Support Services for Systematic Literature Reviews in Economic and Business Studies – How Can Business Librarians Cooperate
CC Attribution 3.0 Germany:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Rauchmann, Sabine
Whereas systematic literature reviews have become a standard in the health sciences, the method has usually been neglected by researchers in economic and business studies in favor of creating and working with primary data. In the last few years, business librarians have received an increasing number of consultation requests for systematic literature reviews. Due to Corona restrictions, the collection of new data in face-to-face or group settings was limited, prompting researchers to focus on aggregating results from previous research. Business librarians by themselves face the challenge of finding very few subject-specific resources or guides on sophisticated search options or the quality of source materials in databases for economic and business literature as well as subject specific reporting standards, frequently falling back on guidelines and best practices from medical libraries. This presentation starts by establishing key service components for supporting students and researchers in conducting systematic literature reviews by looking at best practices from all fields. Then, the presentation identifies knowledge mountains and gaps, i.e. in regard to functionalities and source quality of databases, information seeking behavior, analyzing and managing data as well as reporting guidelines in the economic and business studies. Given the enormous amount of knowledge needed, the presentation thirdly looks at options how business librarians can cooperate on an international level for creating space and infrastructure for sharing findings, insights and materials not only with fellow librarians but also with researchers. The presentation concludes with encouraging business librarians to combine forces for providing better support and teaching services for conducting systematic literature review in economic and business studies.
 It's my great pleasure to introduce Zabina Rauchman. Zabina, are you there and can you hear me okay? Yes, everything works fine. Thank you. Wonderful. And Zabina, before I give a brief introduction, I'd like to ask our speakers physically what city are you in right now and if we ever come to visit that city, what is one thing you would recommend to visit as a tourist, a tourist attraction? Okay, I'm at Hamburg at the moment and I would recommend to visit the Plaza at the Exzimony because you have a really nice view on the harbour and on the river Elbe. Wonderful. And since I'm also in Hamburg, I can say the Elbe for Harmony, we just had our five-year anniversary, a very beautiful, beautiful symphony and concert hall. I can totally agree with that. Okay, then moin moin. And we will continue. Good. So with an introduction, Zabina Rauchman, she's a subject librarian at the library for the Faculty's Business Economics and Social Science and Business Administration at the University of Hamburg, Germany here. And she teaches information literacy and provides in-depth research consultations to business faculty, undergraduate, master, as well as PhD students. She holds a doctorate in library and information science. Her discussion will be about support services for systematic literature reviews and economic and business studies. And with the question, how can business libraries cooperate? So we have about 15 minutes for our presentation, then afterwards about five minutes for the Q&A and just a gentle reminder, the QR code. We can put that up there just for a moment. And if you want, you can do that. Fantastic. And you can also use the interaction tool if you scroll down to put in your questions. And with that, it's my great pleasure to give the digital stage over to Zabina Rauchman, please. Thank you. Like David said, in the next 15 minutes, I will talk about support services for systematic literature reviews and economic and business studies. And it's seamlessly connected to the talk by Mrs. Kladjew third before. So in the next few minutes first, after a very short introduction, I will talk about best practice elements from the health sciences that they use in their service models. And afterwards, I have a look what business librarians offer in equivalent and what the status quo of those elements in business libraries. And at the end, I propose a way to collaborate. Let's start with just background. Just Mrs. Kladjew already talked about what systematic literature review is. So I will skip this. And in my abstract, I stated that there is an increased consultation request and consultation request. And I was asked if there's hard evidence that would support this. And I think there are three points. And Mrs. Kladjew also pointed the same things out to you already. So I think there's raised awareness. Last year on the Bipartika talk, there have been two sessions focused on systematic literature reviews outside of the health sciences. And then we also had the German meeting of business librarians. And there was a lightning talk, which garnered quite a lot of interest among the librarians. The second point is, there's quite recent study that has come out done by Prem. Jiswander and Yang that surveyed business librarians. And one of the questions was how long have they been involved in supporting systematic reviews? And a lot of them had just come into the systematic reviews in the last two years. And compared to health sciences, they are a little bit further along. They had a survey which had looked at the degree of involvement of librarians. So they also showed a degree, a higher degree, higher involvement with regards to co-authorship and acknowledged by name. And the third point would be that the systematic review as a method becomes more recognized in the business and management sciences overall. So I think that libraries or business libraries have to ask themselves, what kind of role do they want to play, what kind of scope and of service can they offer and what kind of expertise do they have? And on the first I think we learned that it's not always productive to look at competitors. But I think in this case we can profit from the experiences that health science libraries have had or have