










































 

Hypothesis, vol. 27, no. 1, Winter 2015    8 

REPORT ON THE HYPOTHESIS AND RESEARCH SECTION       
COMMUNICATION SURVEY 
 

Kristine M. Alpi, MLS, MPH, AHIP1 and Brooke L. Billman, MA, AHIP2
 

The Research Section (RS) of the Medical Library 
Association (MLA) has published Hypothesis, an open 
access journal formerly structured as a newsletter, since 
Summer 1987.  In order to plan for the future of RS’ 
research-related communications and strategies, the RS 
Executive Board and the Hypothesis Editorial Board 
decided to seek information from the health sciences 
information (HSI) community about their engagement with 
and interest in publishing in Hypothesis.   
 

Objective 
 
The purpose of this investigation was to gain insight from 
the HSI community about the current usage of the RS 
open access journal Hypothesis and possible 
improvements that would meet the needs of those 
interested in learning more about HSI research.   
 

Methods 
 
Members of the Hypothesis Editorial Board developed an 
online survey to gather information from MLA members 
and others.  It was reviewed by the RS Executive Board, 
but as the survey was anonymous and meant for section 
quality improvement, no Institutional Review Board 
review was pursued.   The link to the 20-24 question 
online survey in Survey Monkey was distributed on 
October 7, 2015 to the RS email list, announced in the 
October 15 MLA Focus, and linked from the MLA 
webpage hosting Hypothesis content. We are unsure 
whether it was forwarded to other lists.  The online survey 
was open until November 1, 2015.   
 

Results 
 
The survey was completed by 53 individuals. While 
distribution via lists is uncertain, using the MLA 
membership of approximately 3,000 as a denominator, 
the response rate was approximately 0.02%.  Of 
respondents providing demographics, 98% (n=42) were 
current MLA members and 61% (n=27) were current or 
past RS members.  Forty (98%) were based in the United 
States.  Although most respondents were in academic 
health science centers (n=27, 64%) or a college/
university (n=8, 19%), five hospital librarians (12%), one 
working outside of libraries (2%), and one retiree (2%) 
also responded. No library or iSchool faculty or students 
responded, nor did any corporate, public or specialty 
librarians.  Responses were received from four (10%) 
librarians with three or few years of experience, sixteen 
(38%) with 4-10 years, twelve (29%) with 11-20 years, 
and ten (24%) with more than 21 years. Multiple 

responses were permitted for many non-demographic 
questions resulting in percentages exceeding 100%.  In 
descending order for frequency, the most common 
avenues for becoming aware of Hypothesis were the RS 
member email list (n=20, 42%), MLA Focus (n=10, 21%), 
other MLA publication or email list (n=4 , 8%), LISTA 
(n=2, 4%), CINAHL (n=1, 2%), and forwarded messages 
from other lists (n=1, 2%).  No one reported finding it 
searching the web, and ten respondents (21%) were 
unaware of Hypothesis.   Additional avenues described in 
comments included being told by RS members in person 
at the MLA meeting (n=1) and when accessing the 
Structured Abstract writing guidelines published in 
Hypothesis used for MLA meeting submissions (n=2).   
 
Several of the questions were intended for the 
respondents who were aware of or read Hypothesis. 
When asked about frequency of reading it when it was 
published 2-3 times per year, only ten respondents (19%) 
read every issue, with an additional eleven (21%) reading 
at least one, but not all, issues per year.  Surprisingly, 32 
(60%) of the 53 respondents said they never read it; this 
presumably includes the ten who were not aware of it.  Of 
the 17 indicating how much of each publication of 
Hypothesis they read, most (n=8, 47%) read around half 
of each issue while 29% (n=5) read less than half and 
24% (n=4) read more.  
 
