SWiRL-SR™​
​Standards for Working with Research
​Librarians-on Systematic Reviews (2.0)

​

Your key to a high quality systematic review

​

​

Statement & Checklist: version 2.0 is now available! Updated in January 2026.

​

Links to download the PDF version of the checklist are also available at ​swirlsr.org​​

​

Systematic Review Librarian/SWiRL-SR:

Created by Medical Librarian, Stephanie C. Roth, MLIS (AHIP-D)

Contact: systematic review librarian @ outlook .com
​

SWiRL-SR™ 2026 (version 2.0) Standards for Working with Research Librarians- on Systematic Reviews™

Purpose:

The Librarians’ role in the production of systematic reviews is of high importance, especially with the increase in the overproduction, misuse, fraud and waste in publishing; systematic reviews, are in crisis ¹. The purpose of SWiRL-SR™ is not to discourage, but to instead encourage researchers to keep, Librarian(s) in the Loop. Librarians can be embedded throughout the systematic review process, as a trusted authoritative source, to guide teams to develop high-quality and rigorous reviews. As the use of AI in systematic reviews accelerates the process, the quality of systematic reviews will continue to be poor, unless Librarians and researchers can work ethically, responsibly and respectively together. SWiRL-SR™ is based on the findings from analyzing the data from 50 MOU’s (31 submitted*, 19 public) or similar policies, with insights from academic, medical/hospital (academic), clinical/hospital (non-academic) library settings, from both private and public sectors, and a variety of disciplines. The author, Stephanie Roth, MLIS, has over 17 years of insights as a researcher for a private medical practice, an academic medical librarian, and as a hospital librarian, co-authoring systematic reviews.

​

1. Rada G, Ávila C, Pesce F, Verdugo-Paiva F. Framing Evidence Synthesis production with the lens of Sustainable Knowledge. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Published online October 27, 2025:112027. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.112027

​

Author note:

We can all do our part to improve the systematic review process, it is our ethical and professional responsibility. Both researchers and librarians need to adapt. It may be uncomfortable for researchers and librarians to follow these standards, but without doing so, the crisis will only get bigger and over time, erode the trustworthiness of systematic reviews, leading to poor health and societal outcomes. SWiRL-SR™ is intended to become an international standard, for all disciplines, settings, or sectors. I have witnessed the impact and importance that our guided expertise has on the process. If the process is followed properly with librarians-in-the-loop, systematic reviews can have a positive societal impact. Together researchers and librarians can SWiRL in tandem, systematically leading each other to thoughtful and carefully crafted, high-quality evidence syntheses.

​

Additional Notes: Research Librarians/Information Specialists (Informationists), for the purposes of this work, will be referred to collectively as Librarians. The Librarians referenced here are already supporting or are gaining proficiency to support researchers and participate in creating comprehensive literature searches for systematic reviews (used here to describe the broader category of evidence syntheses, not the single review type), as well as assist with helping researchers to understand the review process. SWiRL-SR ‘s intended audience are researchers or those performing systematic reviews, however librarians may need to adopt the standards to assist with team accountability when collaborating at the co-author level.​
​

*Libraries who contributed data to this project were not informed of the contents and have not endorsed the project, its contents, website(s), products or services and/or future iterations, derivatives or other products/tools/presentations that may be developed in collaboration or partnership with SWiRL-SR™. ​
​

In combination with SWiRL-SR™, you should also consult the following related to authorship:

• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
• MLA and CHLA/ABSC Authorship Statement: “It’s Time to Acknowledge Authorship for Librarians and Information Professionals on Evidence Synthesis Publications”
• Your institutional, regional, or governmental best practice standards and policies for research and/or authorship.

​

SWiRL-SR Checklist- ​download PDF​ version now!

​

Before contacting the Librarian (Information Specialist, Informationist)

​

1.1

Topic selection

Perform a search to ensure that the review topic/question has not already been addressed by another review team or another registered protocol (e.g. Prospero, OSF), to see if it is still feasible and not in direct conflict before finalizing the research question prior to contacting the Librarian for collaboration. In addition to searching the bibliographic databases or related sources, consult with established collaborations (e.g. Cochrane, JBI, Campbell) relevant to your discipline or question.

​
​

1.2

Seed Papers

Once you have a topic, conduct test searches before finalizing your research question. Share any relevant search strategies, keywords, and “seed papers” with the Librarian to help guide them to relevant keywords or additional articles to create the preliminary or master search in the first database. The preference for receiving the seed papers is the PubMed PMIDs for papers/topics in health/medicine. Sending the articles without PMIDs will slow down the search development phase.

