Create accountLogin

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
mindly.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Mindly.Social is an English speaking, friendly Mastodon instance created for people who want to use their brains and their hearts to make social networking more social. 🧠💖

Administered by:

Server stats:

1.3K
active users

mindly.social: AboutStatusProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.7

#medlibs

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Public
Kate Nyhan is changing servers

New paper out:
Rethlefsen et al (including me!) (2025). Improving peer review of systematic reviews and related review types by involving librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ evidence-based medicine, bmjebm-2024-113527. Advance online publication. doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-11
#medlibs #PeerReview #EvidenceSynthesis

BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine · Improving peer review of systematic reviews and related review types by involving librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers: a randomised controlled trialObjective To evaluate the impact of adding librarians and information specialists (LIS) as methodological peer reviewers to the formal journal peer review process on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches in the medical literature. Design Pragmatic two-group parallel randomised controlled trial. Setting Three biomedical journals. Participants Systematic reviews and related evidence synthesis manuscripts submitted to The BMJ , BMJ Open and BMJ Medicine and sent out for peer review from 3 January 2023 to 1 September 2023. Randomisation (allocation ratio, 1:1) was stratified by journal and used permuted blocks (block size=4). Of 2670 manuscripts sent to peer review during study enrollment, 400 met inclusion criteria and were randomised (62 The BMJ , 334 BMJ Open , 4 BMJ Medicine ). 76 manuscripts were revised and resubmitted in the intervention group and 90 in the control group by 2 January 2024. Interventions All manuscripts followed usual journal practice for peer review, but those in the intervention group had an additional (LIS) peer reviewer invited. Main outcome measures The primary outcomes are the differences in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups in the quality of reporting and risk of bias. Quality of reporting was measured using four prespecified PRISMA-S items. Risk of bias was measured using ROBIS Domain 2. Assessments were done in duplicate and assessors were blinded to group allocation. Secondary outcomes included differences between groups for each individual PRISMA-S and ROBIS Domain 2 item. The difference in the proportion of manuscripts rejected as the first decision post-peer review between the intervention and control groups was an additional outcome. Results Differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches (4.4% difference, 95% CI: −2.0% to 10.7%) and risk of bias in searches (0.5% difference, 95% CI: −13.7% to 14.6%) showed no statistically significant differences between groups. By 4 months post-study, 98 intervention and 70 control group manuscripts had been rejected after peer review (13.8% difference, 95% CI: 3.9% to 23.8%). Conclusions Inviting LIS peer reviewers did not impact adequate reporting or risk of bias of searches in first revision manuscripts of biomedical systematic reviews and related review types, though LIS peer reviewers may have contributed to a higher rate of rejection after peer review. Trial registration number Open Science Framework: <https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W4CK2>. Data are available in a public, open access repository. All anonymized data and materials from this study are available in the Open Science Framework (<https://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZY547>).
Public
Jessica 🦕

Join us as we discuss Menopause: a comic treatment together or check out our closing keynote talking about Keywords/Keyimages in Graphic Medicine with Lisa Diedrich (Stony Brook University) and Briana Martino (Simmons University)!

We've opened the event to public attendees after we had a few people request access to the events.

edushare.ing/2025graphicmedici

edushare.ingResearch Guides: 2025 Graphic Medicine Read Along: HomeRead along and discuss Menopause: a comic treatment!
#GraphicMedicine#Librarians#MedLibs
Replied to Hilda Bastian
Public
Kate Nyhan is changing servers

@hildabast @PLOS

Adding to the concern that the US govt is not a reliable partner in maintaining the scholarly record: the CDC website content removals also encompassed published journal articles:
minnpost.com/community-voices/
See for yourself the Wayback Machine snapshots of error messages at the URL where a published article should be (green and orange circles on the calendar): web.archive.org/web/2025000000
#medlibs

MinnPost · Our published work in a government journal curiously disappearedBy Melissa Laska
ExploreLive feeds
About