Barbara A. Epstein

Evaluation of a Self-Paced Learning Module to Teach Responsible Literature Searching for Research**

The unanticipated death of a healthy research study volunteer at a major university highlighted the importance of a comprehensive and exhaustive literature review in conducting responsible research [1]. When this unfortunate event was investigated, it became evident that many researchers who perform literature searches have little guidance about what constitutes an appropriate or sufficient search to support human subject research. The researcher in that study had completed a basic search of MEDLINE and recent texts but had not conducted an extensive search, thereby missing relevant published research [2, 3]. After many of its members conducted literature searches themselves, the committee assigned to investigate this event found it was divided on what constitutes a sufficient literature search to support human subject research [4]. The Medical Library Association (MLA) recommended development of standards for literature searching to help institutional review boards assess the quality and comprehensiveness of literature searches in studies under review, and the association developed a policy statement on the role of expert searching in the health sciences [5–7]. In an article published long before this unfortunate event, Cullen and Mason decried the lack of standards for health sciences literature searching:

Open Access: Implications for Evidence-based Practice

Have you ever read an abstract for the “perfect” research article, only to find that you have no access to the article? Frustrating, right? You imagine a world in which articles describing research results were freely available on the Internet. You wouldn’t have to bother with journal subscriptions, license restrictions for electronic resources, or interlibrary loan requests. Emergency nurses, health professionals, and students from remote or economically deprived areas would have ready access to the same evidence-based information available in the most advanced medical centers. This is the premise—and the promise—of open access publishing. In an article in Library Journal, Van Orsdel and Born comment, “[Open access] has been touted as the liberator of information that wants to be free, the arbiter of shared intellectual property rights, and an engine that can drive discovery, invention, cures and economies. It has also been vilified as an assault on capitalism, a catalyst for the collapse of responsible publishing and the rise of junk science, and a naïve invention of some pointy-headed idealists who have no idea how the real world works.” Open access is a new model for dissemination of “royalty-free” information, defined as information produced by scholars without expectation of payment. Open access journals are digital, online, and free of charge to readers. There are no price barriers, such as fees for subscriptions, licenses, or pay-per-view. While authors must be properly acknowledged and cited, most copyright and licensing restrictions are removed, permitting users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles. While the concept of free distribution of information is not new, interest in open access publishing gained support in the 1990s, prompted by the realization that the rapidly expanding Internet had the ability to deliver information instantaneously to anyone with a computer and a network connection. As the Internet grew, journal publishing migrated from print to electronic format, broadening access for authorized users who no longer had to visit the library to find articles, while limiting access for the unaffiliated and the general public. Even as users’ appetite for information was expanding, mergers and acquisitions among publishers of scholarly journals reduced competition and led to annual inflation rates of 8% to 10%, forcing libraries and individuals to curtail journal subscriptions, particularly in the sciences. Pricing models for electronic journals often are based on the size of the institution and bundled packages, rather than the single copy subscription model from the older print world. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ; www. doaj.org) lists “free, full-text, quality controlled scientific and scholarly journals” in all subjects and languages that do not charge readers or their institutions for access. On July 8, 2008, DOAJ listed 3487 journals, with 1185 of these journals searchable at the article level. There were 344 titles in Biology and Life Sciences and 1037 titles in Health Sciences, including 24 in Nursing. The quality ranges from prestigious titles such as Public Library of Science and BMJ to lesser-known journals from developing countries hoping to find a global audience. Not surprisingly, open access publishing has generated intense controversy. Publishers are protective of their income stream and point to the value they add by organizing the peer review and publishing processes, investing in software and hardware to distribute their product, and marketing their brands. Authors and editors provide labor and intellectual content for little or no compensation. Libraries have almost no control over rising costs and are caught between users’ demand for information and their own shrinking budgets. Scholarly societies are hesitant to embrace open access, because they often derive substantial income from their “non-profit” publishing operations, allowing them to provide more member benefits and avoid raising membership fees. And a growing consumer movement argues that because a substantial amount of research is governmentfunded, taxpayers should have not have to pay twice for access to the results of publicly funded research. Barbara A. Epstein is Director, Health Sciences Library System, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.

Health sciences libraries in the United States: new directions

This article is the third in a series in this regular feature. The intention of the series is to look at important global developments in health science libraries. These articles will serve as a road map, describing the key changes in the field and exploring factors driving these changes. The present article by the current president of the Medical Library Association outlines two important developments in the United States. The topics chosen for consideration are national initiatives in the United States impacting health sciences libraries and librarians and enhanced roles for U.S. health sciences librarians in providing support for research. J.M.