Rebecca Raszewski, MS, AHIP1, Abigail Goben, MLS2
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.2202
Volume 114, Number 2: 178-183
Received 03 2025; Accepted 12 2025
ABSTRACT
Librarians' contributions to systematic review projects receive inconsistent recognition within promotion or tenure processes. A review of thirty-six academic libraries' norms and procedures revealed only two that mentioned systematic reviews. Recognition and inclusion of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis is further complicated by variance in recognition of interdisciplinary work. This commentary provides recommendations for academic library leadership to establish standards for documenting and evaluating systematic review work in annual reviews and promotion or tenure, explicitly recognizing the value of participation in interdisciplinary scholarship, inclusion of search strategies as a scholarly output, and providing guidance for the external review process. We close with a call to action for professional organizations to establish centralized guidelines to ensure the full recognition of librarianship and scholarly participation in systematic reviews.
Keywords: Systematic Reviews; Evidence Synthesis; Annual Review; Interdisciplinary; Promotion; Tenure.
Librarians have been recognized as important contributors to systematic reviews for over twenty years [1–3]. Over these last two decades, librarians have become regarded as key partners for this research methodology, with their expertise in search strategy development increasingly leading to co-authorship opportunities. This growth is an acknowledgement of the time health information professionals have devoted to building partnerships and collaborating with clinicians, faculty, researchers, and staff in other disciplines. While professional library associations and academic health sciences libraries now offer robust educational programs on the systematic review process and how to develop enterprise-level systematic review services, few libraries properly recognize the individual contributions their librarians make to the systematic review processes within their promotion, tenure, or annual reviews.
In this commentary, we are using the term systematic reviews as being synonymous with the term evidence synthesis, though we recognize that the latter also encompasses other kinds of review methodologies such as integrative, rapid, or scoping reviews. Additionally, while this commentary primarily focuses on the impact for librarians working in health sciences settings, systematic review work is becoming more commonplace for librarians across a variety of other disciplines.
Consulting or teaching about the systematic review process have become important aspects of most academic health sciences libraries. Librarians have developed competency frameworks [4–7], systematic reviews services [8–15], forms or systems for collecting information to develop protocols or documenting their work [16–18], and strategies for negotiating their involvement within systematic review development [19–21]. They have co-developed reporting standards such as PRISMA and validated search hedges [22,23]. Although the role of librarians and the credit they are given have been debated [24–26], librarians will continue to be involved in this process, whether as co-authors or consultants.
Health sciences library organizations such as the Medical Library Association (MLA) have acknowledged expert searching within professional competencies [27,28] and standards [29,30], recognizing this as often being the primary role of a librarian on a systematic review team. To support librarians’ development, MLA and other health information and non-profit organizations offer continuing education opportunities for librarians on conducting systematic reviews and gaining professional recognition for their participation [31–34]. Additionally, librarians who seek Academy of Health Information Professional (AHIP) certification can list the citations of published systematic reviews they have co-authored as part of establishing or maintaining their credential [35]. Yet it is unclear whether or how academic libraries value their librarians’ work on systematic reviews as part of the promotion process or in annual reviews.
The authors reviewed thirty-six United States academic libraries’ promotion or tenure norms where librarians are employed as faculty or have faculty status, including the authors’ own institution. The included institutions are prolific for their systematic review work or serve as regional libraries within the National Network of Libraries of Medicine. The norms were obtained from searches on libraries’ websites, interactions through libraries’ chat services, or email or ticket requests to individual librarians or departments. Systematic reviews were only mentioned in two of the thirty-six libraries’ promotion guidelines. The Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library at the University of Utah mentions “novel systematic reviews” as an example under the creation of new knowledge category that also includes original research articles, scholarly monographs, presentations, and other kinds of research [36]. A related category, novel synthesis of existing knowledge, would give librarians credit for literature reviews or “review that proposes new conceptualizations of existing evidence.” The University of Florida mentions systematic reviews and meta-analyses with peer reviewed articles as “indictors of distinction” for promotion [37]. The lack of acknowledgement within promotion guidelines suggests that academic and health sciences libraries have not recognized librarians’ critical role in the systematic review process and how the time-intensive nature of these projects should be viewed within annual reviews and promotion processes.
Systematic review work must be included in annual reviews and promotion and tenure norms so that this labor and intellectual contribution is documented and recognized. Below we outline specific suggestions for what should be tracked to provide appropriate recognition for this work.
