No abstract

The implementation of a knowledge management program in an organization has the potential of improving customer services, quickly bringing new products to market, and reducing cost of business operations. Information technologies are often used in knowledge management programs in informing clients and employees of latest innovation/development in the business sector as well as sharing knowledge among the employees. The key professionals involved in knowledge management programs are information technologists and human resource managers but the information professionals also have a role to play as they are traditionally known as good managers of explicit knowledge. Hence, the aim of this study is to provide empirical evidence of the role of information professionals in knowledge ma nagement programs. 386 information professionals working in Canadian organizations were selected from the Special Libraries Association's Who's Who in Special Libraries 2001/2002, and a questionnaire with a stamped self-addressed envelope for its return was sent to each one of them. 63 questionnaires were completed and returned, and 8 in-depth interviews conducted. About 59% of the information professionals surveyed are working in organizations that have knowledge management programs with about 86% of these professionals being involved in the programs. Factors such as gender, age, and educational background (i.e. highest educational qualifications and discipline) did not seem to have any relationship with involvement in knowledge management programs. Many of those involved in the programs are playing key roles, such as the design of the information architecture, development of taxonomy, or content management of the organization's intranet. Others play lesser roles, such as providing information for the intranet, gathering competitive intelligence, or providing research services as requested by the knowledge management team.

The investigators studied author research impact using the number of citers per publication an author's research has been able to attract, as opposed to the more traditional measure of citations. A focus on citers provides a complementary measure of an author's reach or influence in a field, whereas citations, although possibly numerous, may not reflect this reach, particularly if many citations are received from a small number of citers. In this exploratory study, Web of Science was used to tally citer and citation-based counts for 25 highly cited researchers in information studies in the United States and 26 highly cited researchers from the United Kingdom. Outcomes of the tallies based on several measures, including an introduced ch-index, were used to determine whether differences arise in author rankings when using citer-based versus citation-based counts. The findings indicate a strong correlation between some citation and citer-based measures, but not with others. The findings of the study have implications for the way authors' research impact may be assessed.

BackgroundThe Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (HSSS), which contains three phases, is widely used to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE. Lefebvre and Clarke suggest that reviewers might consider using four revisions of the HSSS. The objective of this study is to validate these four revisions: combining the free text terms volunteer, crossover, versus, and the Medical Subject Heading CROSS-OVER STUDIES with the top two phases of the HSSS, respectively.MethodsWe replicated the subject search for 61 Cochrane reviews. The included studies of each review that were indexed in MEDLINE were pooled together by review and then combined with the subject search and each of the four proposed search strategies, the top two phases of the HSSS, and all three phases of the HSSS. These retrievals were used to calculate the sensitivity and precision of each of the six search strategies for each review.ResultsAcross the 61 reviews, the search term versus combined with the top two phases of the HSSS was able to find 3 more included studies than the top two phases of the HSSS alone, or in combination with any of the other proposed search terms, but at the expense of missing 56 relevant articles that would be found if all three phases of the HSSS were used. The estimated time needed to finish a review is 1086 hours for all three phases of the HSSS, 823 hours for the strategy versus, 818 hours for the first two phases of the HSSS or any of the other three proposed strategies.ConclusionThis study shows that compared to the first two phases of the HSSS, adding the term versus to the top two phases of the HSSS balances the sensitivity and precision in the reviews studied here to some extent but the differences are very small. It is well known that missing relevant studies may result in bias in systematic reviews. Reviewers need to weigh the trade-offs when selecting the search strategies for identifying RCTs in MEDLINE.

BackgroundThe safety and effectiveness of CAM interventions are of great relevance to pediatric health care providers. The objective of this study is to identify sources of reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of pediatric complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).MethodsReports of RCTs were identified by searching Medline and 12 additional bibliographic databases and by reviewing the reference lists of previously identified pediatric CAM systematic reviews.ResultsWe identified 908 reports of RCTs that included children under 18 and investigated a CAM therapy. Since 1965, there has been a steady growth in the number of these trials that are being published. The four journals that published the most reported RCTs are The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Pediatrics, Journal of Pediatrics, and Lancet. Medline, CAB Health, and Embase were the best database sources for identifying these studies; they indexed 93.2%, 58.4% and 42.2 % respectively of the journals publishing reports of pediatric CAM RCTs.ConclusionsThose working or interested in the field of pediatric CAM should routinely search Medline, CAB Health and Embase for literature in the field. The four core journals identified above should be included in their collection.

Retraction of scholarly publications ensures that unqualified knowledge is purged from the scientific community. However, there appears to be little understanding about how this is practiced among library and information science (LIS) journals. Hence, this study investigated the correction and retraction practices of LIS journals. Journals included in the Web of Science’s information science and library science subject category were selected for the study and the characteristics of the articles corrected or retracted in those journals between 1996 and 2016 were examined. Findings show that there were 517 corrections and five retractions in LIS journals during the period. Most of the corrections made to articles in LIS journals were minor while the reasons for article retraction included plagiarism, duplication, irreproducible results and methodological errors. Our findings also reveal that on average it took about 587 days for an article to be retracted while some of the retracted articles continued to be cited after retraction. The study concluded that the average number of errors per correction was lower than what had been observed in medical journals while some of the retracted articles continued to receive positive post-retraction citations. It also recommended the inclusion of a check on the validity of literature cited by authors at the review stage as part of the quality control mechanism by publishers of LIS journals.

No abstract

No abstract