About this Site

This database connects librarians who have evidence synthesis expertise with journal editors who need peer reviewers with this expertise.

Why does the world need the Librarian Peer Reviewer Database?

We surveyed almost three hundred colleagues and learned that many librarians are willing to peer review a systematic review manuscript, but have never been asked. What's more, the librarians who have peer reviewed systematic review manuscripts typically identify flaws or reporting gaps in the manuscript under review, often in the search methodology or the search write-up.  

Read all the details in this paper: "Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey."

Connecting librarians who have expertise in systematic searching with journal editors who need peer reviewers with expertise in systematic searching was the obvious next step. Luckily, a model solution to this problem already existed: the Early Career Reviewer Database, created by Dr. Susan Perkins to help journal editors find early career scientists with specialized expertise in areas of ecology, evolution, behavior, and/or systematics. 

The Librarian Peer Reviewer Database is built explicitly on the ECRD model, and we're grateful to Dr. Perkins for sharing information about their project. 

How does the Librarian Peer Reviewer Database work?

Librarians who want to peer review evidence synthesis papers can submit their details to the LPRD. Potential reviewers must have co-authored at least one evidence synthesis paper. 

Journal editors who want to find librarian peer reviewers can request access to the LPRD. Editors can peruse the database and reach out to the would-be reviewers of their choice. 

Why should evidence synthesis papers be peer reviewed by a librarian?

The role of librarians in systematic reviews is recognized in methods standards, including those from the Campbell Collaboration, Cochrane, and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. As specialists in information retrieval, librarians can identify issues like irreproducible search documentation or searches that failed to retrieve relevant papers. Librarians understand the process of creating and documenting comprehensive searches -- and a systematic review without a comprehensive search is fatally flawed! For this reason,  the Canadian Health Libraries Association (CHLA/ABSC), the European Association for Health Information and Libraries (EAHIL), the Health Libraries Australia section of the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA-HLA), and the Medical Library Association (MLA) have written to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, encouraging them to seek out information specialists as peer reviewers with methodological expertise.