Research Support Services in STEM Libraries: A Scoping Review

Nedelina Tchangalova
Public Health Librarian
STEM Library
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
nedelina@umd.edu

Jodi Coalter
Life Sciences Librarian
STEM Library
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
jcoalter@umd.edu

Amy Trost
Data Services & Business Librarian
Priddy Library
The Universities at Shady Grove
Rockville, MD
atrost1@umd.edu

Amber Pierdinock
Public Services Librarian
Library Learning Resource Center
Spartanburg Community College
Spartanburg, SC
pierdinocka@sccsc.edu

Abstract

Introduction

For early-career Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) librarians, the academic landscape is daunting to unravel (Hackenberg 2000; Beck & Callison 2006; Garritano & Carlson 2009; Tchangalova 2009). It is crucial for new STEM librarians to have a firm understanding of the various programs and services offered in academic and special libraries to ensure that they are establishing a career that is both productive and rewarding, as well as experienced librarians seeking to add value through additional programs and services.

Information overload is spreading in the scholarly community, and thus a need for synthesis of research evidence has been recognized by today’s policymakers, managers, researchers, and practitioners. Collecting and analyzing primary studies to make important decisions is a time-consuming process (Borah et al. 2017). For librarians, systematic and scoping reviews can be beneficial to identify strengths for various services they currently offer or plan to offer in the future. Scoping reviews typically involve a rigorous process of planning, identifying, selecting, and synthesizing the evidence based on a specific research question (Arksey & O’Malley 2005). While the systematic reviews include a critical appraisal of the included studies, the scoping reviews aim “to map the literature on a particular topic or research area and provide an opportunity to identify key concepts; gaps in the research; and types and sources of evidence to inform practice, policymaking, and research” (Daudt et al. 2013).

This study aims to survey the various research support services to inform future programming in libraries serving STEM disciplines. The research team conducted a scoping review of the literature describing small to medium sized programs in research support services offered in special or academic STEM libraries, or libraries serving STEM departments or units. The included studies offer services that generally can be accomplished without multiple actors across departments, collaborations, and dependencies. While the included studies may seem large, either fiscally or departmentally, they are generally simpler in terms of scope for an early-career librarian to reasonably execute at least some of the components of the entire service suite.

Definitions Used for this Study

STEM Disciplines

Though commonly accepted as referring to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, there are discrepancies amongst organizations as to which sciences are included in STEM definitions (Gonzalez & Kuenzi 2012; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 2016). The National Science Foundation (NSF) has adopted a broad definition, including social sciences such as economics and politics within STEM, whereas the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) defined STEM as “engineering, biological sciences, mathematics, and physical sciences, or a related field.” Related fields involve “research, innovation, or development of new technologies using engineering, mathematics, computer science or natural sciences.” The authors of this scoping review used the narrower definition that excluded the social sciences and medicine, as these areas have been covered exhaustively by other scholars for inclusion in this scoping review (Mann & Weightman 2013; Hardi & Fowler 2014; Falconer 2015; Ludeman et al. 2015; Knehans et al. 2016; Roth 2018; Kung & Chambers 2019).

STEM Library

The American Library Association (date unknown) currently identifies four types of libraries: academic, public, school, and special libraries. This paper aims to identify research support services in academic and special libraries that offer unique opportunities to work with scientists and researchers in STEM disciplines. Smaller institutions and organizations usually have only one library supporting all disciplines, including STEM, while larger institutions may have several libraries on campus dedicated to serving particular disciplines or schools. For the purpose of this scoping review, articles and other sources are included regardless of the library size as long as it is serving faculty, students, staff, and researchers in STEM disciplines.

Research Support

The library profession has undergone many changes over the years, and librarians have transitioned from a focus on collections to service-oriented information professionals. Walter (2011) mentioned a “service turn” in libraries. The library is valued less for its physical collection and more for its scope and quantity of distinctive services, marked by a unique method of engagement or a connection with a campus’ mission, identity, or history. These “distinctive services” will vary from library to library. But are there services that should be considered universal? What kinds of services would then be considered non-traditional or specialized?