collected in the last 40 or 50 years since systematic reviews started in the 1970s. So all health libraries offered a service model where they're really very clear definitions of what the librarian is doing and when the librarian is doing what kind of service what's required then by the researchers. So there's always a clear distinction between consignment co-author or there's the model where they have standard academic and premium services or another one would be that there's a tier approach. But all services have the same. They really tell what they're very specific, what kind of time the user can expect that the librarian is giving them and how the librarian has to be acknowledged in the paper. And in addition to these supports or to these kind of really going through the process, there is also educator support like workshops. So either done by librarians or by non-librarians. And librarians tend to focus more on search strategy and the search itself, while non-librarians tend to focus more on the analysis of the data. And there's a lot of online guides too. Those are very diverse and very specific too. Apart from the process and the educator services, there's also expertise. The health libraries can base on their support on protocols and reporting stun nuts done by collaborations in the health sciences like the cochlear collaboration or the camp collaboration. And I think everybody knows the Prisma flowchart, everybody that has already done a systematic review. Another area of expertise we have a ton of literature on the medicine and health sciences is the evaluation of databases and the search syntax for doing researches within the databases. Like the subject headings working out, what kind of subject headings are the best ones to use. There's a lot of literature in this area. And in addition, there's even a systematic review competency framework for librarians and health sciences working with systematic literature reviews. So all in all, I think there's a very comprehensive service model framework for systematic literature reviews. There's five things or expertise at the bottom, like the protocol and reporting standards, learning outcomes for researchers, database licenses, evaluation of databases and search syntax and the competency framework. And on the base, there are individual services that are offered by the libraries and that range from the library's educator via the advisory consultant and then to the co-authorship that librarians can take. So the next step, I would like to have a look at the specific elements and how business and economic libraries are doing in this area. So before you can compare those areas like the health, the economics and business studies, you have to be aware that there are differences in the disciplines. Like in economics and business studies, it's stated that studies are often narrative and codative and they are often more often multidisciplinary and not just focused on one sub area. And in addition, also in the business and economic studies, the content and business databases are constantly changing. The corporate age is not as controlled as on the medicine like with the mesh terms. And most databases in business that the search require a license. There has been more awareness and more support coming from the economics and business researchers as well in the last few years. There have been a few articles writing about how to write a systematic review in the business and economic studies. And on the second part, the librarians, there are also some educative support, but they are not as many guides that you find that have the specific focus on business and economic studies. And here would be interesting to see how much they overlap and also how specific they are in those the advice they give for the searches in this business databases. So in addition, there are some workshops, but those are very rare. Either they are very rare or they are not mentioned on websites. There's some more coming in with public health and also with doctor and post-graded workshops. But what we don't know is how much systematic reviews is already included in curriculums. For instance, for evidence-based management. And in addition, they are training courses from collaborations like the Kemper collaboration, but it would also be interesting to see how much business researchers and business studies, how much do they take away from these courses and is this enough for their needs. Then the third part would be protocols and reporting standards. And there are some things that are subject-specific like the framework for questions, but there are also other things that are multidisciplinary like the project list or the Prisma and Flowchart. So it would be interesting to see if there's a need for extensions in the business areas like for Prisma and Press. I've seen some extensions for instance for ecology or evolutionary biology. And it would be also interesting to see how business researchers have been compliant with reporting standards that are out there so far. Yeah, with connection, with this, it's also interesting to see what kind of learning outcomes researchers want to take away for doing literature reviews. So it might be interesting to see the search behavior for systematic literature views of students and researchers in business economic management and how they perform in terms of the quality of search expressions and also of the quality of the documentation they're writing. And then I think the most important part would also be if there's any kind of evaluation of databases and search syntax. And compared with the health sciences, I think there is very, very little that has been done so far. There are some very general articles about business source and ABI and form that compare those databases in general. But there's very, very few literature that takes into account the coverage of subject sub areas in those two databases or just the coverage of journals in general. And on the first day, we've already heard the coverage of trade journals. So it might also be interesting to see what is the coverage of journals of a specific subject area, not only the main journals, but all journals that are relevant for this area. Interesting, but also we see because there is no central thivorus for the business area subject, how