Why equating all evidence searches to systematic reviews defies their role in information seeking
| Autor: | Taneya Y. Koonce, Helen M. Naylor, Sheila V. Kusnoor, Zachary E. Fox, Annette M. Williams, Jing Su, Spencer J. DesAutels, Nunzia Bettinsoli Giuse, Mallory N. Blasingame, Marcia I. Epelbaum, Patricia L. M. Lee, Elizabeth T. Frakes |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
Quality Control
Computer science information needs media_common.quotation_subject Information Seeking Behavior systematic reviews lcsh:Medicine Health Informatics Information needs Library and Information Sciences Resource (project management) Meta-Analysis as Topic Equating Humans Quality (business) Publication process media_common Evidence-Based Medicine Information seeking evidence Data Collection lcsh:R Data science lcsh:Z Checklist lcsh:Bibliography. Library science. Information resources Systematic review Evidence-Based Practice Commentary Systematic Reviews as Topic |
| Zdroj: | Journal of the Medical Library Association, Vol 107, Iss 4 (2019) Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA |
| ISSN: | 1558-9439 1536-5050 |
| Popis: | All too often the quality and rigor of topic investigations is inaccurately conveyed to information professionals, resulting in a mischaracterization of the research, which, if left unchecked and published, may in turn mislead potential readers. Accurately understanding and categorizing the types of topic investigation searches that are requested of information professionals is critical to both meeting requestors’ needs and reflecting their intended methodological approaches. Information professionals’ expertise can be an invaluable resource to guide users through the investigative and publication process. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|