Dempsey (2013) discussed a “shift to engagement” where the libraries begin to assess user’s needs, anticipate changes in the user’s environment/expectations, and build services to intersect those needs. Auckland (2012) outlined the many responsibilities of reference librarians, including systematic reviews, knowledge of databases, metadata creation, virtual networking advisory, data mining, measuring effect and quality of research, and data preservation. Goetsch (2008) described subject librarians as “renaissance librarians” who assist researchers with research consulting, information lifecycle management, networked and unique collection building, and information mediation and interpretation.

As users seek assistance at different stages of the research lifecycle, universities are moving toward hiring functional experts: librarians with high proficiency in areas such as geographic information systems (GIS), data management services, online learning, technology, programming, scholarly communication, and assessment (Jaguszewski & Williams 2013). Other examples of research support include grant support, copyright consultations, digitization, assistance with data software, and digital scholarship (Johnson 2017; Chang et al. 2018; Cooper et al. 2019; Dohe et al. 2019).

This scoping review focuses on non-traditional or specialized research support services dedicated to supporting faculty, students and scientists engaged in research work. Since it takes some time for early-career librarians to build campus relationships and seek collaboration at a larger scale with greater impact to the larger organizational community, the findings are limited to small and medium scale services and programs that could be implemented with a small number of library colleagues or departmental faculty. More traditional services were excluded from the scoping review, such as interlibrary loan, information literacy instruction (e.g., one-shot instruction, competitions, orientations, scavenger hunts, speaker panels, etc.), embedded librarianship, makerspaces and other similar services as they are not considered specialized or non-traditional research support services. For example, much of the literature on makerspaces extends beyond the setting (academic or special libraries) laid out in this framework, as well as focuses on educational support rather than research support. Additionally, developing makerspaces are a large-scale endeavor for an academic or special library to develop and would not fall under the scope of a small to medium-sized library service.

Objectives

The SPICE framework developed by Booth (2006) was used in the development of the research question: What are the small to medium size, non-traditional or specialized research support services in academic and special libraries serving STEM disciplines? (Figure 1).

Methods

The research team consisted of a librarian with training in systematic review techniques (NT), librarians with a science background (NT, JC), librarians with expertise in data visualization (JC, AT), and a library graduate student (AP). This study followed the Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist (Tricco et al. 2018), which is provided in Appendix 8.

Identifying Search Terms

Prior to conducting the scoping review, three approaches were used to identify keywords and combinations of terms to yield the most appropriate results: preliminary searches, visualization, and a survey. The first preliminary search was conducted in February 2019 across all EBSCO databases licensed by the University of Maryland (UMD) Libraries. Since the authors were collaborating with faculty on research projects, as well as offering research assistance regularly, the following truncated terms and phrases emerged and were used for this first round of preliminary search: "science-technology librar*" AND (collaborat* OR “research support” OR “research service*” OR “research consultation*” OR “research assistance”). A second preliminary search was also conducted across all EBSCO databases using the Science & Technology Libraries subject field (DE=Descriptor) that was “exploded” to include other sci-tech library subject headings (Appendix 1). Searching EBSCO databases simultaneously using the Choose databases feature allowed the authors to identify the highest number of results and to decide on the number of databases to search for this scoping review (Appendix 1 and Appendix 2). Some emerging themes included research support through information literacy, building infrastructure for data management, exploring technology for research, etc. Related articles were scanned for keywords supplied by authors, subject terms, words in titles, and abstracts in the following areas: librarians collaborating with faculty in teaching students to conduct research (Salisbury & Mattice 2016; MacDonald 2018); librarians managing big data (Antell et al. 2014; Johnson 2017); librarians propagating open science (Ogungbeni et al. 2018); librarians as partners in e-science (digital services) (Hunter et al. 2010); fostering collaborations with shared virtual reality technology (Smith & Bridle 2018); and engagement through collections, instruction, and reference (Hubbard 2017).