the subject headings are working in either ABI or from a business source and how they compare. So all in all, this makes up quite a big research agenda. If you want to know more about the databases, if you want to know more about the learning outcomes that researchers expect, and if you want to know more about how protocols and reporting standards are applied on the business and economic studies. So those are the basis in order to offer consultations, workshops, online self-help and online guides, as well as explore the systematic reviews as research methods. And because it's a lot of knowledge, I think it calls for international collaboration. And I would like to propose a framework for the cooperation in the form of the community of practice. Community of practice is a group of people who share common concern, a set of problems or an interest on a topic, and they develop and disseminate best practices, guidelines and strategies, and organize and manage a body of knowledge. So the community of practice, some people think it's just very loose in it, but it can also be very organized. And in order to have it very organized, there are four elements. There's the management, the team, the supporting tools, and the process element. So let's have a look at the management element first. I think it would be interesting to have the community of practice connected with an association. So it's endorsed by an institution. It might not be as in connection with membership, this would have to be discussed, and also the degree of binding. It might also be interesting to see if there are any interest groups with the Cochrane collaboration or the Campbell collaboration or any other collaborations that are interested in working with systematic literature. The second element would be supporting tools and documentation. This would also be part of the community of practice because you need a place where you just put the knowledge, where you can edit documents on a collaboration and where you can just collaborate and either post-meetings and also dates. So there's one called Press Forum. I haven't been actually in this forum, but it looks very interesting. It's a peer review of search strategies via a submission form. That's a very interesting idea. The third one would be the process and training aspect. So last year there was, or earlier before, there was a SWAT analysis done by medicine libraries who looked at what libraries are doing and what they need in order to support their researchers. I think this would also be very interesting to see what kind of strengths and weaknesses libraries have in the economic area and to have more just data to support this. It would also be interesting to have a skill development plan and just to have a common exploration research agenda. There is the Evidence Synthesis Institute which offers free materials for self-learning and I think it would also be interesting to have an online club or just online meetings to go together for these materials so not everybody's doing it on its own. It might also be interesting to have a look at the competency framework and especially with connection to subject specific content. The last and fourth element would be the team and the hands-on approach so that people can actually share information, share experience. There is the idea of a search club to peer review search strategies that you can consult colleagues that you can meet to discuss journal articles. There's a Google group called Business Librarians and Systemic Reviews organized by Sarah Premji and I think they are meeting twice a year just to talk about what's coming up, what might be problems, what problems they have encountered during the last few weeks. In order to do this there might be regular meetings, you have to discuss if you have clear objectives. I've also said that it might be interesting to have a list of experts with knowledge profiles and it always you know those groups they depend on the commitment and the motivation of the people taking part in them but I think in this case the support by the management and the leadership is also very important. To conclude I think there's a lot of potential, there's a lot of knowledge already out there and if you find a way to collaborate to share this knowledge more widely and to fill the research gaps you will be able to support our researchers in the best way possible. Thank you. Thank you, thank you very much. Very interesting presentations Sabina. It is our tradition even though we're doing virtually from our offices and homes. We'd like to give you first of all an applause for your presentation. Thank you very much. We also have a few questions that have already come in. I just wanted to point one thing out before we begin with your questions. We had one or two questions from our previous speaker, Francisco Klatt. That was a video that was presented so of course she couldn't answer those questions so if you still would like to ask Francisco Klatt something feel free to contact her per email and if you need the email address, if you don't have that just contact our conference organizers and they'll make sure you get that. So I just wanted to put that out there first of all. Now we're coming to Sabina and after your presentation we already have a couple of questions here. The first question, there was a poster on a chatbot at this conference. Could Q&A on SLR also be a chatbot topic in your opinion? That's an interesting question. I think it can be for the starting stages. So just to make them aware of certain materials that are available to have a first look at the process itself and then to determine what kind of support they need in detail. Excellent. Our next question, do you offer kind of a guideline or summary for researchers which evaluates the databases and the search syntax? How do you keep up to date with the changes in database search engines? Good question. Yeah, I concur. This is actually, I think we do not have those guidelines and we do not have the summaries because the databases are changing constantly and I think this is an area where I would hope the collaboration would work or would come in. Okay, great. Thank you. Our next question here, we've got multiple questions and that is, what could an international cooperation look like? A jointly