SRLibProblems
@srlibproblems.bsky.social
Discussing all things #EvidenceSynthesis, quotes from #SysRev consultations, & critiquing published non-systematic #SysRev searches. I am a 🇨🇦 #skybrarian. #canmedlib #medlibs
I'm going to have to look into the options (and tools) for citation chaining again, in the near future, but from this perspective. #EvidenceSynthesis
September 29, 2025 at 6:25 AM
I'm going to have to look into the options (and tools) for citation chaining again, in the near future, but from this perspective. #EvidenceSynthesis
I tried Zotero earlier, which sources metadata from Crossref & was surprised to see the same (missing abstracts) when using the "add item by identifier" function
It was great (timely) to see @aarontay.bsky.social discuss abstracts (+ the implications) this week aarontay.substack.com/p/the-petrol...
It was great (timely) to see @aarontay.bsky.social discuss abstracts (+ the implications) this week aarontay.substack.com/p/the-petrol...
September 29, 2025 at 6:25 AM
I tried Zotero earlier, which sources metadata from Crossref & was surprised to see the same (missing abstracts) when using the "add item by identifier" function
It was great (timely) to see @aarontay.bsky.social discuss abstracts (+ the implications) this week aarontay.substack.com/p/the-petrol...
It was great (timely) to see @aarontay.bsky.social discuss abstracts (+ the implications) this week aarontay.substack.com/p/the-petrol...
In my case, it was a small number of records with missing abstracts & I had the DOIs, so I decided to manually locate the missing data (from Primo at my institution, or via the publisher page) to add/edit the RIS file. Doing so will allow the records to be screened without disruption, in Covidence.
September 29, 2025 at 6:25 AM
In my case, it was a small number of records with missing abstracts & I had the DOIs, so I decided to manually locate the missing data (from Primo at my institution, or via the publisher page) to add/edit the RIS file. Doing so will allow the records to be screened without disruption, in Covidence.
To be clear, the problem is not the tool (Citation Chaser or Lens.org, where Citation Chaser gets its metadata from). The problem is the publishers that are withholding and preventing the abstracts from being openly available.
And the impact in this case, is on screening at the title-abstract level
And the impact in this case, is on screening at the title-abstract level
September 29, 2025 at 6:25 AM
To be clear, the problem is not the tool (Citation Chaser or Lens.org, where Citation Chaser gets its metadata from). The problem is the publishers that are withholding and preventing the abstracts from being openly available.
And the impact in this case, is on screening at the title-abstract level
And the impact in this case, is on screening at the title-abstract level
I think you might also enjoy "PRISMA compliant"[tiab:~2]
September 18, 2025 at 6:08 PM
I think you might also enjoy "PRISMA compliant"[tiab:~2]
students who use it for a one off, who want to download 20-50 search results so they can explore them further in a citation manager, will be inconvenienced.
I wish database vendors would allow small batch record downloading without accounts, and have the RIS format as a standard available format.
I wish database vendors would allow small batch record downloading without accounts, and have the RIS format as a standard available format.
September 3, 2025 at 1:51 AM
students who use it for a one off, who want to download 20-50 search results so they can explore them further in a citation manager, will be inconvenienced.
I wish database vendors would allow small batch record downloading without accounts, and have the RIS format as a standard available format.
I wish database vendors would allow small batch record downloading without accounts, and have the RIS format as a standard available format.
You would not get those records if you searched human rights in TI OR AB because it will parse each line separately and use AND between the words but stay within the field.
This is how I understood what the page said. Please do share if I am missing something. From what I see, I can safely use XB
This is how I understood what the page said. Please do share if I am missing something. From what I see, I can safely use XB
August 6, 2025 at 10:16 PM
You would not get those records if you searched human rights in TI OR AB because it will parse each line separately and use AND between the words but stay within the field.
This is how I understood what the page said. Please do share if I am missing something. From what I see, I can safely use XB
This is how I understood what the page said. Please do share if I am missing something. From what I see, I can safely use XB
In this case, " ", or the proximity operator would override the default mode (find all terms, etc) so no impact. But if you searched human rights (with no " ") in XB versus TI or AB, you would get different results. In XB, you will find instances where human is in title and rights is in the abstract
August 6, 2025 at 10:16 PM
In this case, " ", or the proximity operator would override the default mode (find all terms, etc) so no impact. But if you searched human rights (with no " ") in XB versus TI or AB, you would get different results. In XB, you will find instances where human is in title and rights is in the abstract
It sounds like the issues would only happen in situations where the default mode is activated (find all terms, or proximity). But, this won't apply to most systematic searches. For example, most librarians will use "human rights" with " " around the phrase, or a proximity (human N3 rights).
August 6, 2025 at 10:16 PM
It sounds like the issues would only happen in situations where the default mode is activated (find all terms, or proximity). But, this won't apply to most systematic searches. For example, most librarians will use "human rights" with " " around the phrase, or a proximity (human N3 rights).
Never been so happy to have followed good #DataManagement practices. There were times that I almost didn't take the time to use the naming convention, but I resisted.
I must remember to thank my awesome colleagues for inspiring this in my practice (they know who they are ❤️). #CanMedLibs
I must remember to thank my awesome colleagues for inspiring this in my practice (they know who they are ❤️). #CanMedLibs
August 4, 2025 at 6:02 AM
Never been so happy to have followed good #DataManagement practices. There were times that I almost didn't take the time to use the naming convention, but I resisted.
I must remember to thank my awesome colleagues for inspiring this in my practice (they know who they are ❤️). #CanMedLibs
I must remember to thank my awesome colleagues for inspiring this in my practice (they know who they are ❤️). #CanMedLibs
Why is it an OR? Go with AND - do both!
