




































Editorial Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 36, No. 2, 2024

MLA 2024 Annual Meeting and JMLA Biannual Research

Caucus Research Awards

Lindsay Blake, EdD, MLIS, AHIPa

aClinical Services Coordinator, UAMS Library, University of Arkansas for Medical
Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, https://www.orcid.org/0000-0002-8234-8611 ,
leblake@uams.edu

Cite as: Blake L. MLA 2024 Annual Meeting and JMLA Biannual Research Caucus
Research Awards. Hypothesis. 2024;36(2). doi:10.18060/28301.

Blake. All works in Hypothesis are licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0
DEED Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International. Authors own copyright of their
articles appearing in Hypothesis. Readers may copy articles without permission of the
copyright owner(s), as long as the author(s) are acknowledged in the copy, and the
copy is used for educational, not-for-profit purposes. For any other use of articles,
please contact the copyright owner(s).

1

https://www.orcid.org/0000-0002-8234-8611
https://orcid.org/
mailto:leblake@uams.edu
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/


Editorial Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 36, No. 2, 2024

Congratulations to the award-winning research papers and posters from MLA ’24
Portland as well as the biannual 2022-2023 JMLA Research Paper winner!

The MLA Research Caucus is pleased to announce the winners for best research papers
and posters presented at the MLA 2024 Portland annual meeting. Thank you to all the
judges who volunteered their expertise to help select these deserving awardees, both in
the pre-judging phase and during the conference. To learn more about the awards and
selection process, visit the Research Caucus website:
https://www.mlanet.org/communities/all-bb-communities/research/.

MLA 2024 Annual Meeting Contributed Paper Awards

1st Place – Expert-Recommended Tasks for Hospital Librarians During a
Healthcare System Merger or Acquisition: An e-Delphi Consensus
Statement.
Authors: Jaclyn Morales, Senior Librarian, Stacy Posillico, Senior Librarian, and Saori
Wendy Herman, Assistant Dean of Library Services, Zucker School of Medicine at
Hofstra Northwell.

Objective: Little empirical research is available to guide hospital librarians through
the healthcare system merger or acquisition process. In order to address this knowledge
gap, a literature review and the e-Delphi research method were used to develop
expert-driven recommendations to prioritize those tasks that librarians should
undertake when consolidating the delivery of library services to a newly merged,
geographically distributed healthcare system.
Methods: A review of existing literature through January 2021 was performed and
updated in October 2023 to discover reports, conference presentations, and articles in
which hospital librarians shared their experiences with the merger process.
Twenty-nine hospital librarians and library professionals who had experienced a merger
or acquisition in the last ten years at healthcare systems within the seven NNLM
regions agreed to participate in this study as experts. Using a modified e-Delphi
process that was conducted according to CREDES standards, the expert panelists
responded to four rounds of questionnaires during April to December 2022. In the first
round, they identified tasks that librarians should undertake during the merger process.
Tasks were then eliminated or prioritized in Rounds 2 through 4, based upon the
experts’ rating of each task using a seven-point Likert scale in which 1 equaled “not
recommended” and 7 equaled “essential recommendation.” Those tasks rated as either
5, 6, or 7 by ≥75% of the panelists at the conclusion of the round were included in the
final statement of recommended tasks.
Results: A consensus-based statement of 330 recommended tasks for librarians to
consider during a healthcare system merger or acquisition was created. The final set of
recommended tasks were grouped into four main domains: Healthcare Organization
Tasks, Library Collections & Information Systems, Library Administration, and
Library Staff Integration & Interconnection. Tasks related to information technology
and services, vendor relations, and library organizational structure were more likely to
be prioritized than tasks related to marketing and outreach and physical library space.
Expert insight in the final round highlighted the importance of understanding context

2

https://www.mlanet.org/communities/all-bb-communities/research/


Editorial Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 36, No. 2, 2024

and culture when undertaking any recommended task.
Conclusions: Further research and refinement after utilization will likely be needed,
but the priority tasks recommended by the expert panel can be used immediately by
hospital librarians to create a plan of action for providing library services as healthcare
systems transformatively expand and address library assimilation and consolidation
after a merger occurs.