curated website, for example, a support and mailing list, special responsibilities for certain topics or questions. What do you feel about that? I think it could be all. Could you maybe expand a little bit more on that? Yeah, I think there needs to be a website just to share information and not everybody is courageous to use the support mailing list. So it would be helpful to have a web page to just look through. Maybe the question has already been answered. The mailing list might be interesting for questions, for more specific or very in-depth questions to get an idea about what experts are out there and if they could be, there would be help. And with the special responsibilities for certain topics and questions, I think this would be very interesting and the kind of that there is the kind of expert list with the knowledge they have. Excellent. We have one more question that's coming in right now while we're waiting. I just wanted to ask you, the University of Hamburg, in general, the universities, are they very supportive about this initiative or is it kind of climbing uphill? I think it's very new and I think also professors here at our universities, they are starting with the research method systematic literature review. So we are both just trying to come together and try to find out what kind of services they need and we can offer. Very diplomatic. Good. And our final question, what could an international cooperation look like? A jointly curated website, a support mailing list, special responsibility for certain topics or questions. I believe that was a repeat of the question we had before. I apologize about that. Let me see here and I see already that that was a repeat. I think then that was our final question. Okay. Would you like to just say a closing statement or have you covered everything? I'm looking forward, unlike Franziska Ksart already told before, to try to establish network. I'm really interested in doing this. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Oh, Movet. And this is kind of like the breaking news ticker we used to have. We do have one more that just came in hot off the internet press. Do you see more faculty-library and collaboration for more enhanced systematic reviews in these days of emerging tech? This is also a very good question. I think I think it's not dependent on the technology. I think because the method just gets more attention from the faculty. This is just in development. Okay, great. We have a final question here. Could you share your contact details? What's the best way to reach you? People have more questions. Oh, yes. My email address, it's also on the website of the university. Okay. And could you just say it one time? Sabine.rauchmann. University of Hamburg.de Super. Excellent. And it's also on the university homepage. Yes. Yes. Okay, wonderful. Sabine Rauchmann. Again, we wanted to say thank you not only for your great presentation, but for taking the time to answer some of our questions and our answer session. A round of applause for Sabine.
 It's my great pleasure to introduce Zabina Rauchman. Zabina, are you there and can you hear me okay?  Yes, everything works fine. Thank you. Wonderful. And Zabina, before I give a brief introduction,  I'd like to ask our speakers physically what city are you in right now and if we ever come to visit  that city, what is one thing you would recommend to visit as a tourist, a tourist attraction?  Okay, I'm at Hamburg at the moment and I would recommend to visit the Plaza at the Exzimony  because you have a really nice view on the harbour and on the river Elbe.  Wonderful. And since I'm also in Hamburg, I can say the Elbe for Harmony, we just had our five-year  anniversary, a very beautiful, beautiful symphony and concert hall. I can totally agree with that.  Okay, then moin moin. And we will continue. Good. So with an introduction, Zabina Rauchman,  she's a subject librarian at the library for the Faculty's Business Economics and Social Science  and Business Administration at the University of Hamburg, Germany here. And she teaches information  literacy and provides in-depth research consultations to business faculty, undergraduate, master,  as well as PhD students. She holds a doctorate in library and information science. Her discussion  will be about support services for systematic literature reviews and economic and business  studies. And with the question, how can business libraries cooperate? So we have about 15 minutes  for our presentation, then afterwards about five minutes for the Q&A and just a gentle reminder,  the QR code. We can put that up there just for a moment. And if you want, you can do that. Fantastic.  And you can also use the interaction tool if you scroll down to put in your questions. And with  that, it's my great pleasure to give the digital stage over to Zabina Rauchman, please. Thank you.  Like David said, in the next 15 minutes, I will talk about support services for systematic  literature reviews and economic and business studies. And it's seamlessly connected to the talk  by Mrs. Kladjew third before. So in the next few minutes first, after a very short introduction,  I will talk about best practice elements from the health sciences that they use in their service  models. And afterwards, I have a look what business librarians offer in equivalent and what the  status quo of those elements in business libraries. And at the end, I propose a way to collaborate.  Let's start with just background. Just Mrs. Kladjew already talked about what systematic  literature review is. So I will skip this. And in my abstract, I stated that there is an increased  consultation request and consultation request. And I was asked if there's hard evidence that  would support this. And I think there are three points. And Mrs. Kladjew also pointed the same  things out to you already. So I think there's raised awareness. Last year on the Bipartika talk,  there have been two sessions focused on systematic literature reviews outside of the health sciences.  