​
​

1.3

Software/

Tools

Contact the library, based on staff availability, for additional training to ensure all team members are adequately trained in the tools/applications, or software researchers will be engaging with during the review, as well as knowledge of the major steps of the review process.

​
​

1.4

Timeline/

Feasibility

Ensure all team members have a reasonable timeline (>12 months) with reasonable expectations to complete the review -approx. 1-3 months per review stage. Please allow 2 – 3+ months for the search process to be complete from the time all items are submitted and there are no further edits necessary. Check with the Librarian to see if there are additional wait times due to the number of requests and/or staff availability. Giving lead time is important because Librarians often have multiple responsibilities or commitments to the library beyond systematic reviews such as instruction, reference, and/or staff meetings.

​
​

Standards/Guidance

​

2.1

Standards/

Manuals

Adhere to the professional standards or manuals related to your discipline, (e.g. Cochrane Handbook, National Academies (formerly IOM) Standards for Systematic Reviews/Finding What Works in Healthcare currently being updated, JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, Cochrane MECIR).

​
​

2.2

Reporting Standards

/Guidelines

Report the review using established reporting guidelines/standards (e.g. PRISMA, MOOSE, ROSES, TARCiS). Consult with the Equator Network and/or engage the Librarian to help locate the appropriate reporting guidelines/standards when unsure.

​
​

2.3

PRISMA extensions

When applicable, apply the appropriate PRISMA extensions for the reporting of other review types such as PRISMA SCR for scoping reviews, PRISMA NMA for Network Meta-analyses, and others in development.

​
​

2.4

Reporting of

SWiRL-SR™

​
​

Librarians can cite and address the use of SWiRL-SR in the protocol or manuscript. A withdrawal of the Librarian co-author on the final manuscript can signal issues are present.

​
​

Authorship

​

3.1

Co-author

Invitation

Invite the Librarian formally in a written format to request their authorship. Request at the onset of the review when formulating the research question. Include an early discussion of the author order. Once authorship is accepted, it should be granted for any resulting presentations or publications based upon the initial review/search. Ask the Librarian for permission to grant co-authorship each time there is an update or additional scholarship/publications based upon their search or search methods.

​
​

3.2

Time of Acceptance

Allow time for the Librarian to accept or decline an invitation for authorship. Do not assume authorship or use their name without their written consent. If the Librarian accepts co-authorship, include the Librarian in important team discussions that impact the protocol, study selection criteria, methods, the search, the final manuscript, updates, subsequent publications/presentations, not following the standards, PRISMA, ICMJE, SWiRL-SR™. If the Librarian declines co-authorship at any point in the review, remove sections that mention the search was performed by a Librarian and do not acknowledge the Librarian, without their written consent. A Librarian has the right to decline or refuse to co-author or help with a request due to personal or ethical reasons, when it is not aligned or conflicts with the Librarian’s values and/or personal/ethical choices, including but not limited to their mental health and/or psychological well-being.

​
​

3.3

Team

Members

Provide a list of team members, including their contact information with the team, and share any changes to team membership or contact information, including the Librarians, if they change jobs or affiliations, with the team. The team must have a minimum of 2-3 independent reviewers to screen or serve as a tiebreaker.

​
​

3.4

Acknowledge

If the Librarian didn’t conduct the search but assisted you with the search or review, formally ask them in writing if they would like to be acknowledged.

​
​

3.5

Affiliation Changes

If your Librarian changes jobs/academic affiliation during the project, do not remove them from the review team. A co-authored Librarian is a committed member of the team until the moment they inform you otherwise. If they do not wish to remain involved, they must inform you in writing, and they will be able to refer you to another Librarian when it’s requested. Do not formally withdraw them from the review without their written consent. If they decide to continue with the team, they should be included in the review stages and decisions in the same way, continuing to meet the SWiRL-SR™ standards.

​
​

3.6

Submissions

Don’t submit the protocol, conference abstract and/or papers (or any related publication) without asking for the Librarian’s name, degree, affiliation, ORCiD, email address, and headshot (if applicable) for their preference on how they would like their listing to appear. The Librarian is not responsible for paying fees associated with Open Access (OA) publishing, like Article Processing Charges (APCs) if they are not the primary investigator. Include the Librarian (can work with the team to find an appropriate journal) when selecting a journal; the Librarian can decline co-authorship if they determine the journal is predatory, fake, a paper mill, questionable, or lacks quality standards.