As a part of the annual review process, librarians who are co-authors must receive scholarly credit for any systematic reviews that are in process, submitted for publication, or have been published. Additionally, librarians must document instances when they completed a search, but a co-authored publication did not result. They should also include the number of consultations conducted as well as the amount of time spent on review-related tasks like translating searches into databases, citation tracing, or writing the methods section. To facilitate and standardize this across librarians at a given institution, an internal tracking system should be created or adopted to support librarians documenting their systematic review work so that they can quickly and consistently pull reports. A robust tracking system will ensure that the librarians’ impact is documented for library leadership and for reports out to central campus administration. Additionally, these internal reports should be used to assess workloads and evaluate whether the quantity of systematic review requests is sustainable relative to current staffing levels [38]. It will also allow the identification and disruption of any trends where librarians are being inappropriately excluded from co-authorship when partnering with specific colleges or departments. As systematic reviews often require significant effort by the librarian at the beginning of the project, which may or may not see follow-through by the rest of the team, we recommend a written Memorandum of Understanding [39,40] by the team prior to project initiation, and to review ICMJE [41] rules for co-authorship and document team expectations towards publication.
If there is a disconnect between how librarians value their systematic review work versus their administrators or peers, then library administration or senior librarians need to initiate discussions to resolve this issue and ensure evaluation consistency. This is especially critical at institutions where librarians are expected to produce original scholarship as a criterion for evaluation. Supervisors and mentors will need to establish, support, and reinforce boundaries on their junior colleagues’ involvement in systematic review work so they can develop their independent scholarship in addition to their systematic review contributions. This will likely need to continue to be handled on an individualized level, but library supervisors and leadership should recognize this labor and critically appraise the efforts being allocated to this work, especially if follow-through to publication is not consistently achieved.
As systematic reviews are now a recognized form of scholarly activity across most disciplines, librarians must revise promotion and tenure norms and other promotion standards to specify how their colleagues’ will receive credit for their systematic review work for scholarship and/or librarianship requirements. This should be supplemented with clear guidance for departmental, campus, and external reviewers, to reduce confusion and inconsistent evaluation.
Systematic reviews are typically conducted on topics that are outside of the Library and Information Science (LIS) discipline, which at some institutions may not be assigned to the librarians’ primary area of scholarship but to interdisciplinary work or counted as part of their librarianship. Even when evaluated as scholarship, one 2016 study did not find consensus as to whether systematic reviews were more or less important than LIS scholarship [26]. In the years since, this has not changed. During our review of libraries’ norms, only 11 of the 36 libraries’ promotion guidelines included text that valued interdisciplinary work or publications the same as LIS publications. One library’s norms mentioned they “may be an indicator of distinction”, while another library valued interdisciplinary work less. Where in alignment with campus standards, systematic reviews are likely to best fit into an interdisciplinary statement of scholarship.
Librarians in faculty positions may be expected to develop their own independent research agenda in addition to their contributions to systematic reviews. Participating as the librarian member of a systematic review team may not be considered a demonstration of unique scholarship nor an advance in the knowledgebase of librarianship. Norms should identify expectations for librarians required to pursue their own independent research, with appropriate support, with the addition of recognition and credit for participation in interdisciplinary research including systematic reviews. Clear documentation and expectations in this respect will allow librarians to balance their commitment of effort between their own scholarly-led efforts and serving as part of an interdisciplinary team on a systematic review. Systematic reviews where the librarian serves as the lead author or where the topic is directly connected to their scholarship, such as a review on nursing information literacy interventions, would fall under the librarian’s own scholarly agenda. Library norms should indicate if a number of articles is required, and what balance will be accepted between a librarian’s personal scholarship and their interdisciplinary scholarship.
Librarians should also consider including the search strategies or search hedges they have developed in their annual reviews or promotion packets as a supplemental form of scholarship If the search strategies are not included within the affiliated reviews, they should create an affiliated record in PROSPERO, place them in their institutional repository or a resource like Open Science Framework (OSF), or plac them on a LibGuide or similar resource to allow peer discovery and reuse. Some Canadian libraries have begun posting their search strategies in their institutional data repository to better highlight and control their usage [42–46]. SearchRxiv, a search strategy archive that allows searches to be shared and re-used, is another opportunity for librarians to highlight their search strategies [47]. Additionally, Haddaway et al’s 2022 article includes recommendations for a data structure that can be used to report reproducible search strategies [48]. Librarians could also include the number of times a search strategy or hedge has been viewed or even cited in their promotion packets. They should also ensure that they are giving proper credit to other librarians by citing their publications or search strategies if they have used them or integrated them into their search strategies.