2nd Place – This is How We Do It: Tenure & Promotion in Academic
Health Sciences Libraries.
Author: Erin Reardon, Public Health Informationist, Emory University.

Objectives: The traditional three arms of the tenure-track professor’s duties are
teaching, service, and research. Tenure-track academic librarians, though their numbers
are dwindling, are expected to meet the same or similar requirements to achieve tenure.
Whether academic librarians should have tenure or tenure-like status is a matter of
some debate, but what has not been examined are the criteria by which academic
librarians are evaluated in order to be awarded tenure. This study aims to examine and
compare these criteria across academic health sciences libraries’ promotion and tenure
documents.
Methods: Data from the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL)
descriptive statistics from Fiscal Year 2021-2022 was used for this project, specifically
item D.14a, Faculty Appointment Status. Of the 130 AAHSL member institutions who
responded to the survey, there were 29 institutional health sciences libraries who
reported a tenure-track faculty appointment system for their staff librarians. This
study does not examine the promotion requirements for libraries that reported other
faculty-like appointments with tenure-like systems such as continuous appointment,
non-tenure-track faculty appointment, faculty appointment outside the library, or no
faculty appointment.
Through internet and institutional website searching, documentation of the tenure

criteria was obtained for 21 libraries. A content analysis was undertaken using
MaxQDA to count the number of documents in which certain words and themes
appeared. The resulting data was organized into domains of criteria (such as
librarianship, research, and service) and elements of those criteria (such as job
performance, publications, and committee work).
Results: Twenty of the 21 institutions’ documents described “service” as a domain; 19
documents each describe “librarianship” and “research and scholarship” as domains.
Four documents contained the domain of “teaching and learning,” and two documents
contained a domain for “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI).
In the “librarianship” domain, 117 individual words or themes were coded as

elements. Of these elements, 67 (or 58%) only appear in one document, showing a wide
variety in the description of the work of the librarian. In the “research and scholarship”
domain, 57 elements were coded, of which 37 (or 57%) only appear in one document.
In the “service” domain, 52 elements were coded, of which 30 (or 58%) only appeared
in one document. In “teaching and learning,” 14 elements were coded with no crossover
between the four documents in which this domain was found. Elements were unable to
be coded for the DEI domain.
Conclusions: There is a wide variety in the way the work of the librarian is described,
as well as what constitutes research or service. These documents describe multiple

3



Editorial Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 36, No. 2, 2024

ways to engage with librarianship, research, service, and teaching, but the amount of
overlap or lack thereof between the documents suggests that academic health sciences
librarians’ profession is poorly defined or difficult to define in these criteria.

2nd Place – An Exploration of Basic/Life Science Information Professionals:
Educational Background, Liaison Roles and Carnegie Classification.
Authors: Jeremy Kupsco, Research Informationist, Emory University, Laura Lipke,
Health Science Librarian, Binghamton University, and Stephanie Schulte, Director,
Health Sciences Library, Ohio State University.

