










































AWARDS 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

Congratulations to the biannual JMLA Best Research Paper and the winning research 
papers and posters from MLA ‘20! 
 
The MLA Research Caucus is pleased to announce the winners for best research 
papers and posters presented at the MLA 2020 Virtual Meeting. Thank you to all the 
judges who volunteered their expertise to help select these deserving awardees both in 
the pre-judging phase and at the Virtual Conference. To learn more about the awards 
and selection process, visit the Research Section website at 
http://www.mlanet.org/p/cm/ld/fid=938. 
 
JMLA BIANNUAL BEST RESEARCH PAPER 2017-2019 
 
Mendez IM, Pories ML, Cordova L, Malki A, Wiggins MF, Lee JGL. A pilot project to 
increase health literacy among youth from seasonal farmworker families in rural eastern 
North Carolina: a qualitative exploration of implementation and impact. J Med Libr 
Assoc. 2019;107(2):179–186. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.560 
 
MLA ‘20 WINNING RESEARCH PAPERS  
 
First Place - Is the Open Access Citation Advantage Real? A Systematic Review 
 

• Caitlin Bakker, Research Services Librarian, University of Minnesota, 
Minneapolis, Minnesota 

• Amy Riegelman, Social Sciences Librarian, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 
Minnesota 

• Allison Langham-Putrow, Scholarly Communications Librarian, University of 
Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 

 
Objective: The potential for open access (OA) publication to increase citation rates 
of articles was first articulated in 2001. Since then, support for and refutation of the 
OA citation advantage has been abundant. OA’s influence on citation remains 
unclear, particularly across disciplines, data sources, and methodological 
approaches. This systematic review aims to determine if the OA citation advantage 
is real. 
 
Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the literature in accordance with 
MECIR standards to identify all publications that compared citation rates of OA and 
non-OA publications. We executed this search across seventeen databases 
representing a broad range of disciplines. Title and abstract screening, full-text 
screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were completed by two 
independent reviewers and discrepancies were resolved through consensus or by a 
third party where necessary. We extracted data to describe both the exposure (OA) 
and control (non-OA) groups, including number of included studies, as well as 
cumulative citations and data source of citations. We also recorded how open 
access was defined, how samples were identified, and the citation window 

http://www.mlanet.org/p/cm/ld/fid=938
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.560


AWARDS 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

considered. Risk of bias assessment was completed to assess underlying 
methodological quality of the component studies. 
 
Results: With duplicates removed, we screened 2,108 titles and abstracts. At this 
phase, 1866 items were removed, leading to 242 full-text articles being assessed 
and ultimately 115 items being included in qualitative synthesis. These articles 
represented a broad range of disciplines, data sources, and outcome measures. 
Data extraction also uncovered notable issues with incomplete reporting. Fifty-four of 
the included studies reported an open access citation advantage while 28 reported 
an advantage in subsets and 32 reported no citation advantage. One study reported 
inconclusive results. Risk of bias assessment and quantitative synthesis are 
currently underway. 

 
Second Place - Flawed Research in Focus: Retracted Publications in Pharmacy 
Systematic Reviews  
 

• Caitlin Bakker, Research Services Librarian, University of Minnesota, 
Minneapolis, Minnesota 

• Sarah Jane Brown, Liaison Librarian to the College of Pharmacy and Medical 
School, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 

• Nicole Theis-Mahon, Liaison to the School of Dentistry & Collections Coordinator, 
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 

 
Objective: Publications are retracted for a multitude of reasons; however, 
identification of retraction notices remains inconsistent and post-retraction use of 
materials continues. We investigated how retracted publications influence systematic 
reviews and other evidence-based literature in pharmacy. We analyzed retracted 
publications cited in systematic and other comprehensive reviews and examined the 
application of quality assessment or risk of bias tools. 
 
