GIBLIB (4.0). GIBLIB, 811 W 7Th Street, 13th Floor, Los Angeles, CA; https://www.giblib.com/; Contact for institutional pricing https://www.giblib.com/services/institutional-pricing; Individual pricing structure: Basic, Standard, and Premium plans. Compatible with PC, Mac, tablet, and mobile.

VOSviewer (version 1.6.17, July 22, 2021). Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, The Netherlands. https://www.vosviewer.com; free, donations accepted. Bibliometrix (version 3.1, Sep 24, 2021). Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Naples Federico II, Italy. info@bibliometrix.org; https://www.bibliometrix.org/; free, donations accepted.

Researchers grapple with a challenging and consequential decision each time they choose a journal for manuscript submission. There are several online tools that attempt to identify appropriate journals for a manuscript, but each of these tools has shortcomings in terms of the journal data they provide and the exploration functionality they offer-and not one of these tools is open source. Jot is a free and open-source web application that matches manuscripts in the fields of biomedicine and life sciences with suitable journals, based on a manuscript's title, abstract, and (optionally) citations. Jot gathers a wealth of data on journal quality, impact, fit, and open access options that can be explored through a dashboard of linked, interactive visualizations.

3D printing is an emerging trend in medical care [1]. Medical libraries can play a key role in advancing this new technology [2]. Using a National Library of Medicine (NLM) grant, the medical library was able to purchase a basic 3D printer to create models for patient care and medical education. Despite a slow rollout for the new technology, there was a strong need once word of mouth spread about the new 3D printer. The one-year grant cycle, as well as the following three years, provide supporting evidence that even a basic 3D printer can advance patient care for clinicians and improve medical education for students [3]. The popularity of the technology, clinical support and demand, as well as student interest can drive the program forward on its own and support the medical library's mission to improve community care and create an environment of enhanced learning [1].

The National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC). 8400 Corporate Drive, Suite 500, Landover, MD 20785; https://naric.com/; free.

OBJECTIVE: Health sciences librarian roles are evolving to better meet the needs of faculty. This study explores nursing faculty needs at the University of British Columbia through the research lifecycle framework of planning, conducting, disseminating, and assessing the impact of their research. METHODS: A mixed methods survey study with Likert scale, multiple-choice, or ordinal ranking-scale questions and six open-response questions was conducted. The format was a web-based Qualtrics survey; participants had approximately three weeks to respond. RESULTS: Nursing faculty identified the dissemination phase as benefiting most from library support prioritizing reference management and archiving research data as the top needs in that phase. Assessing impact skills such as citation analysis and Altmetrics training was ranked second. The Planning phase was ranked third with systematic review and literature review support most needed. The Conducting phase was identified as the phase where they needed the least support. CONCLUSION: Understanding the needs of researchers and enhancing scholar productivity is vital to offering responsive library research services. Across the research lifecycle, nursing faculty identified reference management, data management, metrics evaluation, systematic reviews, and literature reviews as the key areas for which they need support.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared three point-of-care tools (PoCTs) to determine which PoCT was rated highest based on key features and characteristics by registered nurses. METHODS: The PoCTs reviewed were Nursing Reference Center Plus, ClinicalKey for Nursing, and UpToDate. Nurses were asked to use each PoCT to answer three clinical questions and then rate their experience based on the following areas: currency, relevancy, layout, navigation, labeling, and use of filters. They were also asked to indicate their familiarity with each PoCT, their overall opinions, and demographic information. RESULTS: Seventy-six nurses completed the entire survey. Ratings of PoCTs did not differ by participant characteristics. Participants were most familiar with UpToDate, and average ratings were similar across all three PoCTs. Answers to open-ended questions suggested that nurses' experiences searching and locating relevant information to address clinical questions varied and that brand recognition might have impacted preference. DISCUSSION: None of the PoCTs was significantly preferred over the others, nor received high ratings, which suggests that organizations need to survey their nurses to determine which PoCT is preferred by their staff. Findings also suggest that institutional priorities can guide the decision whether a library should license multiple PoCTs, nursing, and/or non-nursing specific PoCTs. Research is needed to understand how PoCTs could better meet the information needs of registered nurses. Librarians should learn more about what types of information nurses are seeking and explore opportunities to educate nurses on how to better utilize PoCTs for their practice.

