Taking it a step farther: acknowledging librarians’ systematic review work in the promotion or tenure process

Librarians' contributions to systematic review projects receive inconsistent recognition within promotion or tenure processes. A review of thirty-six academic libraries' norms and procedures revealed only two that mentioned systematic reviews. Recognition and inclusion of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis is further complicated by variance in recognition of interdisciplinary work. This commentary provides recommendations for academic library leadership to establish standards for documenting and evaluating systematic review work in annual reviews and promotion or tenure, explicitly recognizing the value of participation in interdisciplinary scholarship, inclusion of search strategies as a scholarly output, and providing guidance for the external review process. We close with a call to action for professional organizations to establish centralized guidelines to ensure the full recognition of librarianship and scholarly participation in systematic reviews.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA
Published
2026-04-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.2202
Primary Topic
Health Sciences Research and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Taking it a step farther: acknowledging librarians’ systematic review work in the promotion or tenure process

Abigail H Goben, AHIP Rebecca Raszewski
Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA
Health Sciences Research and Education
article

Taking it a step farther: acknowledging librarians’ systematic review work in the promotion or tenure process

Abigail H Goben, AHIP Rebecca Raszewski
article en

Abstract

Librarians' contributions to systematic review projects receive inconsistent recognition within promotion or tenure processes. A review of thirty-six academic libraries' norms and procedures revealed only two that mentioned systematic reviews. Recognition and inclusion of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis is further complicated by variance in recognition of interdisciplinary work. This commentary provides recommendations for academic library leadership to establish standards for documenting and evaluating systematic review work in annual reviews and promotion or tenure, explicitly recognizing the value of participation in interdisciplinary scholarship, inclusion of search strategies as a scholarly output, and providing guidance for the external review process. We close with a call to action for professional organizations to establish centralized guidelines to ensure the full recognition of librarianship and scholarly participation in systematic reviews.

Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLAVol. 114(2)
University of Illinois Chicago (US), University of Chicago (US)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Health Sciences Research and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.