And then we also had the German meeting of business librarians. And there was a lightning  talk, which garnered quite a lot of interest among the librarians. The second point is,  there's quite recent study that has come out done by Prem. Jiswander and Yang that surveyed  business librarians. And one of the questions was how long have they been involved in supporting  systematic reviews? And a lot of them had just come into the systematic reviews in the last two  years. And compared to health sciences, they are a little bit further along. They had a survey  which had looked at the degree of involvement of librarians. So they also showed a degree,  a higher degree, higher involvement with regards to co-authorship and acknowledged by name.  And the third point would be that the systematic review as a method becomes more recognized in  the business and management sciences overall. So I think that libraries or business libraries have  to ask themselves, what kind of role do they want to play, what kind of scope and of service can  they offer and what kind of expertise do they have? And on the first I think we learned that it's not  always productive to look at competitors. But I think in this case we can profit from the  experiences that health science libraries have had or have collected in the last 40 or 50 years  since systematic reviews started in the 1970s. So all health libraries offered a service model  where they're really very clear definitions of what the librarian is doing and when the  librarian is doing what kind of service what's required then by the researchers. So there's  always a clear distinction between consignment co-author or there's the model where they have  standard academic and premium services or another one would be that there's a tier approach. But  all services have the same. They really tell what they're very specific, what kind of time the user  can expect that the librarian is giving them and how the librarian has to be acknowledged in the  paper. And in addition to these supports or to these kind of really going through the process,  there is also educator support like workshops. So either done by librarians or by non-librarians.  And librarians tend to focus more on search strategy and the search itself, while non-librarians tend  to focus more on the analysis of the data. And there's a lot of online guides too. Those are  very diverse and very specific too. Apart from the process and the  educator services, there's also expertise. The health libraries can base on their support  on protocols and reporting stun nuts done by collaborations in the health sciences like the  cochlear collaboration or the camp collaboration. And I think everybody knows the Prisma flowchart,  everybody that has already done a systematic review. Another area of expertise we have a  ton of literature on the medicine and health sciences is the evaluation of databases and the  search syntax for doing researches within the databases. Like the subject headings working  out, what kind of subject headings are the best ones to use. There's a lot of literature in this  area. And in addition, there's even a systematic review competency framework for librarians and  health sciences working with systematic literature reviews. So all in all, I think there's a very  comprehensive service model framework for systematic literature reviews. There's five things or  expertise at the bottom, like the protocol and reporting standards, learning outcomes for  researchers, database licenses, evaluation of databases and search syntax and the competency  framework. And on the base, there are individual services that are offered by the libraries and  that range from the library's educator via the advisory consultant and then to the co-authorship  that librarians can take. So the next step, I would like to have a look at the specific  elements and how business and economic libraries are doing in this area. So before you can  compare those areas like the health, the economics and business studies, you have to  be aware that there are differences in the disciplines. Like in economics and business  studies, it's stated that studies are often narrative and codative and they are often  more often multidisciplinary and not just focused on one sub area. And in addition,  also in the business and economic studies, the content and business databases are constantly  changing. The corporate age is not as controlled as on the medicine like with the mesh terms.  And most databases in business that the search require a license.  There has been more awareness and more support coming from the economics and business researchers  as well in the last few years. There have been a few articles writing about how to write a systematic  review in the business and economic studies. And on the second part, the librarians,  there are also some educative support, but they are not as many guides that you find  that have the specific focus on business and economic studies. And here would be interesting  to see how much they overlap and also how specific they are in those the advice they give  for the searches in this business databases. So in addition, there are some workshops,  but those are very rare. Either they are very rare or they are not mentioned on websites.  There's some more coming in with public health and also with doctor and post-graded workshops.  But what we don't know is how much systematic reviews is already included in curriculums.  For instance, for evidence-based management. And in addition, they are training courses from  collaborations like the Kemper collaboration, but it would also be interesting to see how much  business researchers and business studies, how much do they take away from these courses and is  this enough for their needs. Then the third part would be protocols and reporting standards.  And there are some things that are subject-specific like the framework for questions,  but there are also other things that are multidisciplinary like the project list or the  Prisma and Flowchart. So it would be interesting to see if there's a need for extensions  in the business areas like for Prisma and Press. I've seen some extensions for  instance for ecology or evolutionary biology. And it would be also interesting to see how  business researchers have been compliant with reporting standards that are out there so far.  