This study assessed the print collection of an Asian academic medical library using list-checking. The library's book collection was matched to Doody's Core Titles (DCT) subspecialties to identify strong and weak subject areas and understand temporal trends from 2014 to 2020. Basic sciences and nursing were the strongest subspecialties from 2018 to 2020, with many subjects having 100% matches, likely because most academic programs share the same basic sciences foundation subjects and nursing collections had been developed for many years as a long-standing program of the institution. Associated health-related disciplines was the weakest subspecialty. These subjects need to be prioritized in collection development. All subspecialties exhibited an increasing trend of matching between 2014 and 2020. Electronic books were included in the matching to DCT 2020; however, the match was low compared to print only or both print and electronic titles. DCT title matching can not only identify gaps in library collections that need to be filled but also point toward opportunities to develop strong and varied collections in medicine and allied health.

OBJECTIVE: At many institutions, literature search services are an important aspect of health science librarianship. This exploratory study analyzes how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the use of an academic hospital medical library's literature search service. METHODS: To evaluate the pandemic's impact on literature searching at The University of Tennessee Medical Center's Preston Medical Library, data were analyzed for changes from the year before the pandemic (March 1, 2019 to February 29, 2020) to the first year during the pandemic (March 1st, 2020 to February 28, 2021). This was accomplished using LibWizard, a library feedback and assessment application, to review literature search data during the two periods. Variables of interest included total searches, purpose of searches, affiliation of the searcher, and searches with a pandemic-related research question. RESULTS: A 36.6% drop in literature search service usage was reported from the pre-pandemic year to the during-pandemic year. There was a 55.3% decrease in searches intended for research, as well as significant decreases in the number of searches requested by all patron affiliations. After March 2020, 10% of all searches concerned a COVID-related topic. CONCLUSION: The overall decrease in literature search requests, decrease in research searches, decrease in searches among all patron affiliations, and increase in searches on a COVID-related topic suggest that healthcare worker and institutional priorities changed during the pandemic. The results revealed research interests during the first year of the pandemic, as well as an overall change in library service functionality.

BACKGROUND: Concerns over scientific reproducibility have grown in recent years, leading the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to require researchers to address these issues in research grant applications. Starting in 2020, training grants were required to provide a plan for educating trainees in rigor and reproducibility. Academic medical centers have responded with different solutions to fill this educational need. As experienced instructors with expertise in topics relating to reproducibility, librarians can play a prominent role in providing trainings, classes, and events to educate investigators and trainees, and bolstering reproducibility in their communities. CASE PRESENTATIONS: This special report summarizes efforts at five institutions to provide education in reproducibility to biomedical and life sciences researchers. Our goal is to expand awareness of the range of approaches in providing reproducibility services in libraries. CONCLUSIONS: Reproducibility education by medical librarians can take many forms. These specific programs in reproducibility education build upon libraries' existing collaborations, with funder mandates providing a major impetus. Collaborator needs shaped the exact type of educational or other reproducibility support and combined with each library's strengths to yield a diversity of offerings based on capacity and interest. As demand for and complexity of reproducibility education increases due to new institutional and funder mandates, reproducibility education will merit special attention.

OBJECTIVE: Point-of-care tools (PoCTs) provide evidence-based information on patient care and procedures at the time of need. Registered nurses have unique practice needs, and many PoCTs are marketed to support their practice. However, there is little reported evidence in the literature about evaluating nursing-focused PoCTs. CASE PRESENTATION: The investigators developed a rubric containing evaluation criteria based on content, coverage of nursing topics, transparency of the evidence, user perception, and customization of PoCTs for supporting nursing practice. The investigators selected five PoCTs cited in the literature and of interest to local nursing leadership: ClinicalKey for Nursing, DynaMed, Lippincott's Advisor and Procedures, Nursing Reference Center Plus, and UpToDate. Application of the rubric found Lippincott had the highest coverage of diagnoses, while ClinicalKey for Nursing had strong content focused on interventions and outcomes. Nursing Reference Center Plus provided the most well-rounded coverage of nursing terminology and topics. DynaMed and UpToDate were more transparent with indicating conflict of interest, but both had lower coverage of nursing terminology, content, and care processes. CONCLUSION: None of the five PoCTs strongly met all of the evaluated criteria. The rubric developed for this study highlights each PoCT's strengths and weaknesses that can then be used to inform the decision-making process based on priorities and budget. The investigators recommend licensing a nursing PoCT and a PoCT like DynaMed or UpToDate to provide comprehensive, evidence-based, patient care coverage and to meet the diverse information needs of nurses.