Methods: Retracted research articles and clinical studies in the fields of 
pharmacology, drug design, and toxicology were identified through the 
RetractionWatch Database. Searches were performed in Scopus and Web of 
Science to identify all articles and reviews citing each retracted item. These results 
were collected and deduplicated in EndNote and uploaded to Rayyan for screening. 
The included systematic and other comprehensive reviews were then assessed to 
determine whether the retracted publication was cited positively, negatively, or 
neutrally in support of the findings. We also examined which, if any, quality 
assessment or risk of bias tool was used in the systematic review and what the 
results of that evaluation were. We conducted an analysis of citation trends to show 
the impact of retracted publications in systematic reviews and the methodological 
quality of those reviews.  
 

 
 



AWARDS 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

Honorable Mention - Understanding the Health Information Practices of LGBTQ+ 
Communities to Improve Medical Librarian Services 
 

• Travis Wagner, Doctoral Candidate, University of South Carolina, Columbia, 
South Carolina 

• Nick Vera, PhD Student, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 
• Vanessa Kitzie, Assistant Professor, University of South Carolina, Columbia, 

South Carolina 
 

Objective: This multi-method, three-year qualitative study addresses the following 
research questions: (1) How does socio-cultural context shape the information 
creation, seeking, sharing, and use of health information among LGBTQ+ 
communities? (2) How can these findings inform medical librarian services to 
LGBTQ+ communities for health promotion? 
 
Methods: Data collection consists of 30 individual semi-structured interviews with 
LGBTQ+ community leaders from STATE (completed), 6-8 focus groups with 
leaders' communities (in progress), and a community forum informed by the World 
Café methodology between 30-40 leaders and librarians (in progress). Individual and 
focus group interview participants also engaged in information worlds mapping, a 
visual arts-based elicitation method. Data for analysis are verbatim transcripts, 
analytical memos of information worlds maps, community forum notes, and 
researcher field notes and reflexivity journals. Data analysis follows qualitative open 
coding and constant comparison methods. Line-by-line, first-cycle process coding 
identifies initial codes, which the researchers compare, combine, and refine via 
subsequent data collection and analysis. Second-cycle axial and theoretical coding 
informs development of a conceptual model that describes key coding categories 
and the relationships between them. Peer debriefing and participant member-
checking serve as validity checks. 
 
Results: Preliminary interview findings invert deficit models of LGBTQ+ health and 
information practices. These models position communities as lacking resources and 
knowledge to improve their social conditions and envision experts as able to 
“correct” this deficit. Participants challenged these presumptions by identifying social 
and structural factors, including experts, as hindrances to achieving positive health 
outcomes and tactically responding to these constraints. For example, several 
communities stated that being misgendered at the doctor’s office took a significant 
toll on their mental health. They responded to this lack of expert competency by 
developing lists of community-approved medical professionals based on collective 
information assessment. 
 
Conclusions: Inverting the deficit model to view experts rather than LGBTQ+ 
communities as lacking has implications for social and structural change. From the 
position of medical librarianship, this change can occur via a shift from outreach, 
which focuses on information and resource provision, to engagement, which centers 



AWARDS 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

community expertise as the driver for information and resource development. Three 
specific implications informed by this shift and emergent research findings are 
establishing partnerships with community health workers, facilitating cultural 
competency training for medical professionals, and offering harm reduction 
workshops. 

 
Honorable Mention - Seeing our Open Access (OA) Options: A Comparison of Full 
Text Finders 
 

• Elizabeth Moreton, Clinical Librarian, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 
North Carolina 

• Jamie Conklin, Health Sciences Librarian, University of North Carolina, Chapel 
Hill, North Carolina 

• Adam Dodd, Data Analyst, Health Technology and Informatics, University of 
North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 

 
Objective: OA full text finders offer the potential to save researchers time and money 
in article retrieval with just the click of a button by finding free copies of articles, but 
to date, studies comparing the user experience and retrieval capabilities of these 
tools are scarce. This study analyzes the features and effectiveness of OA full text 
finders in health disciplines. 
 