​
​

3.7

AI Use

Disclose to the Librarian, if AI was used at any point in the review process. Allow them to be part of the decision-making process, on whether they support its use and how it's reported.

​
​

Provide to the Librarian: Requests may be placed on hold for not meeting these requirements in a reasonable amount of time or canceled. They can be reopened, but you will lose prioritization in the queue to fulfill other requests made during this gap.

​

4.1

Research

Question

At the project onset, provide a specific research question with clear inclusion/exclusion criteria and be open to modifying the question/criteria if it is too broad or too narrow, and remain open to changing the review type if the Librarian suggests one better suited for the review question.

​
​

4.2

Seed

Papers

At the project onset, provide seed papers (recommended 5-10) that exemplifies the research question/topic. This requires some initial searching before deciding on a topic/question. Irrelevant or unfocused articles will result in delays later in the search process and can result in significant lag time for the project.

​
​

4.3

Protocol Stages

At the project onset, provide a protocol draft in the format preferred by the registry (e.g. PROSPERO, OSF). The Librarian will help write the search methods section and should be co-authored on the draft protocol, invite the Librarian to help edit and give feedback on the draft prior to registration. The search section of the protocol should be left blank, for the Librarian to complete prior to registration. Your focus is on the methods sections of the protocol (beyond the search) for all other review stages. Allow time for the Librarian to give feedback. It may take several iterations for it to be ready to register. PROSPERO alone is not a complete registration without an attached full protocol document.

​
​

4.4

Protocol

Registry

Work with the Librarian to register the protocol with the final version approved by them and all team members. Share the registration/ DOI link with all team members and include the Librarian. Do not register the review until the Librarian is able to provide the detailed search or description/search methods. The Librarian may send the search to be peer reviewed using PRESS by another librarian before the search methods are available to register.

​
​

4.5

Search

Feedback

Throughout the process, provide feedback to all search iterations promptly to avoid adding more time to the search stage.

Refer to 6.6 Zombie Reviews.

​
​

Team Collaboration

​

5.1

Communication

Keep the Librarian-in-the-loop and involved in the systematic review from the beginning to end and share the project timetable that outlines the tasks, completion dates, and the team member responsibilities, if available. Inform the Librarian in a timely fashion if the review project is significantly delayed or terminates unexpectedly. Refer to 6.6 Zombie Reviews.

​

​

5.2

Sharing Drafts

Give the Librarian notice before submitting the final manuscript to the publisher, have a Librarian review the draft and any prior drafts (including figures, tables, and supplementary materials), and incorporate their feedback and/or edits. If they notice a serious methodological flaw, you will work towards correcting it. This may result in having to repeat a stage of the review process, which makes sharing earlier drafts important.

​
​

5.3

Revisions

Allow the Librarian adequate time of at least 2-3 weeks to review the draft(s) or final manuscripts (including figures, tables, and supplementary materials), as well as resubmissions and final copy edits.

​
​

5.4

Responses

Share the peer reviewers' feedback and allow the Librarian to contribute to responses for work they produced, especially the search.

​
​

5.5

Primary Investigator (P.I.)

Role and Responsibilities

The P.I. will be involved in the review and will attend most of the consultation meetings with the Librarian, considered reasonable by both parties, and will provide feedback to all search iterations promptly to avoid adding more time to the search stage. A lack of presence and/or input from the P.I. may result in the withdrawal of the Librarian from the project. Refer to Standard 6.6 Zombie Reviews.

​
​

5.6

Changes

Will use the search strategies and search methods exactly as provided by the Librarian and will discuss any changes with the Librarian, who must agree, or they may decline to make the changes based on their expertise and the current standards and best practices. At the discretion of the Librarian, the Librarian may choose to publish the search strategies.

​
​

5.7

Major Decisions

Feedback

Include the Librarian (information specialist) in all major decisions or protocol revisions, as well as updates to the review, and incorporate their feedback. All Librarian (information specialist) input or feedback should be weighted the same as the other team members' feedback.

​
​

Post Review and Beyond

​

6.1

Interlibrary Loan

Articles for which your library does not have access to will need to be ordered by the team using your Library’s interlibrary loan service. You should check to see if the articles are already in your library’s collection by searching their card catalog. If you don’t know how to do this, a member of the library staff can assist you (not necessarily the Librarian co-author who is working with your review team).