May 27, 2025 at 12:59 AM
Why is it an OR? Go with AND - do both!
This is also true when switching from Ovid to other platforms. Adj3 (Ovid) = N2 (EBSCO) = NEAR/2 (WoS). I don't have Embase on the other platform (only Ovid) so I'm of no help here.
May 14, 2025 at 7:55 PM
This is also true when switching from Ovid to other platforms. Adj3 (Ovid) = N2 (EBSCO) = NEAR/2 (WoS). I don't have Embase on the other platform (only Ovid) so I'm of no help here.
I often say that PRESS is for requests between search experts, and give an example of peer reviewing another librarian's search. But that I would be happy to review and advise on their search as part of our consultation options.
TL;DR - we don't offer a PRESS option for student searches.
TL;DR - we don't offer a PRESS option for student searches.
April 14, 2025 at 9:53 PM
I often say that PRESS is for requests between search experts, and give an example of peer reviewing another librarian's search. But that I would be happy to review and advise on their search as part of our consultation options.
TL;DR - we don't offer a PRESS option for student searches.
TL;DR - we don't offer a PRESS option for student searches.
Review & provide feedback - yes (in consult or via email), but I don't think of that as "peer review" & certainly not with PRESS. It is rare to receive such a request AND where the search is good enough to qualify as a peer review. Not impossible though, as there have been 3 or 4 in 5 years.
April 14, 2025 at 9:53 PM
Review & provide feedback - yes (in consult or via email), but I don't think of that as "peer review" & certainly not with PRESS. It is rare to receive such a request AND where the search is good enough to qualify as a peer review. Not impossible though, as there have been 3 or 4 in 5 years.
The intent is (Controlled fields) NOT (uncontrolled fields). In MEDLINE, we wouldn't use the same terms in both since we'd browse and find the MeSH terms. But, in Scopus, in the absence of deliberate/separate Index term gathering, you could use the same set of terms as shown in my example above.
April 11, 2025 at 6:10 AM
The intent is (Controlled fields) NOT (uncontrolled fields). In MEDLINE, we wouldn't use the same terms in both since we'd browse and find the MeSH terms. But, in Scopus, in the absence of deliberate/separate Index term gathering, you could use the same set of terms as shown in my example above.
(Index terms) NOT (title, abstract, authkey) would match the intent. So, in Scopus syntax it would be (for e.g.):
INDEXTERMS("corporate social responsibility" OR {CSR}) AND NOT ( ( TITLE-ABS("corporate social responsibility" OR {CSR}) ) OR ( AUTHKEY("corporate social responsibility" OR {CSR}) ) )
INDEXTERMS("corporate social responsibility" OR {CSR}) AND NOT ( ( TITLE-ABS("corporate social responsibility" OR {CSR}) ) OR ( AUTHKEY("corporate social responsibility" OR {CSR}) ) )
April 11, 2025 at 6:04 AM
(Index terms) NOT (title, abstract, authkey) would match the intent. So, in Scopus syntax it would be (for e.g.):
INDEXTERMS("corporate social responsibility" OR {CSR}) AND NOT ( ( TITLE-ABS("corporate social responsibility" OR {CSR}) ) OR ( AUTHKEY("corporate social responsibility" OR {CSR}) ) )
INDEXTERMS("corporate social responsibility" OR {CSR}) AND NOT ( ( TITLE-ABS("corporate social responsibility" OR {CSR}) ) OR ( AUTHKEY("corporate social responsibility" OR {CSR}) ) )
But if new synonyms keep finding new relevant articles (and recall matters at all - such as in lit review assignments), then you keep going with the iterative refinement. I do tend to emphasize the importance of starting with a good set of terms/synonyms (grouped in concepts).
April 10, 2025 at 12:20 AM
But if new synonyms keep finding new relevant articles (and recall matters at all - such as in lit review assignments), then you keep going with the iterative refinement. I do tend to emphasize the importance of starting with a good set of terms/synonyms (grouped in concepts).
Comprehensiveness may be too strong a term. I teach synonym generation in the initial search string development & then it gets added to as part of iterative search refinement (i.e. evaluate the first set of abstracts and add new synonyms to the search). The stopping point depends on the search need.
April 10, 2025 at 12:15 AM
Comprehensiveness may be too strong a term. I teach synonym generation in the initial search string development & then it gets added to as part of iterative search refinement (i.e. evaluate the first set of abstracts and add new synonyms to the search). The stopping point depends on the search need.
Yes, strategies to broaden/narrow is commonly taught, with the objective of either finding more articles or reducing noise or volume. Comprehensiveness of synonyms used and its impact (on number of results) is also covered. Fundamentally, this gets at the principles of it, without defining the terms
April 9, 2025 at 4:02 PM
Yes, strategies to broaden/narrow is commonly taught, with the objective of either finding more articles or reducing noise or volume. Comprehensiveness of synonyms used and its impact (on number of results) is also covered. Fundamentally, this gets at the principles of it, without defining the terms
This is part of info lit though (matching the search approach to the objective). Not doing so is definitely a mistake. High recall searches are normal in SR work, but an unexpected perk for me was an improvement in my precision searching, as I know many more advanced strategies.
April 9, 2025 at 7:35 AM
This is part of info lit though (matching the search approach to the objective). Not doing so is definitely a mistake. High recall searches are normal in SR work, but an unexpected perk for me was an improvement in my precision searching, as I know many more advanced strategies.
Yes, I agree. Also, there is no label next to the button (like in Scopus), so some folks may not know what it means.
March 27, 2025 at 4:22 AM
Yes, I agree. Also, there is no label next to the button (like in Scopus), so some folks may not know what it means.