In the spring semester of 2013, the University of Arizona Libraries partnered with the Eller College of Management to provide instruction to all first-semester Eller students. An online toolkit of library resources was created in Blackboard. The first day of the semester, two groups of 250 students each assembled into a lecture hall and received an overview of the Eller first-year experience, which included a 50-minute library instruction session. The challenge was how to provide an environment in which the students could have hands-on instruction while receiving personalized assistance and also to ensure that the students retained the concepts learned. The librarians utilized online quizzes to guide the in-class instruction and then required a four-part post-class tutorial, using interactive guide-on-the-side technology to strengthen retention and follow-up quizzes to test retention. This poster’s charts, screen shots, and photos will examine the process, the technology utilized, and results from the quizzes and website analytics.

The University of Arizona (UA) Libraries has an evolving strategy to steward the scholarly record of the institution. As a key component of this strategy the Libraries have a leadership role in implementing UA Vitae, a mandated online faculty activity reporting system with initial focus on supporting the faculty evaluation process. In partnership with the Office of the Provost and Campus Computing, the Libraries contribute expertise in support of this campus initiative. Leveraging the data from this effort to capture a more holistic view of the scholarly record provides opportunities for the Libraries to partner on approaches to utilizing, stewarding, and exposing the scholarly record. This presentation will describe the University and the Library’s evolving strategies in regard to defining and stewarding the scholarly record, our experiences with the build-out of the faculty activity reporting system, and next steps in bringing together information and systems that are transforming our University.

Open educational resources (OER) are teaching and learning materials that are free to use, customize, and share. There’s a goldmine of OER online, but locating them is like trying to herd cattle (or cats). It takes persistence and a knack for tracking down things that are scattered all over. OER range from digital textbooks, lesson plans, and games to assignments, videos, and lab notes. Learn about the benefits of OER, potential barriers, where to find high-quality OER, and how to increase customers’ awareness of them. The target audience for this presentation is anyone who works with K-12 classes, college students, instructors, and lifelong learners.

Background: Over the past few decades systematic reviews have become a major component of the biomedical research literature landscape. While systematic reviews were originally developed for medicine and its related fields, they are increasingly published in other disciplines. Our research questions are,“What disciplines outside of the health sciences are adopting systematic reviews as a research method? What implications may this have for health sciences librarianship?” Objective: Our initial goal is to broadly investigate and describe the non-health science subject areas and disciplines that are publishing systematic reviews. We will look at the infiltration of systematic reviews into other fields and consider the implications of our results for health science librarians as well as librarians in other disciplines. Based on our initial findings, we will propose avenues for future research. Methods: We conducted a search in the Scopus database as a representative sample of research literature. We searched for the phrase “systematic review*” in the article title or abstract, and limited the results to review articles from journals. We filtered out articles published in health sciences disciplines using the Scopus subject categories, and examined the articles that remained. The resulting set of titles was screened by two independent reviewers in a stepwise fashion, first by reading titles, then abstracts, then the full text of remaining articles. We screened the citations to determine if each was a systematic review and addressed a topic outside the clinical health sciences. We read each remaining article to determine its subject area. Our initial results include systematic reviews outside the health science disciplines, and will yield data that has implications for librarians in the health sciences and in disciplines outside the health science field.

Originally developed for medicine and related fields in support of evidence-based practice, systematic reviews (SRs) are now published in other fields. We investigated non-health sciences disciplines that are publishing systematic reviews. We searched the Scopus database for articles with “systematic review*” in the title or abstract. Results were limited to review articles. Articles were examined by reviewers to determine if they a) were classified as SRs by the authors, b) written in English and c) addressed a non-health sciences topic. We reconciled differences for articles on which there was not initial consensus, and grouped remaining articles according to Scopus subject areas. Our filtered result set included 952 self-described systematic reviews outside the health science disciplines. We then examined a random sample of 90 articles and compared each article's methodology to health sciences systematic review criteria. Our results show that the non-health science disciplines with the highest number of self described systematic reviews appear to be the social sciences, environmental science, business, computer science and engineering. Details about inclusion/exclusion criteria and the databases used were often included. A majority of our sample did not clearly describe the search strategy or use published SR protocols as a basis for methodology. Librarians were consulted in only 3 of 90 articles we examined.

The past several years has seen an increasing emphasis on providing access to the results of research, both publications and data. The majority of federal grant funding agencies require that researchers include a data management plan as part of their grant proposal. In response, the University of Arizona Libraries, in collaboration with the Office of Research and Discovery and the University Information Technology Services, has been providing data management services and resources to the campus for the past several years. In 2014, we conducted a research data management survey to find out how UA researchers manage their research data, determine the demand for existing services and identify new services that UA researchers need. In the fall of 2015, the Data Management and Data Publication and Curation (DMDC) Pilot was started to determine what specific services and tools, including training and support and the needed technology infrastructure, researchers need to effectively and efficiently manage and curate their research data. This presentation will present what data management services we currently are offering, discuss findings from the 2014 survey, and present initial results from the DMDC pilot.