OBJECTIVE: Paired with the high cost of providing access to electronic resources in medical libraries, the inefficient use of these resources highlights the need for more efforts to promote these resources than ever before. In this study, electronic resource marketing methods were prioritized and the best strategies were determined using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). METHODS: Using an analytical survey of officials of medical libraries, the most common methods for marketing electronic resources in libraries were determined and divided into categories of strategies. Five important criteria for marketing strategies were also selected. Using the analytical hierarchy process, pairwise comparisons were performed between the alternatives (i.e., strategies), which were evaluated against the selected criteria. Data analysis was performed using Expert Choice 11 software. RESULTS: A total of 44 electronic resource marketing methods were identified and categorized into 4 strategies. On average, 43.9% of these methods were used by the surveyed libraries. The analytical hierarchy process showed that simplicity was the most important criterion and that communication networks were the best electronic resource marketing strategy. Home/off-campus access, group training, library search stations, and marketing by individual librarians were the most preferred methods of marketing electronic resources. CONCLUSION: With the availability of a variety of different methods for marketing electronic resources, medical libraries must select strategies based on important criteria depending on the characteristics of the library, librarians, and users. Thus, the analytical hierarchy process can be an effective and practical solution to decision-making by mathematically prioritizing the selection of the best strategies from a set of alternatives based on differentially weighted criteria.

OBJECTIVE: The study purpose was to understand how early months of the COVID-19 pandemic altered interlibrary loan (ILL) and document delivery (DD) in North American health science libraries (HSLs), specifically the decision-making and workflow adjustments associated with accessing their own collections and obtaining content not available via ILL. METHODS: Researchers distributed an online 26-question survey through 24 health science library email lists from January 6-February 7, 2021. Respondents reported their library's ILL and DD activities from March-August 2020, including ILL/DD usage and policies, collection access, decision-making, and workflow adjustments. In addition to calculating frequencies, cross-tabulation and statistical tests were performed to test a priori potential associations. Two researchers independently and thematically analyzed responses to the 2 open-ended questions and reached consensus on themes. RESULTS: Hospital libraries represented 52% (n=226/431) of respondents, along with 42% academic (n=179) and 6% (n=26) multi-type or other special. Only 1% (n=5) closed completely with no remote services, but many, 45% (n=194), ceased ILL of print materials. More than half (n=246/423; 58%) agreed that ILL requests likely to be filled from print remained unfilled more than is typical. Open-ended questions yielded 5 themes on ILL/DD staffing, setup, and systems; 6 on impacts for libraries and library users. CONCLUSION: Lack of communication regarding collection availability and staffing resulted in delayed or unfilled requests. Hospital and academic libraries made similar decisions about continuing services but reported different experiences in areas such as purchasing digital content. Hybrid ILL/DD workflows may continue for managing these services.

OBJECTIVE: Academics are under great pressure to publish their research, the rewards for which are well known (tenure, promotion, grant funding, professional prestige). As open access publishing gains acceptance as a publishing option, researchers may choose a "predatory publisher." The purpose of this study is to investigate the motivations and rationale of pharmacy and nursing academics in the United States to publish in open access journals that may be considered "predatory." METHODS: A 26-item questionnaire was programmed in Qualtrics and distributed electronically to approximately 4,500 academic pharmacists and nurses, 347 of whom completed questionnaires (~8%). Pairwise correlations were performed followed by a logistic regression to evaluate statistical associations between participant characteristics and whether participants had ever paid an article processing fee (APF). RESULTS: Participants who had published more articles, were more familiar with predatory publishing, and who were more concerned about research metrics and tenure were more likely to have published in open access journals. Moderate to high institutional research intensity has an impact on the likelihood of publishing open access. The majority of participants who acknowledged they had published in a predatory journal took no action after realizing the journal was predatory and reported no negative impact on their career for having done so. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide data and insight into publication decisions made by pharmacy and nursing academics. Gaining a better understanding of who publishes in predatory journals and why can help address the problems associated with predatory publishing at the root.

BACKGROUND: Veterans have a variety of unique healthcare needs and receive care from both the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and private healthcare systems. Because healthcare students will likely treat veterans at some time during their career, it is important they gain exposure to working with veterans during their professional degree programs. CASE PRESENTATION: This case report presents the development of an annual Veteran-Centered Care Conference (VCCC) at the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. The VCCC included a faculty librarian who led a multi-disciplinary team that planned and coordinated each event. Speakers and participants included university students and faculty from multiple healthcare disciplines, as well as representatives from the VA, veterans' advocacy groups, and community members (including many veterans). The purpose of the VCCC was to raise awareness of the healthcare needs of contemporary veterans. The goal of the VCCC was to improve healthcare provided to veterans by enhancing civilian health professions students' knowledge of the potential effects of military service on a person's health. CONCLUSION: After four successful events covering such topics as PTSD, specific health concerns of women veterans, substance use disorder, and homelessness, the VCCC was canceled, primarily due to low pre-registration. Examples of lessons learned and future possibilities for the VCCC and the patient-centered care conference format are discussed. This report is of particular importance given the many years the United States has been at war in the Middle East and the recent withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.