Methods: The investigators tested several types of OA full text finders by attempting 
to retrieve the full text of a random set of articles in a variety of health disciplines. 
They performed a structured analysis of the software, looking at quantitative and 
qualitative dimensions such as data sources, number of steps to retrieve text, and 
overall ease of use. The investigators also tested the effectiveness of the tools by 
comparing the number of test articles retrieved by each tool. 
 
Results: Overall, Google Scholar Button performed the best regardless of browser. 
Lazy Scholar and EndNote also performed well. A combination of Google Scholar 
Button in Chrome, which found the most articles, combined with EndNote, which 
missed the fewest articles, may be the best approach. It would also be easy to install 
several tools at once and check multiple sources almost instantly. 
 
Conclusions: Though there are many types of OA full text finders, it may save 
potential users time and money to know which tool is easiest to use and provides 
access to the most free resources. 

 
MLA ‘20 WINNING RESEARCH POSTERS 
 
First Place - Applying Citation and Usage Analysis to Evaluate the E-Journal 
Package Collection in a Medical University Library 
 

• Hua-Yu Hsu, Librarian, Taipei Medical University Library, Taipei, Taiwan 



AWARDS 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

• Tzu-heng Chiu, Director, Taipei Medical University Library, Taipei, Taiwan 
• Chun-Huei Shen, Head of Technical Services, Taipei Medical University Library, 

Taipei, Taiwan 
 

Objective: E-journal packages accounts for 60% of overall e-resources budget in 
Taipei Medical University Library (TMUL); however, some titles included in them are 
not needed by users. In 2019, the authors tried to analyze the title fill rate and cost 
per full-text download of all e-journal packages. The research results can serve as 
the reference for our e-journal collection development and decision making in the 
future. 
 
Methods: Methodologies of citation analysis and cost of usage were applied in this 
study. The authors believe that the cited journals of our faculty’s papers represent 
their real research demand, and it could reflect the utilization efficiency of our e-
journal collection. Therefore, we exported 2016-2018 publication of TMU faculty from 
the WOS SCI/SSCI database, which results in 4,698 journal articles with 181,422 
citations. We then utilized the list-checking method to compare bibliographic data of 
these 181,422 citations with our e-journal collection for title fill rate to find out how 
our collection could support the research need of TMU faculty. We also analyzed 
source journals of those 181,422 citations, including its frequency of publication, 
times cited, and publisher/ package which it belongs to. In addition, the costs per 
full-text download for each e-journal package were calculated based on their 
subscription fee and download statistics. 
 
Results: The title fill rate of 181,422 citations is 74% (among which 134,749 are the 
TMUL e-journal collection). The top three most cited e-journal packages in 2016-
2018 are "SDOL" (1,080 titles), followed by " WileyOnlineLibrary " (507 titles), and 
“Springer” (496 titles). The cited rate and cost per download of each e-journal 
package are shown in Figure 1 of the poster. The highest utilization efficiency e-
journal packages are "JAMA" and "Cell Press," which have lowest cost per full-text 
download (US$ 0.81, US$ 1.27) and highest cited rate (90.9%, 90.5%). In addition, 
the lowest utilization efficiency e-journal package is "WileyOnlineLibrary" (US$ 3.6, 
53.8%). 

 
Second Place - Comparing Three Models for Librarian Office Hours in a School of 
Pharmacy 
 

• Emily Gorman, Research, Education & Outreach Librarian, University of 
Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, Maryland 

 
Objective: To determine which of three office hour models was most effective in 
increasing librarian visibility in and engagement with a school of pharmacy. 
 
Setting/Population: One librarian is the liaison to a school of pharmacy (SOP) that 
includes approximately 90 full-time faculty, 300 staff, 800 affiliate and preceptor 



AWARDS 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

faculty, and 900 students. The library is across campus from the buildings where 
most SOP personnel are located.  
 
