how concepts are represented is an immersive, intellectual activity that forges a truly collaborative experience. It can take several weeks of close working to progress through the stages of a review. Librarians may write up the search methods or some of the results sections, or approve the final manuscript to ensure adherence with prescribed reporting standards.
The value of collaboration
As well as the stimulating and rewarding experience of being immersed in a research project, librarian co-authored reviews are shown to have lower risk of bias compared to reviews that acknowledge a librarian or those with no librarian involvement. Searches are better when a librarian is involved, and generally better adhere to methodological standards. Collaboration not only provides us with opportunities to work with different people in our colleges, it also allow us to serendipitously promote Good Practice in Research, such as appropriately crediting authors using the CRediT taxonomy, or highlighting research impact, which can in-turn be used by researchers in future grant applications and promotion opportunities. This kind of collaboration helps us to contribute to the three principles of the current University Research Strategy, particularly around the principles of rigour, demonstrating impact, and good research practices.
Our help
In the ten years from 2014-2024, there has been a 110% increase in the number of systematic and scoping reviews with University of Glasgow authors, with around ten published each month by MVLS and CoSS researchers. We try and collaborate in one way or another on many of these, and where we lack capacity to co-author on reviews, we will always provide advice, guidance, and training for researchers to ensure that methodological high standards are met.
The Auditorium: a research culture and researcher development blog 