RESUMEN
A thorough literature search is a key feature of scoping reviews. We investigated the search practices used by social science researchers as reported in their scoping reviews. We collected scoping reviews published between 2015 and 2021 from Social Science Citation Index. In the 2484 included studies, we observed a 58% average annual increase in published reviews, primarily from clinical and applied social science disciplines. Bibliographic databases comprised most of the information sources in the primary search strategy (n = 9565, 75%), although reporting practices varied. Most scoping reviews (n = 1805, 73%) included at least one supplementary search strategy. A minority of studies (n = 713, 29%) acknowledged an LIS professional and few listed one as a co-author (n = 194, 8%). We conclude that to improve reporting and strengthen the impact of the scoping review method in the social sciences, researchers should consider (1) adhering to PRISMA-S reporting guidelines, (2) employing more supplementary search strategies, and (3) collaborating with LIS professionals.
RESUMEN
Librarians and information specialists are experts in designing comprehensive literature searches, such as those needed for Evidence Syntheses (ES). The contributions of these professionals to ES research teams have several documented benefits, especially when they collaborate on the project. However, librarian co-authorship is relatively rare. This study explores researcher motivations for working with librarians at the co-author level through a mixed methods design. Interviews with researchers identified 20 potential motivations that were then tested through an online questionnaire sent to authors of recently published ES. Consistent with previous findings, most respondents did not have a librarian co-author on their ES, though 16% acknowledged one in their manuscript and 10% consulted one but did not document the contribution. Search expertise was the most common motivation both to and not to co-author with librarians. Those that had or were interested in co-authoring stated that they wanted the librarians' search expertise, while those who had not or were not interested stated that they already had the necessary search expertise. Researchers who were motivated by methodological expertise and availability were more likely to have co-authored their ES with a librarian. No motivations were negatively associated with librarian co-authorship. These findings provide an overview of the motivations that influence researchers to bring a librarian into an ES investigatory team. More research is needed to substantiate the validity of these motivations.