Twenty respondents indicated why they read Hypothesis.  
Percentages for each offered reason are shown in Figure 
1 and equal more than 100% as multiple responses could 
be selected.  The three “Other” responses are 
summarized as 1) reading about various research 
methods, 2) gaining knowledge about methods and 
techniques in medical librarianship research, and 3) using 
it as a forum to publish with research mentees.  
Readers were asked to rate the usefulness of content 
published in Hypothesis on a scale from No opinion/not-
applicable (0), Not very useful (1), Somewhat useful (2), 
to Very useful (3) in three contexts.  After removing no 
opinion responses, the average score for usefulness to 
the respondents’ current position or educational program 
(n=11) was 2.0 (SD 0.4) and the average usefulness for a 
desired position (n=10) was similar at 1.9 (SD 0.7).  
Usefulness to respondents’ research whether related to 
position or not (n=12) averaged 2.3 (SD 0.7).  
 
Many types of content have appeared or could appear in 
Hypothesis.  Respondents indicated the likelihood of 
reading each of the following content types on a scale 
ranged from Would not read (0) to Very likely to read (3).  
Table 1 shows the mean likelihood of reading this content 



 

Hypothesis, vol. 27, no. 1, Winter 2015    9 

Figure 1. Why respondents read Hypothesis, N=20 

Report on the Hypothesis, continued                                                

if presented in Hypothesis.  Almost all content types were 
rated at least somewhat likely to be read (2.0).  Those 
most often rated very likely to be read were articles 
reporting original research (n=24, 56%) or articles on 
research methods and strategies (n=26, 62%).  Content 
suggested under “Other” were 1) failed research lessons 
learned, 2) reviews of library research-related textbooks, 
and 3) summaries of new technology applications to 
library science. 
 
Another content question asked whether informal peer-
reviewed project write-ups would be of interest.  As 
currently envisioned, these would be geared towards 
librarians who are doing projects and producing 
outcomes, and perhaps even changing their practices 
based on their results. The intent is to be able to share 
outcomes, lessons learned, successes, and failures so 
that those in the HSI community can learn from one 
another.  Of the 46 respondents who answered this multi-
choice question, more than half would like to read write-
ups in Hypothesis (n=27, 59%) while the idea of reading 
these in an online, blog-type format and not having to 
wait for an issue of Hypothesis was preferred (n=32, 
70%).  Only two responded that they would not be 
interested in reading these regardless of format. 
The open-ended question “What would make you more 
likely to read Hypothesis?” generated twelve responses 
which were classified into discoverability characteristics 
(n=7) and content characteristics (n=5).  Ideas shared 
related to discoverability included: 

 more awareness and communication via email 
(TOCs, specific reference to what Hypothesis is) 

 announcements in existing channels like MLA Focus 
or MLA News or tweeting about new issues/article,  

 individual indexing of articles for inclusion in Google 
Scholar and being easier to find on the web.   

 
Content suggestions offered diverse opinions.  One 
suggested reporting research that has been through IRB 
review (expedited or otherwise), another suggested 
featuring photography by one librarian in each issue, and 
two others’ commented about the practice of research 
and publishing (shared in the respondents’ own words): 

 “Having my colleagues submit content about what 
really happens with our research efforts in libraries of 
all sizes not just academic medical center libraries.”  

 “Any journal that understands that librarians are, first 
and foremost, customer service agents would pique 
my attention. That journal would cater to real-world 
issues. Journals proposing that librarians are on par 
with actual scientists/researchers seem always to 
struggle with the fact that submissions aren't 
"scientific" enough….”    

 
The average likelihood of contributing the content types 
to Hypothesis appears in Table 1.  The scale ranged from 
Would not contribute (0) to Extremely likely (3).  Mean 
scores all fell between Not very likely (1) to Somewhat 
likely (2).  The types of content with the most respondents 

Alpi and Billman 



 

Hypothesis, vol. 27, no. 1, Winter 2015    10 

Table 1. Likelihood of Reading or Contributing Content to Hypothesis, N=41-43.  

  Reading Likelihood 
Mean Score 

Contributing Likeli-
hood Mean Score 

Articles reporting original research by health sciences librarians/
information professionals (HSLIP) 

2.5 1.7 

Articles on research methods or strategies that have been/could 
be used by HSLIP 

2.5 1.6 

Summaries of research conferences or training opportunities 2.2 1.1 

Summaries of original health informatics and librarianship disser-
tations and theses. 