​
​

6.2

Updates

Include the Librarian as a co-author and/or acknowledge them with their consent for any updates of the original review, do not recycle, reproduce or publish any of their previous work, including but not limited to their search strategies, search methods, appendices, without their written consent. A breach in sharing their information may lead to the Librarian contacting the journal to have their information removed. Additionally, not including their work on a published review, may result in the Librarian having to reach out to the journal post-publication to have their information added as a correction or errata.

​
​

6.3

Derivatives

Include the Librarian and/or acknowledge with their consent for any derivatives of the original review (such as conference proceedings, book chapters, subsequent reviews/protocols etc.) do not borrow, remix or use their previous work, search strategies, and/or search methods without proper attribution or co-authorship (if the librarian agrees and is involved in the process as outlined in SWiRL-SR™). Refer to 6.6 Zombie Reviews.

​
​

6.4

Citations

Share the published citations with the Librarian when the Librarian is mentioned, acknowledged or is listed as a co-author. Provide the related DOI/link (if available).

​
​

6.5

Data

Research teams are responsible for complying with any data sharing, archiving or institutional/federal policies.

​
​

6.6

Zombie Reviews/Fees

Zombie Reviews-If there is no follow up at any point in the process, the library/Librarian may choose to charge a fee for their lost time if it’s been over 90 days since the last correspondence and attempts by the Librarian to follow up. An email response alone is not sufficient. The work requested by the Librarian necessary to fulfill their work must be demonstrated (e.g. reviewing/providing search feedback, attending meetings, providing a protocol draft, providing a final manuscript). Not including the Librarian as a co-author or publishing a search/search methods, protocol or full review without their consent may also incur a fee, as well as result in requests for a correction, errata with the publisher. Libraries may charge this fee, even if the library/Librarian typically doesn’t charge one. Any possible fee’s that could be incurred throughout the review process will be discussed in writing at the onset of every project. Failure to pay a fee, could result in loss of privileges from collaborating with the library/staff/Librarian on pending and future reviews.

​
​

A note about student projects, concurrent reviews and fees for service.

Librarians do not support student projects to meet a course requirement, some exceptions may be made if publishing the review, each library/institution has their own policy. Consult with your Librarian to find a project more suitable for learning the review process, a systematic review is not suitable for projects under a year and without a team in place. Please do not submit more than one request to work with a Librarian at a time. Librarians cannot work on concurrent requests. Additionally, some libraries charge a fee for Librarian collaboration on systematic reviews. Check with your institution for their policies/fee schedule.

​

Disclaimer:

The information provided here, related content, or information on the website(s) as noted below, including any future derivatives; are for general informational purposes only. It is not advice or legal help. [Stephanie Roth] and all entities, place of business or employment, assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. Links to external websites are provided for convenience and do not imply endorsement. [Stephanie Roth] is not responsible for the accuracy, reliability, or content of third-party websites (including but not limited to links, organizations, and/or websites). Use of any content, products/services, website or SWiRL-SR™ is at your own risk, and [Stephanie Roth] is not liable for any retaliation and/or damages arising from its use. The information provided on this website or SWiRL-SR™ does not necessarily represent those of her employer or business/businesses. SWiRL-SR™ was created from examining and analyzing the data from a compiled data set. If information about SWiRL-SR™ appears outside of this (​www.swirlsr.org​, ​https://swirlsr.org/profile/about​; ​www.swirlsr.com​; ​www.systematicreviewlibrarian.com​) or the following website(s): (​www.systematicreviewlibrarians.com​; ​www.systematicreviewlibrarian.org​; ​www.evidencesynthesislibrarian.com​; ​www.evidencesynthesislibrarian.org​) the content cannot be trusted and is not endorsed by [Stephanie Roth]. The information listed here as well as relevant website or partnerships may be updated at any time without notice. You may request a current copy by writing to ​systematicreviewlibrarian@outlook.com​.
​

Copyright/Trademark:

Copyright: SWiRL-SR. All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2026. Stephanie Roth.

Trademark: SWiRL-SR (2026). Stephanie Roth.