Yeah, with connection, with this, it's also interesting to see what kind of learning outcomes  researchers want to take away for doing literature reviews. So it might be interesting to see the  search behavior for systematic literature views of students and researchers in business  economic management and how they perform in terms of the quality of search expressions  and also of the quality of the documentation they're writing.  And then I think the most important part would also be if there's any kind of evaluation of  databases and search syntax. And compared with the health sciences, I think there is  very, very little that has been done so far. There are some very general articles about  business source and ABI and form that compare those databases in general. But there's very,  very few literature that takes into account the coverage of subject sub areas in those two databases  or just the coverage of journals in general. And on the first day, we've already heard the  coverage of trade journals. So it might also be interesting to see what is the coverage  of journals of a specific subject area, not only the main journals, but all journals that are  relevant for this area. Interesting, but also we see because there is no central  thivorus for the business area subject, how the subject headings are working in either ABI  or from a business source and how they compare. So all in all, this makes up quite a big research  agenda. If you want to know more about the databases, if you want to know more about  the learning outcomes that researchers expect, and if you want to know more about how protocols  and reporting standards are applied on the business and economic studies. So those are the  basis in order to offer consultations, workshops, online self-help and online guides, as well as  explore the systematic reviews as research methods. And because it's a lot of knowledge,  I think it calls for international collaboration. And I would like to propose a framework for the  cooperation in the form of the community of practice. Community of practice is a group  of people who share common concern, a set of problems or an interest on a topic,  and they develop and disseminate best practices, guidelines and strategies,  and organize and manage a body of knowledge. So the community of practice, some people think  it's just very loose in it, but it can also be very organized. And in order to have it very  organized, there are four elements. There's the management, the team, the supporting tools,  and the process element. So let's have a look at the management element first. I think it would be  interesting to have the community of practice connected with an association. So it's endorsed by  an institution. It might not be as in connection with membership, this would have to be discussed,  and also the degree of binding. It might also be interesting to see if there are any interest  groups with the Cochrane collaboration or the Campbell collaboration or any other collaborations  that are interested in working with systematic literature.  The second element would be supporting tools and documentation. This would also be part of the  community of practice because you need a place where you just put the knowledge, where you can  edit documents on a collaboration and where you can just collaborate and either post-meetings and  also dates. So there's one called Press Forum. I haven't been actually in this forum,  but it looks very interesting. It's a peer review of search strategies via a submission form.  That's a very interesting idea. The third one would be the process and training aspect.  So last year there was, or earlier before, there was a SWAT analysis done by medicine libraries  who looked at what libraries are doing and what they need in order to support their researchers.  I think this would also be very interesting to see what kind of strengths and weaknesses  libraries have in the economic area and to have more just data to support this.  It would also be interesting to have a skill development plan and just to have a common  exploration research agenda. There is the Evidence Synthesis Institute which offers free materials  for self-learning and I think it would also be interesting to have an online club or just  online meetings to go together for these materials so not everybody's doing it on its own.  It might also be interesting to have a look at the competency framework and especially  with connection to subject specific content. The last and fourth element would be the team  and the hands-on approach so that people can actually share information, share experience.  There is the idea of a search club to peer review search strategies that you can consult  colleagues that you can meet to discuss journal articles. There's a Google group called Business  Librarians and Systemic Reviews organized by Sarah Premji and I think they are meeting twice a year  just to talk about what's coming up, what might be problems, what problems they have encountered  during the last few weeks. In order to do this there might be regular meetings,  you have to discuss if you have clear objectives. I've also said that it might be interesting to  have a list of experts with knowledge profiles and it always you know those groups they depend on  the commitment and the motivation of the people taking part in them but I think in this case  the support by the management and the leadership is also very important.  To conclude I think there's a lot of potential, there's a lot of knowledge already out there and  if you find a way to collaborate to share this knowledge more widely and to fill the research  gaps you will be able to support our researchers in the best way possible. Thank you.  Thank you, thank you very much. Very interesting presentations Sabina. It is our tradition even  though we're doing virtually from our offices and homes. We'd like to give you first of all an  applause for your presentation. Thank you very much. We also have a few questions that have  already come in. I just wanted to point one thing out before we begin with your questions.  We had one or two questions from our previous speaker, Francisco Klatt. That was a video that  was presented so of course she couldn't answer those questions so if you still would like to ask  Francisco Klatt something feel free to contact her per email and if you need the email address,  if you don't have that just contact our conference organizers and they'll make sure you get that.  