Objectives: Since the early 2000’s and the explosion of electronic information
resources, information professionals have been struggling to reconnect to the basic
science community. The information profession has expanded its roles beyond collection
development to knowledge regarding the data service and research needs of this
specialized community. As late as 2022, literature acknowledges that the outreach
struggles continue and that this population is still unaware of the “capabilities of a
science liaison librarian.” Scholarship has supported the ability of information
professionals to fulfill the roles of training and instruction.
Methods: The purpose of this study is to identify differences in collaboration between
information professionals with and without degrees or training in basic science who
work with the basic science community. The study will also examine whether Carnegie
classification of the institution impacts information professionals’ interactions.
Participants for this study were identified via their institutional websites as well as
through the email lists for the Basic Science Caucus of the Medical Library
Association, the Science and Technology Section of the American Library Association,
the Health Sciences Special Interest Group of the Association of College and Research
Libraries and the STEM Librarians Collaborative on Discord. They were recruited via
direct email. The study used semi-structured interviews via Zoom to gather data. This
data will be analyzed thematically. In addition, basic demographic information from
the recruiting survey along with publicly available data about their institutions will
provide context for addressing the research questions.
Results: To date, the team has interviewed fifteen basic science librarians from various
backgrounds and institutions and transcription of the recorded Zoom interviews has
begun. A few noted emerging themes such as librarians that attended basic science
program events were more successful in building relationships; most liaison skills for
these programs were learned on the job; scientific intellectual curiosity is a skill needed
to be successful; and that librarians with a science degree were able to connect with
these programs because they spoke ”their language.” A detailed thematic analysis of
the results will be provided at the presentation of this study.
Conclusions: Based on the initial findings of this study, it appears that liaisons with
a basic science degree do have an advantage, when connecting to the basic science
community. More importantly, though, is for the liaison to look for opportunities to
interact/support grant writing, research and sponsored programs, and to demonstrate
curiosity regarding the research of these programs. Further thematic analysis and
findings regarding the basic science liaison librarians role with this population, and a
discussion of how Carnegie classifications play a role in successful collaborations will be
presented.

4



Editorial Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 36, No. 2, 2024

MLA 2024 Annual Meeting Contributed Poster Awards

1st Place – Using Bibliometric Analytic Techniques to Measure the
Scholarly Impact of a Health Professions Education Teaching Academy.
Authors: Sarah Cantrell, Associate Director, Beth Blackwood, Research & Education
Librarian, Deborah Engle, Diana McNeill, and Kristin Dickerson, Duke University
Medical Center Library & Archives.

2nd Place – Stronger Together - Exploring Medical Students’ Experiences
with ChatGPT.
Authors: Authors: Emily Hannum, Library Technical Assistant III and Nadine Dexter,
Director, Harriet F. Ginsburg Health Sciences Library, University of Central Florida
College of Medicine.

Background: Large Language Model AI use has increased dramatically in the past
few years, representing a unique method to engage in collaborative research. With this
field developing at a rapid pace, it is valuable to understand how AI offers potential for
assisting in medical education. This highlights a need to understand how AI tools are
currently being implemented in medical education environments, a consideration of the
effectiveness of these tools, and reflection on the ethical implications of AI use in
medical education.
Objectives: The goal of this study was to evaluate how frequently and in what ways
medical students are using ChatGPT for their studies or extracurriculars, and their
level of satisfaction in using this resource for their academic-related needs. While many
studies have shown ChatGPT’s potential applications in medical education, they do
not explore how students currently use ChatGPT and other AI platforms. We believe
understanding current medical students’ use of AI platforms is an essential step
towards integrating them into medical education.
Methods: Medical students from the University of Central Florida’s College of
Medicine were asked to voluntarily complete a survey including Likert scale and open
response questions regarding their use of and comfort with ChatGPT. The survey
consisted of 11 questions, remained available for 14 days, and 64 medical students
participated.
Results: Regardless of age, the use and confidence of Chat GPT remains similar on
average among everyone who took the survey. Most medical student respondents have
used ChatGPT despite skepticism of usefulness and accuracy of information obtained.
Furthermore, medical students are also either supportive of or indifferent to
recommending ChatGPT for medical students. The most frequently used sources for
verifying ChatGPT information included Google and Clinical Apps such as UpToDate
and Epocrates. Some of the major concerns students cited for ChatGPT use included
receiving simplistic answers, falsified studies, reflection of user bias, and ethical
implications.
Conclusion: Despite the general skepticism surrounding the benefits of using Large
Language Model AI such as ChatGPT, medical students appear to already be
incorporating these tools into their education, albeit cautiously. This cautious
exploration suggests that as AI tools continue to advance so will their application in
medical education. Medical school faculty and support staff must begin to familiarize
themselves with these tools and the potential implications of their use in academia.