​

Credit:

Librarians in the loop: ​https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.05112#:~:text=The%20work%20of%20discovering%20informal,March%202022)%2C%205%20pages.​​

​

Reproductions or derivatives with attribution must be requested in writing to ​systematicreviewlibrarian@outlook.com​.
​

Disclosure:

I do have potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

I own the website/business (Systematic Review Librarian) and may have related physical and/or digital products, that may result in financial gain. I have no direct financial gain from SWiRL-SR ™ itself and the contents here are provided for general informational purposes only. Disclosures may be updated at any time without notice. You may request a current copy by writing to ​systematicreviewlibrarian@outlook.com​.

​

Additional Reading

The following references are examples of librarians’ involvement in systematic reviews to demonstrate their growing and specialized expertise, as well as the impact they have on the improving the process.

​

1. Townsend WA, Anderson PF, Ginier EC, et al. A competency framework for Librarians involved in systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017;105(3):268-275. doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.189

2. 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;111(3):728-732. doi:10.5195/jmla.2023.1628

3. Riegelman A, Kocher M. A Model for Developing and Implementing a Systematic Review Service for Disciplines outside of the Health Sciences. Reference & User Services Quarterly. 2018;58(1):22-27.

4. Desmeules R, Campbell S, Dorgan M. Acknowledging Librarians’ Contributions to Systematic Review Searching. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l’Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada. 2016;37(2). doi:10.5596/c16-014

5. Smith SKD, Burton K, Carroll S. Acting in self-defense: The creation of an online systematic review tutorial to assist Librarian consultations. Public Services Quarterly. 2024;20(4):225-236. doi:10.1080/15228959.2024.2391312

6. O’Dwyer LC, Wafford QE. Addressing challenges with systematic review teams through effective communication: a case report. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021;109(4):643-647. doi:10.5195/jmla.2021.1222

7. 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;109(4):637-642. doi:10.5195/jmla.2021.1221

8. Park SG. AI and Systematic Reviews: Can AI Tools Replace Librarians in the Systematic Search Process? Science & Technology Libraries. 0(0):1-22. doi:10.1080/0194262X.2025.2521519

9. Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research 2018 | NHMRC. Accessed February 19, 2025. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-2018

10. Booth A. Barriers and facilitators to evidence-based library and information practice: An international perspective. Perspectives in International Librarianship. 2011;2011(1). doi:10.5339/pil.2011.1

11. Lê ML, Neilson CJ, Winkler J. Benchmarking Librarian Support of Systematic Reviews in the Sciences, Humanities, and Social Sciences. College & Research Libraries. 2024;85(4):606. doi:10.5860/crl.85.4.606

12. Kennedy MR, Kung JY. Bibliometric analysis of Librarian involvement in systematic reviews at the University of Alberta. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2024;45(1):16-29. doi:10.29173/jchla29696

13. 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;107(3):411-419. doi:10.5195/jmla.2019.443

14. Saleh AA, Huebner F. Characteristics and Impact of Librarian Co-authored Systematic Reviews: A Bibliometric Analysis. medRxiv. Preprint posted online February 20, 2020:2020.02.14.20023119. doi:10.1101/2020.02.14.20023119

15. Comer CC, McElfresh J, Jacobsen AL, et al. Cumulative Repository for Evidence Synthesis and/or Systematic Review Service Material. Published online March 18, 2022. Accessed January 30, 2025. https://osf.io/689hr/

16. 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;112(4):357-363. doi:10.5195/jmla.2024.1930

17. Ludeman E, Downton K, Shipper AG, Fu Y. Developing a Library Systematic Review Service: A Case Study. Medical Reference Services Quarterly. 2015;34(2):173-180. doi:10.1080/02763869.2015.1019323

18. Rethlefsen ML, Murad MH, Livingston EH. Engaging medical Librarians to improve the quality of review articles. JAMA. 2014;312(10):999-1000. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.9263

19. Daudt HML, van Mossel C, Scott SJ. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:48. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-48

20. Bradley-Ridout G, Parker R, Sikora L, et al. Exploring Librarians’ practices when teaching advanced searching for knowledge synthesis: results from an online survey. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA. 2024;112(3):238.