As libraries have a variety of norms and expectations for promotion, it is incumbent that leadership and senior librarians create clear and standardized guidance that assists external reviewers in understanding how the library values systematic review work: if these reviews count towards librarianship or scholarship, and the expected balance between librarian-led work versus collaborative work on interdisciplinary projects. Without this guidance, reviewers from other institutions may be confused as to why systematic review work is not being fully reflected within candidate’s statements, CV, or other dossier materials.
One technique to facilitate this would be the creation of an annotated bibliography where the candidate describes their role in each of their scholarly outputs. For systematic reviews this could include protocols, the specific tasks performed (searching, deduplication, title/abstract screening, etc.), and/or the total amount of time spent on each phase of the review. Additionally, we recommend advocating for a separate interdisciplinary statement in addition to the traditional teaching, scholarship, and service statements for all librarians to address their engagement across disciplines.
As part of our dossier for promotion and tenure cases, University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) University Library gives library faculty the option to write and include an interdisciplinary statement. Most of the health sciences library faculty write an interdisciplinary statement to highlight their systematic reviews and other interdisciplinary scholarship, their service work at other colleges such as curriculum or search committees, or their service work at their hospital such as hospital-wide or nursing councils. When the interdisciplinary statement has included scholarship, the candidate has the option of sharing it with external reviewers to more fully document how their systematic review and other interdisciplinary work fits in with their scholarship. UIC Library also encourages faculty to annotate their citations within their CVs and dossiers so external reviewers and the campus-wide Promotion and Tenure Committee can better understand the librarian’s role or contributions [49].
To reduce the replication efforts of documenting systematic review work across organizations, associations such as MLA or the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) should develop and provide recommendations to their members on how to document their contributions to systematic reviews for annual reviews and promotion. A taxonomy for systematic review work like CRediT could be developed that would define the librarians’ contributions to various phases of the systematic review process [50]. The health sciences librarianship literature has a few examples of articles that cover librarians’ roles in the systematic review process [51–53]. It could also be used by librarians who work on systematic reviews that are never completed, or whose role as search consultants may only be documented as an acknowledgement in published systematic reviews for their work [25,26]. An example of this is present in the Cochrane Collaboration Contribution of the Authors section [54]. However, as many systematic reviews are not completed or published, this will be an incomplete representation of librarians’ efforts. Similarly, due to the time frame for publication, some librarians may need documentation prior to submission or publication of their work on the reviews.
Librarians lay the foundation for the systematic review process. The review cannot proceed until the database searches are developed, translated, and finalized; the final citations are downloaded from databases; and duplicate citations are removed. Within our own institutions, we need to better demonstrate our contributions to fully capture our work within the systematic review process. We further need to discuss as a discipline how we are valuing the contribution of our expertise in systematic reviews not only to librarianship but beyond. Otherwise, we and our workplaces are failing ourselves by potentially undervaluing this scholarly labor or presenting an incomplete view of our work.
1. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, editors. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011 [cited 2025 Mar 24]. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13059/finding-what-works-in-health-care-standards-for-systematic-reviews.
2. McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan;93(1):74.
3. Weller AC. Mounting evidence that librarians are essential for comprehensive literature searches for meta-analyses and Cochrane reports. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004 Apr;92(2):163–4.
4. Clark JM, Beller E, Glasziou P, Sanders S. The decisions and processes involved in a systematic search strategy: a hierarchical framework. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Apr;109(2):201–11. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1086.
5. Esmailzadeh M, Bahrami M, Soleymani MR. Competences of academic librarians in providing health research services: A qualitative study. J Educ Health Promot. 2020 Aug 31; 9:220. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_254_20.
6. Farris DP, Lebo RA, Price C. Designing a framework for curriculum building in systematic review competencies for librarians: a case report. J Med Libr Assoc. 2024 Oct;112(4):357–63. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1930.
7. Townsend WA, Anderson PF, Ginier EC, MacEachern MP, Saylor KM, Shipman BL, Smith JE. A competency framework for librarians involved in systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jul;105(3):268–75. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.189.
8. Lackey MJ, Greenberg H, Rethlefsen ML. Building the systematic review core in an academic health sciences library. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Oct;107(4):588–94. https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.711.
9. Ludeman E, Downton K, Shipper AG, Fu Y. Developing a library systematic review service: a case study. Med Ref Serv Q. 2015;34(2):173–80. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2015.1019323.