5



Editorial Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 36, No. 2, 2024

There are currently no definitive means to consistently identify AI-crafted work nor
evaluate potential bias within the AI tool itself, emphasizing the need for AI familiarity
to keep pace with AI technological advancements. Further research on the application
of additional AI tools is necessary.

3rd Place – An Environmental Scan of Evidence Synthesis Projects
Published by Yale University and Yale New Haven Hospital Authors:
Preliminary Findings of Scoping Reviews.
Authors: Alyssa Grimshaw, Clinical Research and Education Librarian and Holly
Grossetta Nardini, Associate Director, Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical
Library, Yale University.

Objective: To better understand our institutions’ user behavior, we investigated
evidence synthesis publications that have been produced at our institution.
Methods: An exhaustive search was performed across eighteen databases to identify
papers associated with Yale University or Yale New Haven Hospital using keywords or
publication types related to scoping and systematic reviews. A dashboard was
developed for monitoring evidence synthesis publications. Papers with a Yale/YNHH
author listed as either the first or last author were incorporated. The analysis centered
on extracting information concerning library engagement in the review process and
compliance with reporting best practices.
Results: Yale’s first and last authors have contributed to 90 scoping reviews. Among
these, 59% of the reviews involved librarians, either through co-authorship (38%),
mention in the methods section (3%), or acknowledgment (18%). The data indicates
that the registration of a protocol associated with a review and reproducible search
compliance were more prevalent when librarians were involved. Based on the findings,
the library intends to offer 15-minute instruction sessions focused on improving search
reporting and recommendations for publishing evidence synthesis protocols.
Conclusion: The findings of this environmental scan could impact the library’s
policies and procedures relating to librarian involvement in evidence synthesis projects,
future staffing support, and creation of new training modules for patrons that clarify
proper reporting of searching and methodology in evidence synthesis projects.

JMLA Biannual Research Article Award

Kahili-Heede, M. K., Patil, U., Hillgren, K. J., Hishinuma, E., & Kasuya, R. (2022).
Library instruction and Wikipedia: investigating students’ perceived information
literacy, lifelong learning, and social responsibility through Wikipedia editing. Journal
of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 110 (2), 174–184.
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1291

Objectives: This article presents a multiyear pilot study delineating practical
challenges, solutions, and lessons learned from Wikipedia editing experiences with
first-year medical students at the John A. Burns School of Medicine at the University
of Hawai’i at Mānoa. The purpose of our project was to determine the feasibility and
effectiveness of Wikipedia editing to improve information literacy and lifelong learning
skills and to investigate aspects of social responsibility in first-year medical students.
Methods: Lessons were provided through a combination of in-person and online

6

https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1291


Editorial Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 36, No. 2, 2024

instruction via the WikiEdu learning management system (LMS). Students next
selected a health-related Wikipedia article to edit. After the editing experience,
structural completeness data were collected from the WikiEdu LMS. Feedback was
collected via an anonymous retrospective pre-post survey to assess the students’
attitudes toward their perceived information literacy skills and the social responsibility
of improving Wikipedia articles. Nonparametric tests were conducted to compare pre
versus post outcomes.
Results: Fifty-seven (79%) participants in the 2018 cohort and forty-nine (64%)
participants in the 2019 cohort completed the retrospective pre-post survey. In both
cohorts, respondents showed statistically significant increases (p<.05) in self-rating of
all ten domains of information literacy and social responsibility after completing the
program.
Conclusions: This study showed that medical students are competent editors of
Wikipedia and that their contributions improve both the quality of the articles and
their own perceived information literacy. Additionally, editing medicine-related articles
provides an opportunity to build students’ social responsibility by improving content on
an open platform that reaches millions each day.

7


