SRLibProblems

I'm going to have to look into the options (and tools) for citation chaining again, in the near future, but from this perspective. #EvidenceSynthesis

I tried Zotero earlier, which sources metadata from Crossref & was surprised to see the same (missing abstracts) when using the "add item by identifier" function

It was great (timely) to see @aarontay.bsky.social discuss abstracts (+ the implications) this week aarontay.substack.com/p/the-petrol...

In my case, it was a small number of records with missing abstracts & I had the DOIs, so I decided to manually locate the missing data (from Primo at my institution, or via the publisher page) to add/edit the RIS file. Doing so will allow the records to be screened without disruption, in Covidence.

To be clear, the problem is not the tool (Citation Chaser or Lens.org, where Citation Chaser gets its metadata from). The problem is the publishers that are withholding and preventing the abstracts from being openly available.

And the impact in this case, is on screening at the title-abstract level

Chasing down abstracts while pulling records for citation chaining (in this case, backwards citation chaining) is no fun and reduces efficiency. Tools like Citation Chaser are awesome, but (as I noticed earlier this week) the process becomes less efficient when some records are missing abstracts.

I think you might also enjoy "PRISMA compliant"[tiab:~2]

students who use it for a one off, who want to download 20-50 search results so they can explore them further in a citation manager, will be inconvenienced.

I wish database vendors would allow small batch record downloading without accounts, and have the RIS format as a standard available format.

Not liking this spreading practice where database providers now require use of an account to download any records or in specific formats (RIS); not even a small number. I know advanced users (including evidence synthesis librarians/researchers) will create their accounts and continue along but

You would not get those records if you searched human rights in TI OR AB because it will parse each line separately and use AND between the words but stay within the field.

This is how I understood what the page said. Please do share if I am missing something. From what I see, I can safely use XB

In this case, " ", or the proximity operator would override the default mode (find all terms, etc) so no impact. But if you searched human rights (with no " ") in XB versus TI or AB, you would get different results. In XB, you will find instances where human is in title and rights is in the abstract

It sounds like the issues would only happen in situations where the default mode is activated (find all terms, or proximity). But, this won't apply to most systematic searches. For example, most librarians will use "human rights" with " " around the phrase, or a proximity (human N3 rights).

Never been so happy to have followed good #DataManagement practices. There were times that I almost didn't take the time to use the naming convention, but I resisted.

I must remember to thank my awesome colleagues for inspiring this in my practice (they know who they are ❤️). #CanMedLibs

Saw a post about moving searches out of custom folders in EBSCO, which reminded me to get on it.
I moved 105 saved searches from 20 custom folders into one saved searches folder 😒. Thankfully, no renaming needed as I used this naming convention from the start: libguides.ucalgary.ca/DMPforSR/dat...

Why is it an OR? Go with AND - do both!

This is also true when switching from Ovid to other platforms. Adj3 (Ovid) = N2 (EBSCO) = NEAR/2 (WoS). I don't have Embase on the other platform (only Ovid) so I'm of no help here.

I often say that PRESS is for requests between search experts, and give an example of peer reviewing another librarian's search. But that I would be happy to review and advise on their search as part of our consultation options.

TL;DR - we don't offer a PRESS option for student searches.

Review & provide feedback - yes (in consult or via email), but I don't think of that as "peer review" & certainly not with PRESS. It is rare to receive such a request AND where the search is good enough to qualify as a peer review. Not impossible though, as there have been 3 or 4 in 5 years.

The intent is (Controlled fields) NOT (uncontrolled fields). In MEDLINE, we wouldn't use the same terms in both since we'd browse and find the MeSH terms. But, in Scopus, in the absence of deliberate/separate Index term gathering, you could use the same set of terms as shown in my example above.

(Index terms) NOT (title, abstract, authkey) would match the intent. So, in Scopus syntax it would be (for e.g.):

INDEXTERMS("corporate social responsibility" OR {CSR}) AND NOT ( ( TITLE-ABS("corporate social responsibility" OR {CSR}) ) OR ( AUTHKEY("corporate social responsibility" OR {CSR}) ) )

But if new synonyms keep finding new relevant articles (and recall matters at all - such as in lit review assignments), then you keep going with the iterative refinement. I do tend to emphasize the importance of starting with a good set of terms/synonyms (grouped in concepts).

Comprehensiveness may be too strong a term. I teach synonym generation in the initial search string development & then it gets added to as part of iterative search refinement (i.e. evaluate the first set of abstracts and add new synonyms to the search). The stopping point depends on the search need.

Yes, strategies to broaden/narrow is commonly taught, with the objective of either finding more articles or reducing noise or volume. Comprehensiveness of synonyms used and its impact (on number of results) is also covered. Fundamentally, this gets at the principles of it, without defining the terms

This is part of info lit though (matching the search approach to the objective). Not doing so is definitely a mistake. High recall searches are normal in SR work, but an unexpected perk for me was an improvement in my precision searching, as I know many more advanced strategies.

The 'Search History' screen on the new EBSCO UI now shows result numbers for each line. We can finally take screenshots to demonstrate the remaining problems 😅 - Happy Friday #IYKYK #Medlibs #CanMedlibs

Yes, I agree. Also, there is no label next to the button (like in Scopus), so some folks may not know what it means.

The fear of the #EBSCO switch is real! Even with the planned July 2025 features, we are going to have to spend more time (clicks) & change the way we do things (for the worse) in order to make up for what is being lost

I just want to keep the functionality I have now - is that too much to ask for 😅

A screenshot of the "combine queries" symbol in the new EBSCOhost user interface. The symbol looks like 2 lines merging into 1 line with a right facing arrow at the end

Screenshot of the symbol that follows the Combine queries text in Scopus. The symbol looks like 2 lines merging into a single line with a right facing arrow at the end.

I have been playing around in the new #EBSCO interface and have thoughts 😅

Has anyone noticed that the symbol used to combine queries in the new EBSCO interface is very similar to that used by #Scopus?

And now I'm starting to see more similarities across the two systems 🤔 #Medlibs #ExpertSearching

They state "For publication or regulatory-grade systematic reviews, you will often have to default to traditional, keyword-based search methods"

I guess, all researchers who thought they could do a "systematic review" in minutes and submit for journal publication are going to be disappointed!

Perhaps a small thing at a time like this, but I need @elicit.com to stop saying things like "regulatory-grade systematic reviews." If your tool doesn't meet the regulations, it's not doing a systematic review! WORDS MEAN THINGS.

JBI logo and 'JBI MANUAL FOR EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS' are displayed against blue background with an abstract suggestion of ripples. The ripples evoke the JBI logo. (The JBI logo depicts a pebble ("evidence") dropping into water, symbolising the ripple effect of positive change driven by evidence.)

🔥 Hot tip! Before starting a systematic review, make sure an information scientist/research assistant is part of the review team. They have specialised skills to develop and implement a comprehensive search strategy 🔎

synthesismanual.jbi.global

#MedLibs #JBImethodology #EvidenceSynthesis