10. McKeown S, Ross-White A. Building capacity for librarian support and addressing collaboration challenges by formalizing library systematic review services. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Jul;107(3):411–9. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.443.
11. Pasipamire N. Integrating evidence synthesis services in Zimbabwean state university libraries. IFLA J. 2024 Sep 5;94–108. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03400352241276844.
12. Roth SC. Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(4):514–20. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.430.
13. Russell F, Muir R. A return to librarian mediated searching in a pilot systematic search service. J Aust Libr Inf Assoc. 2020 Jun;69(2):262–73. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2020.1749333.
14. Russell F, Grbin L, Beard F, Higgins J, Kelly B. The evolution of a mediated systematic review search service. J Aust Libr Inf Assoc. 2022 Mar;71(1):89–107. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2022.2029143.
15. Tchangalova N, Harrington EG, Ritchie S, Over S. Working across disciplines and library units to develop a suite of systematic review services for researchers. Collab Librariansh. 2019 Oct;11(4):267–81. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.3.015.
16. Demetres MR, Wright DN, Hickner A, Jedlicka C, Delgado D. A decade of systematic reviews: an assessment of Weill Cornell Medicine’s systematic review service. J Med Libr Assoc. 2023 Jul;111(3):728–32. DOI: https://dx.doi/org/10.5195/jmla.2023.1628.
17. Gann LB, Pratt GF. Using library search service metrics to demonstrate library value and manage workload. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 Jul;101(3):227–9. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2023.1628.
18. Lyon JA, Garcia-Milian R, Norton HF, Tennant MR. The use of research electronic data capture (REDCap) software to create a database of librarian-mediated literature searches. Med Ref Serv Q. 2014 Jul;33(3):241–52. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2014.925379.
19. Campbell S, Dorgan M. What to do when everyone wants you to collaborate: managing the demand for library support in systematic review searching. J Can Health Libr Assoc J L’Assoc Bibl Santé Can. 2015;36(1):11–9. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29173/jchla/jabsc.v36i1.24353.
20. O’Dwyer LC, Wafford QE. Addressing challenges with systematic review teams through effective communication: a case report. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Oct 1;109(4):643–7. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1222.
21. Wafford QE, O’Dwyer LC. Adopting a toolkit to manage time, resources, and expectations in the systematic review process: a case report. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Oct 1;109(4):637–42. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1221.
22. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel JB, Blunt H, Brigham T, Chang S, Clark J, Conway A, Couban R, de Kock S, Farrah K, Fehrmann P, Foster M, Fowler SA, Glanville J, Harris E, Hoffecker L, Isojarvi J, Kaunelis D, Ket H, Levay P, Lyon J, McGowan J, Murad MH, Nicholson J, Pannabecker V, Paynter R, Pinotti R, Ross-White A, Sampson M, Shields T, Stevens A, Sutton A, Weinfurter E, Wright K, Young S, PRISMA-S Group. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021 Jan 26;10(1):39. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z.
23. Glanville J, Lefebvre C, Manson P, Robinson S, Brbre I, Woods L. The InterTASC Information Specialists’ Sub-Group [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/home.
24. Borrego Á, Ardanuy J, Urbano C. Librarians as Research Partners: Their contribution to the scholarly endeavour beyond library and information science. J Acad Librariansh. 2018;44(5):663–70. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.07.012.
25. Brunskill A, Hanneke R. The case of the disappearing librarians: analyzing documentation of librarians’ contributions to systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2022 Oct;110(4):409–18. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1505.
26. Desmeules R, Dorgan M, Campbell S. Acknowledging librarians’ contributions to systematic review searching. J Can Health Libr Assoc J L’Assoc Bibl Santé Can. 2016 Aug;37(2):44–52. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5596/c16-014.
27. Medical Library Association. MLA competencies for lifelong learning and professional success. [cited 2025 Mar 24]. https://www.mlanet.org/professional-development/mla-competencies/.
28. Slingsby L. ALIA HLA competencies. ALIA Library. 2019 [cited 2024 Nov 18]. https://read.alia.org.au/alia-hla-competencies.
29. Frati F, Oja LA, Kleinberg J, CHLA-ABSC Standards Task Force. CHLA standards for library and information services in Canadian health & social services institutions 2020. J Can Health Libr Assoc J L’Assoc Bibl Santé Can. 2021 Apr;42(1):14–44. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29173/jchla29526.
30. Ritchie, Ann. Guidelines for Australian health libraries, 5th edition 2022. 5th ed. Canberra, ACT: Australian Library and Information Association Health Libraries Australia; 2025 [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://library.alia.org.au/guidelines-australian-health-libraries-5th-edition-2022.