2.0 1.0 

Abstracts of award-winning presentations at MLA annual and 
chapter meetings 

2.0 1.2 

Announcements of research conferences or training opportunities 2.0 1.3 

Announcements of research funding opportunities 1.6 1.2 

indicating Somewhat or Extremely likely to contribute 
were articles reporting original research (n=24, 56%) or 
articles on research methods and strategies (n=26, 62%).  
Other content contribution issues mentioned were original 
research with a research mentee and the desire only to 
report summaries of original research which is planned 
for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.  For the 
previously mentioned informal peer reviewed project write
-ups, half of respondents (n=21, 50%) would be 
interested in sharing these in Hypothesis while one-third 
(n=14, 33%) would be interested in sharing via an online, 
blog-type format and not waiting for an issue of 
Hypothesis.  Others (n=17, 40%) expressed that they 
might be interested, but don’t have a project like that in 
the works, or that they publish projects like that 
elsewhere (n=3, 7%). 
 
When asked whether they would follow an online forum to 
discuss publications read in Hypothesis, a majority said 
Maybe (n=26, 54%) or Yes (n=8, 17%) while fourteen 
(29%) indicated they would not.   There were no 
majorities on preferred comment features of an online 
forum such as required sign-in (n=14, 30%), full name 
(n=17, 36%) or first name display (n=7, 15%), and 
editorial review (n=8, 17%).  Many respondents (n=18, 
38%) had no opinion on features of such an online forum. 
 
Of the 43 respondents who answered whether or not they 
had considered publishing in Hypothesis, three 
respondents (7%) indicated they had published and two 
(5%) were considering it. The vast majority (n=38, 88%) 
had neither considered submitting or had submitted an 
article.  When asked how important a list of specific 
characteristics was in making a decision to submit work, 
more than half of respondents included peer-reviewed 
(n=32, 74%), no author fees (n=30, 70%), and online 
submission system (n=22, 51%) as being very important.  

Average scores for each characteristic are provided in 
Table 2. 
 
The preferred publication frequency of Hypothesis was 
twice a year (n=18, 43%) followed closely by more than 
twice a year (n=16, 38%), with eleven (26%) preferring on 
an ongoing basis as content arises.  Only two suggested 
annual publication. 
 
Two questions in the survey were presented only to RS 
members.  The first asked about the process and amount 
of a possible stipend for the Hypothesis editor.   Almost 
half (n=13, 45%) indicated a majority vote of RS 
members should be required to approve spending dues 
money on a stipend for the Hypothesis editor regardless 
of the amount.  Only three (10%) felt it should be up to 
the editor whether to request a stipend for editing 
Hypothesis. In terms of the amount, the responses are 
listed in order of frequency: 

 A stipend up to $100 per issue seems reasonable. 
(n=14, 48%) 

 A stipend up to $100 per year, regardless of the 
number of issues, seems reasonable. (n=5, 17%) 

 No stipend should be offered. (n=3, 10%) 
 
Five usable comments were offered.  Two respondents 
raised questions to inform the process— is a stipend 
typical; is there a standard for this type of work; what is 
the level of effort on the part of the editor; and is a stipend 
needed to attract a responsible editor?  The other three 
comments related to the amount, suggesting 1) it should 
be tied to the overall MLA operating budget, 2) a 
recommendation of $250 as more reasonable considering 
all the work involved, and 3) that it seems reasonable but 
not knowing whether $100 an issue or $100 a year would 
be needed.  
 

Report on the Hypothesis, continued                                                Alpi and Billman 



 

Hypothesis, vol. 27, no. 1, Winter 2015    11 

Table 2. Potential Authors’ Interest in Various Publication Characteristics  

  

Average rating 
(0=Not important, 1=Not very important, 
2=Somewhat important, 3=Very important) 

Response counts 

Peer reviewed 2.7 43 

No author fees 2.6 43 

Indexed by PubMed 2.4 43 

Online submission system 2.3 43 

Time from acceptance to publication 2.3 43 

Open access 2.2 43 

Download statistics available 1.9 42 

Online peer review system 1.8 42 

Indexed by LISTA 1.8 42 

Indexed by CINAHL 1.7 43 

Public commenting available 1.0 42 

Responses for the second question (N=29) about how 
members feel about Hypothesis as part of the Research 
Section activities are listed in order of frequency of 
response below: 
 