Methods: The librarian held weekly office hours in the main SOP building. The 
“lobby” model involved two hours per week at a table in the lobby, the “hybrid” model 
increased the lobby time to four hours and added additional hours in an office, and 
the “office” model removed lobby hours and increased the office time to a full day 
(7.5 hours). The librarian tracked all interactions and classified them in the following 
categories: brief chat, brief hello, brief question, and in-depth question. Descriptive 
statistics were calculated to compare the number of interactions by category and 
population. 
 
Results: Results indicate that the lobby model had the most interactions (71), 
followed by the office model (39), with the hybrid model having the least (29). The 
office (9) and hybrid (8) models had more in-depth questions than the lobby model 
(3), but the lobby model had a higher number of brief questions (25) than the office 
(13) or hybrid (9) models. The number of student interactions differed most 
drastically, with the lobby model having far more (28) than the hybrid (6) or office (3) 
models. 
 
Conclusions: Based on these results, holding office hours in the building lobby is 
most effective for increasing librarian visibility in the SOP. However, people appear 
to be more comfortable asking in-depth questions in the office setting. There are 
advantages and disadvantages to each model depending on the goal of the office 
hours—visibility versus in-depth engagement and support. 

 
Honorable Mention - Focus on Nursing Point-of-Care Tools: Developing Criteria 
for an Evaluation Rubric 
 

• Emily M. Johnson-Barlow, Regional Health Sciences Librarian, University of 
Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 

• Annie Nickum, Information Services and Liaison Librarian, University of Illinois at 
Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 

• Rebecca Raszewski, Information Services and Liaison Librarian, University of 
Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 

• Ryan Rafferty, Regional Health Sciences Librarian, University of Illinois at 
Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 

 
Objective: Registered nurses have unique practice needs and many resources are 
marketed to support their practice. Point-of-care tools provide evidence-based 
information on patient care and procedures at the time of need. This study aims to 
review five point-of-care tools based on their coverage, content, and transparency to 
support selection of a point-of-care tool for the registered nurse. 
 
Methods: Investigators selected five point-of-care tools cited in the literature: 



AWARDS 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

ClinicalKey for Nursing, DynaMed, Lippincott’s Advisor and Procedures, Nursing 
Reference Center Plus, and UpToDate. The investigators developed a rubric 
containing evaluation criteria based on these point-of-care tools’ content, coverage 
of nursing topics, transparency of the evidence, user perception, and customization 
of the tools for supporting nursing practice. Thirty-five identified classified nursing 
terminologies, NANDA (13), NIC (11), and NOC (11), were used to examine the 
breadth of coverage within each point-of-care tool. Four investigators independently 
extracted criteria using the rubric and reported descriptive statistics of the results. 
Results will inform the decision-making process of recommending a point-of-care 
tool for nurses at our academic medical center. 
 
Results: Lippincott had the highest coverage of diagnoses (NANDA) while 
ClinicalKey for Nursing had strong content focused on intervention (NIC) and 
outcomes (NOC). Nursing Reference Center Plus provided the most well-rounded 
coverage of terminology. DynaMed and UpToDate were more transparent with 
indicating conflict of interest but included little content on Core Measures (JCAHO) 
or cultural competencies compared to the nursing-specific point-of-care tools. Both 
UpToDate and DynaMed had lower coverage of nursing terminology and care 
processes. User perception was evaluated; however, the criteria was deemed to be 
influenced by our librarian expertise. 
 
Conclusions: None of the five tools successfully met all of the evaluated criteria. The 
rubric developed for this study highlights each tools’ strengths and weaknesses that 
can then be used to inform the decision-making process to select a point-of-care tool 
based on priorities and budget. Of the tools reviewed for this study, the investigators 
recommend utilizing two or more to provide comprehensive, evidence-based, patient 
care coverage and meet the diverse information needs of nurses. 

 


	JMLA BIANNUAL BEST RESEARCH PAPER 2017-2019