So I just wanted to put that out there first of all. Now we're coming to Sabina and after your  presentation we already have a couple of questions here. The first question, there was a poster on  a chatbot at this conference. Could Q&A on SLR also be a chatbot topic in your opinion?  That's an interesting question. I think it can be for the starting stages. So just to make them  aware of certain materials that are available to have a first look at the process itself and then  to determine what kind of support they need in detail. Excellent. Our next question, do you offer  kind of a guideline or summary for researchers which evaluates the databases and the search  syntax? How do you keep up to date with the changes in database search engines? Good question.  Yeah, I concur. This is actually, I think we do not have those guidelines and we do not have the  summaries because the databases are changing constantly and I think this is an area where I  would hope the collaboration would work or would come in. Okay, great. Thank you. Our next question  here, we've got multiple questions and that is, what could an international cooperation look like?  A jointly curated website, for example, a support and mailing list, special responsibilities for  certain topics or questions. What do you feel about that? I think it could be all. Could you maybe  expand a little bit more on that? Yeah, I think there needs to be a website just to share information  and not everybody is courageous to use the support mailing list. So it would be helpful to have a  web page to just look through. Maybe the question has already been answered. The mailing list might  be interesting for questions, for more specific or very in-depth questions to get an idea about  what experts are out there and if they could be, there would be help. And with the special  responsibilities for certain topics and questions, I think this would be very interesting and the  kind of that there is the kind of expert list with the knowledge they have. Excellent. We have one  more question that's coming in right now while we're waiting. I just wanted to ask you, the  University of Hamburg, in general, the universities, are they very supportive about this initiative  or is it kind of climbing uphill? I think it's very new and I think also professors here at our  universities, they are starting with the research method systematic literature review. So we are  both just trying to come together and try to find out what kind of services they need and we can  offer. Very diplomatic. Good. And our final question, what could an international cooperation look like?  A jointly curated website, a support mailing list, special responsibility for certain topics or  questions. I believe that was a repeat of the question we had before. I apologize about that.  Let me see here and I see already that that was a repeat. I think then that was our final question.  Okay. Would you like to just say a closing statement or have you covered everything?  I'm looking forward, unlike Franziska Ksart already told before, to try to establish network. I'm  really interested in doing this. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Oh, Movet. And this is kind of like  the breaking news ticker we used to have. We do have one more that just came in hot off the internet  press. Do you see more faculty-library and collaboration for more enhanced systematic reviews  in these days of emerging tech? This is also a very good question. I think  I think it's not dependent on the technology. I think because the method just gets more  attention from the faculty. This is just in development. Okay, great. We have a final question  here. Could you share your contact details? What's the best way to reach you? People have more  questions. Oh, yes. My email address, it's also on the website of the university. Okay. And could  you just say it one time? Sabine.rauchmann. University of Hamburg.de  Super. Excellent. And it's also on the university homepage. Yes. Yes. Okay, wonderful. Sabine  Rauchmann. Again, we wanted to say thank you not only for your great presentation, but for taking  the time to answer some of our questions and our answer session. A round of applause for Sabine.
03_Sabine_Rauchmann_0_179.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_180_2375.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_2376_2735.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_2736_3203.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_3204_3803.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_3804_3875.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_3876_4979.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_4980_6647.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_6648_6743.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_6744_11615.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_11616_13547.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_13548_14231.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_14232_16535.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_16536_17483.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_17484_20039.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_20040_20111.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_20112_21095.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_21096_27251.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_27252_28535.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_28536_28667.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_28668_29015.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_29016_29327.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_29328_29459.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_29460_29615.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_29616_29711.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_29712_29987.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_29988_30827.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_30828_31283.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_31284_33899.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_33900_34211.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_34212_34487.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_34488_35807.png 03_Sabine_Rauchmann_35808_35808.png