21. Chiang B, McClurg C. How developing a point of need training tool for evidence synthesis can improve Librarian support for researchers. Health Info Libraries J. 2024;41(2):205-210. doi:10.1111/hir.12524

22. Meert D, Torabi N, Costella J. Impact of Librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(4):267-277. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.004

23. Wissinger CL. Is there a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic review process? Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2018;106(2):248-250. doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.387

24. Bullers K, Howard AM, Hanson A, et al. It takes longer than you think: Librarian time spent on systematic review tasks. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(2):198-207. doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.323

25. Aamodt M, Huurdeman H, Strømme H. Librarian Co-Authored Systematic Reviews are Associated with Lower Risk of Bias Compared to Systematic Reviews with Acknowledgement of Librarians or No Participation by Librarians. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. 2019;14(4):103-127. doi:10.18438/eblip29601

26. Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):617-626. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025

27. Ibragimova I, Fulbright H. Librarians and information specialists as methodological peer-reviewers: a case-study of the International Journal of Health Governance. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2024;9(1):1. doi:10.1186/s41073-023-00142-4

28. Kallaher A, Eldermire ERB, Fournier CT, et al. Library systematic review service supports evidence-based practice outside of medicine. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2020;46(6):102222. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102222

29. Li L, Tian J, Tian H, et al. Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a Librarian. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(9):1001-1007. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.003

30. Smith LC. Reviews and Reviewing: Approaches to Research Synthesis. An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2024;75(3):245-267. doi:10.1002/asi.24851

31. Price C. Systematic review as class assignments? Covidence. May 16, 2022. Accessed November 17, 2025. https://www.covidence.org/blog/elementor-2112/

32. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376-380. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006

33. Brunskill A, Hanneke R. The case of the disappearing Librarians: analyzing documentation of Librarians’ contributions to systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2022;110(4):409-418. doi:10.5195/jmla.2022.1505

34. Schellinger J, Sewell K, Bloss JE, Ebron T, Forbes C. The effect of Librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):e0256833. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256833

35. Sollenberger JF, Holloway RG. The evolving role and value of libraries and Librarians in health care. JAMA. 2013;310(12):1231-1232. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.277050

36. Price C. The Librarian’s Role in a Systematic Review Team. Covidence. July 20, 2021. Accessed September 11, 2025. https://www.covidence.org/blog/the-Librarians-role-in-a-systematic-review-team/

37. Harris MR. The Librarian’s roles in the systematic review process: a case study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93(1):81-87.

38. Haines T, McKnight L, Duku E, Perry L, Thoma A. The Role of Systematic Reviews in Clinical Research and Practice. Clinics in Plastic Surgery. 2008;35(2):207-214. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2007.10.003

39. Roth SC. Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2018;106(4):514+.

40. Koffel JB. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of Librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0125931. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125931

41. Pullin AS, Macura B. Verifying authors’ claims to have conducted a Systematic Review? A checklist for journal editors and peer reviewers. Environ Evid. 2025;14(1):8. doi:10.1186/s13750-025-00361-w

42. Campbell S, Dorgan M. What to Do When Everyone Wants You to Collaborate: Managing the Demand for Library Support in Systematic Review Searching. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l’Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada. 2015;36(1):11-19. doi:10.29173/jchla/jabsc.v36i1.24353

43. Logan J. Why do researchers co‐author evidence syntheses with Librarians? A mixed‐methods study. Research synthesis methods. 2023;14(3):489-503. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1629

​

Many thanks to the following organizations who contributed their Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or co-author agreement/policy to make this project possible.

​

Augusta University, Robert B. Greenblatt, M.D. Library

Austin Health & Mercy Hospital for Women, Health Sciences Library

ChristianaCare, Medical Libraries

Cooper Medical School of Rowan University

Duke University, Medical Center Library & Archives

Emory University Libraries, Woodruff Health Sciences Center Library

Indiana University Library

Long Island Jewish Medical Center Library

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, MSK Library

National Jewish Health Library

Princeton University Library

Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, Boxer Library

Ruth Lilly Medical Library at Indiana University School of Medicine

Scripps Mercy Hospital, Melisa Reasner McGuire Health Sciences Library

Stoney Brook University Libraries, Health Sciences Library

Temple University Libraries

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Davis Library

The University of Iowa, Hardin Library

Thomas Jefferson University, Scott Memorial Library

University of Basel, University Medical Library

University at Buffalo Libraries, The Abbott Library

University of Connecticut, UCONN Library

University of Massachusetts, Amherst Libraries

University of New Mexico Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center

University of Pennsylvania, Holman Biotech Commons

University of South Alabama, Charles M Baugh Biomedical Library

University of South Australia, Library

University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Health Sciences Library

University of Texas Libraries – phase II

University of Victoria Libraries

Weill Cornell Medicine, Samuel J. Wood Library

West Virginia University, Health Sciences Library

​

Stephanie Roth is the copyright owner of this website. Content cannot be resold, shared or reproduced without permission of the copyright owner.

​