 I would like to see more opportunities for members to 
be involved in Hypothesis. (n=18, 62%) 

 I am proud that our Section produces a peer 
reviewed online journal. (n=16, 55%) 

 I have been disappointed in the absence of 
Hypothesis issues in the recent past. (n=9, 31%) 

 I don’t give any thought to Hypothesis. (n=7, 24%) 

 Hypothesis is redundant with other online journal or 
newsletter publications. (n=2, 7%) 

 Hypothesis is redundant with other avenues of 
section communication available. (n=1, 3%) 

 
Five respondents provided comments for the Research 
Section to consider.  Two related to awareness of 
Hypothesis, with one having learned about Hypothesis 
years ago but having forgotten about it until this survey 
and the other having not stumbled upon Hypothesis in 
spite of being an RS member for years.  Two comments 
related to the various features of Hypothesis.  For one 
respondent, the importance of various features in 
choosing to publish depended on the type of publication; 
for original research indexing and peer review is very 
important, but for how-to type method articles, conference 
summaries, or critically appraised topics, those 
characteristics are not as important. The fifth comment is 
quoted here directly: “In theory I like Hypothesis, but it 
doesn't give enough back for the effort put into it…Lack of 
PubMed indexing, inability to see distinct articles without 

looking at the whole issue, etc…It seems too much like a 
newsletter and nothing like a journal.” 
 
Finally, the majority of respondents (n=33, 75%) 
preferred to learn about the survey results from an MLA 
Focus announcement.  Additional avenues were posting 
to the MLA RS section list (n=22, 50%) or linked from the 
RS website (n=19, 43%).  Six respondents (14%) 
preferred the EBLIP list.   
 

Discussion 
 
A limitation of this study is that it only describes the usage 
of Hypothesis by respondents who were primarily MLA 
members in the United States.  The online usage data for 
the RS website which includes Hypothesis shows that 
only 34% of page views are from the United States with 
the next highest countries as China (22%), Great Britain 
(7%) and Italy and the Russian Federation with 4% each.  
This suggests an international audience for Hypothesis 
and other RS communications that did not participate in 
this survey.   As no responses were received from library 
or iSchool faculty or students, it is unclear whether 
Hypothesis has value for educational activities outside of 
its primary audience of practicing librarians. 
 
It is not surprising that there is a lack of awareness of 
Hypothesis since the last issue published was Summer 
2014.   While it seems that there is an audience for many 
types of content based on the likelihood of reading 
scores, it is less certain whether there are sufficient 
potential authors to provide this content given the 
likelihood to contribute.  

Report on the Hypothesis, continued                                                Alpi and Billman 



 

Hypothesis, vol. 27, no. 1, Winter 2015    12 

Hypothesis is an MLA RS communication tool and 
ultimately decisions about the value of the journal related 
to the work involved in its production are internal. The RS 
leadership intends to use the feedback gathered from this 
survey to improve RS communication of research-related 
content to a variety of audiences.  The findings will be 
disseminated through MLA Focus and email list postings 
with a link to this specific article in Hypothesis.  
Presenting the findings in this manner allows for both the 
indexing and discoverability requested by survey 
respondents, but also shares our questions and 
methodology with other organizations planning to 
evaluate their communication strategies.  
 

 
Acknowledgements 
 
Thank you to all the respondents who took the time to 
participate in the survey.  The Hypothesis Editorial Board 
and other RS members who contributed to developing 
this survey were Kristine M. Alpi, Brooke L. Billman, 
Leslie Behm, Ellen Detlefsen, Jonathan Eldredge, and 
Heather Holmes.  

- - -  
 

Author Affiliations 
 
1 

Director, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Library of Veterinary 
Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC; 
kmalpi@ncsu.edu 

2 AZHIN & Special Projects Librarian, University of 
Arizona Health Sciences Library, University of Arizona, 
Tucson, AZ; brooke.billman@ahsl.arizona.edu 

 
 
 
 
 

Report on the Hypothesis, continued                                                Alpi and Billman 

mailto:kmalpi@ncsu.edu
mailto:brooke.billman@ahsl.arizona.edu