31. Medical Library Association. Systematic review services specialization. 2024 [cited 2025 Mar 24]. https://www.mlanet.org/Specializations/systematic-review-services-specialization/.
32. Medical Library Association. AHIP points index [Internet]. MLA. [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://www.mlanet.org/professional-development/ahip-points-index/.
33. University of Michigan Libraries. Systematic reviews workshop. [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://www.lib.umich.edu/research-and-scholarship/library-workshops-and-credit-courses/systematic-reviews-workshop.
34. University of Minnesota. Evidence synthesis institute. [cited 2025 Jun 24]. https://www.lib.umn.edu/about/evidence-synthesis-institute.
35. The Campbell Collaboration. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis — open & free. Carnegie Mellon University. 2023 [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://oli.cmu.edu/courses/systematic-reviews-and-meta-analysis-o-f/.
36. Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library. Retention, promotion, and tenure (RPT) statement for tenure-line faculty. University of Utah; 2016.
37. University of Florida. By-Laws: departmental libraries, health science center libraries, Marston Science Library, special and area studies collections, and technology and support services. University of Florida; 2020.
38. Bullers K, Howard AM, Hanson A, Kearns WD, Orriola JJ, Polo RL, Sakmar KA. It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Apr;106(2):198–207. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.323.
39. Gore GC, Jones J. Systematic reviews and librarians: a primer for managers. Partnersh Can J Libr Inf Pract Res. 2015 Jul 10 [cited 2025 Apr 4];10(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v10i1.3343
40. O’Dwyer L. Galter Library memorandum of understanding (v1.0.0). DigitalHub. Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center; 2021 [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://dx.doi.org/10.18131/g3-eb6d-3f03.
41. ICMJE | Recommendations | Defining the role of authors and contributors. [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html.
42. Rod AB, Boruff JT. Searches as data: archiving and sharing search strategies using an institutional data repository. J Med Libr Assoc. 2024 Jan;112(1):42–7. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1791
43. Dalhousie University Dataverse. Dalhousie librarian knowledge synthesis search materials repository. [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://borealisdata.ca/dataverse/dalhousie_librarian_ks_search_repository.
44. McGill University Dataverse. McGill librarian knowledge synthesis search materials repository. [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://borealisdata.ca/dataverse/mcgill_librarian_ks_search_repository.
45. Université de Montréal Dataverse. Bibliothèque du CHUM stratégies de recherche pour les synthèses des connaissances. [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://borealisdata.ca/dataverse/bibliochum.
46. University of Toronto Dataverse. HSIC knowledge synthesis search strategies. [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://borealisdata.ca/dataverse/hsicsearches.
47. CABI Digital Library. searchRxiv - Home | CABI Digital Library searchRxiv. 2024 [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/journal/searchrxiv.
48. Haddaway NR, Rethlefsen ML, Davies M, Glanville J, McGowan B, Nyhan K, Young S. A suggested data structure for transparent and repeatable reporting of bibliographic searching. Campbell Syst Rev. 2022;18(4):e1288. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1288.
49. University of Illinois Chicago. P&T 25-26 Part III - Tenure & non-tenure system guidelines. 2025 [cited 2025 Jun 23]. https://uofi.app.box.com/v/ptguidelines3.
50. CRediT. Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT). Contributor Role Taxonomy. 2025 [cited 2025 Jun 24]. https://credit.niso.org/.
51. Beverley CA, Booth A, Bath PA. The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: a health information case study. Health Inf Libr J. 2003 Jun;20(2):65–74. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-1842.2003.00411.x.
52. Cooper D, Crum JA New activities and changing roles of health sciences librarians: a systematic review, 1990-2012. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013;101(4):268–77. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.008.
53. Spencer AJ, Eldredge JD. Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Jan;106(1):46–56. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82.
54. Cumpston M, Lasserson T, Flemyng E, Page M. Chapter III: Reporting the review. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 65. Cochrane; 2023 [cited 2025 Mar 24]. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-iii.
Rebecca Raszewski, MS, AHIP, 1 raszewr1@uic.edu, Associate Professor & Information Services & Liaison Librarian, Library for the Health Sciences, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL
Abigail Goben, MLS, 2 agoben@uic.edu, Professor & Data Management Librarian - University Library, and Data Policy Advisor - Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL
© 2026 Rebecca Raszewski, Abigail Goben
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Journal of the Medical Library Association, VOLUME 114, NUMBER 2, April 2026