Jessica R. Page

Interlibrary Service Requests For Locally and Electronically Available Items: Patterns of Use, Users, and Canceled Requests

As the use of the Ohio State University Libraries interlibrary services has increased, there have been more requests to borrow items that are already available to patrons locally, often in electronic format. Patterns relating to why patrons could not find locally available materials were identified in the record of canceled interlibrary requests for calendar year 2007. These requests originated more frequently from certain academic departments, occurred more often for articles than books, and were most common for items published one to six years earlier. These requests were also associated with problematic OpenURL links to publisher or content provider Web pages.

Exploring the Veterinary Literature: A Bibliometric Methodology for Identifying Interdisciplinary and Collaborative Publications

Veterinary medical research traditionally focuses on animal health and wellness; however, research activities at veterinary colleges extend beyond these traditional areas. In this study, we analyzed eleven years of Web of Knowledge-indexed peer-reviewed articles from researchers at the twenty-eight United States American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) accredited veterinary colleges. We had three goals in assessing the published literature of veterinary college researchers. First, we identified a list of journals and research areas outside veterinary medicine in which veterinary researchers publish. This list of journals can be customized to identify those most essential at each institution. Second, we identified collaborative work by veterinary researchers across disciplines and institutions. Using textual analysis tools and visualizations helped us illustrate and clarify these data. Last, we developed a methodology for defining an interdisciplinary serials list outside a subject core that can be customized for specific institutions and subject areas.

A Systematic Review of the Quality of IV Fluid Therapy in Veterinary Medicine

Objective To evaluate the quality of the veterinary literature investigating IV fluid therapy in dogs, cats, horses, and cattle. Design Systematic review. Procedures The preferred reporting of items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) was employed for systematic review of all relevant IV fluid therapy manuscripts published from January 1969 through December 2016 in the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International (CABI) database. Independent grading systems used to evaluate manuscripts included the updated CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2012 checklist, risk of bias for animal intervention studies, criteria for levels of evidence, and methodological quality (Jadad scale). The quality of articles published before and after 2010 was compared. Results One hundred and thirty-nine articles (63 dogs, 7 cats, 39 horses, 30 cattle) from 7,258 met the inclusion criteria. More than 50% of the manuscripts did not comply with minimal requirements for reporting randomized controlled trials. The most non-compliant items included identification of specific predefined objectives or a hypothesis, identification of trial design, how sample size was determined, randomization, and blinding procedures. Most studies were underpowered and at risk for selection, performance, and detection bias. The overall quality of the articles improved for articles published after 2010. Conclusion and clinical relevance Most of the veterinary literature investigating the administration of IV fluid therapy in dogs, cats, horses, and cattle is descriptive, does not comply with standards for evidence, or provide adequate translation to clinical practice. Authors should employ and journal editors should enforce international consensus recommendations and guidelines for publication of data from animal experiments investigating IV fluid therapy.

Accessibility of published research to practicing veterinarians

Objectives This study established the percentage of veterinary research articles that are freely available online, availability differences inside and outside of core veterinary medicine publications, sources and trends in article availability over time, and author archiving policies of veterinary journals. This research is particularly important for unaffiliated practitioners who lack broad subscription access and the librarians who assist them. Methods Web of Science citation data were collected for articles published from 2000–2014 by authors from twenty-eight accredited US colleges of veterinary medicine. A sample of these articles was searched by title in Google Scholar to determine which were freely available online and their sources. Journals represented in this dataset and a basic list of veterinary serials were cross-referenced with the Sherpa/RoMEO database to determine author archiving policies and the percentage of articles that could potentially be made freely available. Results Over half (62%) of the sample articles were freely available online, most of which (57%) were available from publishers’ websites. Articles published more recently were more likely to be freely available. More articles were found to be available in 2017 (62%) than in 2015 (57%). Most (62%) of the included journals had policies allowing authors to archive copies of their articles. Conclusions Many articles are freely available online, but opportunity exists to archive additional articles while complying with existing copyright agreements. Articles in veterinary medicine–specific journals are less likely to be freely available than those in interdisciplinary journals. Requirements for federally funded research have likely influenced article availability and may continue to do so.

Essential and core books for veterinary medicine

Objectives This study defined core and essential lists of recent, English-language veterinary medicine books using a data-driven methodology for potential use by a broad audience, including libraries that are building collections supporting veterinary sciences and One Health initiatives. Methods Book titles were collected from monograph citation databases, veterinary examination reading lists, veterinary college textbook and library reserve lists, and published bibliographies. These lists were combined into a single list with titles ranked by the number of occurrences. Results The methodology produced a core list of 122 monographs and an essential list of 33 titles. All titles are recent, edition neutral, English language monographs. One title is out of print. Conclusions The methodology captured qualitative and quantitative input from four distinct populations who use veterinary monographs: veterinary practitioners, educators, researchers, and librarians. Data were collected and compiled to determine core and essential lists that represented all groups. Unfortunately, data are not available for all subareas of veterinary medicine, resulting in uneven subject coverage. This methodology can be replicated and adapted for other subject areas.