Second, to capture all literature pertinent to the research topic, three librarians (JC, NT, AT) tested text mining and data visualization tools (Voyant, Systematic Review Accelerator, Tableau, Gephi, JSTOR Text Analyzer, and VOSviewer) to identify additional search terms in paper abstracts from the preliminary searches. They concluded that these tools required a cumbersome level of data cleanup and formatting producing very few additional search terms (Coalter et al. 2019). Print dictionaries and online thesauri were also consulted to identify related words, synonyms, and subject headings.

Finally, a survey with eight questions was developed (Appendix 3). The UMD Institutional Review Board (IRBNet ID#1409490-1) approved the survey, and it was sent to nine STEM-related listservs and discussion groups consisting of more than 5,443 subscribers (Appendix 4). Data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at UMD (Harris et al. 2009; Harris et al. 2019). The goal was to reach out to other STEM librarians via email to discover new search terms based on libraries’ names and job titles. Seventy-one librarians participated in the survey but none of them shared any studies, reports, books, or other grey literature that was relevant to this scoping review. However, six participants shared their job descriptions, four participants mentioned that they were offering a spectrum of data management services, one participant’s library was currently exploring the development of a bibliometrics service, and two were providing a suite of research support services including grants and funding, digital scholarship, open research, publishing and copyright, text and data mining, and data visualization. The final list of search terms is presented in Appendix 5.

Developing a Search Strategy

One librarian (NT) created the search strategies (Appendix 6) and obtained expert advice for further improvement by email from a well-known Biomedical Information Specialist from the Netherlands (Wichor Bramer, e-mail message, April 11, 2019). Another UMD librarian with agricultural and natural sciences subject expertise provided feedback on the search terms (Stephanie Ritchie, personal communication with authors, April 16, 2019). After discussing the terms with other co-authors (JC, AP, AT) for inclusion as shown in Appendix 5, the search terms from the three main concepts, librarians/libraries, STEM, and research support, were combined with Boolean and proximity operators. Truncation was applied when necessary. The search strategy was checked for syntax and punctuation errors using a variety of tools, including the autocorrect feature in Microsoft Word and Grammarly, PRESS guidelines (McGowan et al. 2016), and BalanceBraces.com (Coalter et al. 2019). A single line search strategy was used for easier reproducibility and time efficiency (Bramer et al. 2018). The final search strategy was translated into the bibliographic databases of interest. Due to the large number of results obtained from the designed search strategy, one author (JC) used Google Books Ngram Viewer to inform when a particular term started to be a hot topic over the research span (Coalter et al. 2019). Although Google Books Ngram Viewer is designed to track the frequency of terms in Google books, the authors of this review found it valuable for tracking when a particular search term started to be heavily used in monographs. This technique provided additional insight on emerging topics in the literature. Based on this exploration, the results to scholarly literature were limited to those published between 1990 and 2020.

Study Selection

Eligible articles included academic institutions and special libraries reporting on “unique” services (as defined) to STEM researchers involving areas such as infrastructure, services, and policy related to libraries. All types of articles reporting on research support services were considered, including qualitative and quantitative methods such as focus groups, interviews, statistical data, or anecdotal evidence. Articles describing health, medical, and hospital libraries were excluded because these publications were out of scope of this review. To develop the final set of inclusion criteria, the 4,242 records obtained from the preliminary searches as shown in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 were imported into CADIMA, a free online tool that supports systematic review conduct and report. Two investigators (JC, AP) independently pilot tested the study selection on a random sample of records from the preliminary searches. They resolved the conflicts through discussion and consultation with a third member (NT). A list of inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented to assess the articles found during the preliminary searches and predetermined decisions (Table 1). There was no restriction on the geographical location, but results were limited to those published in English for the scoping review.

SPICE Framework	Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Setting	Academic or special libraries serving STEM disciplines	K-12 school libraries (media libraries), public libraries, and health, medical and hospital libraries
Population	Scientists, engineers, and researchers (students, faculty, or staff) in STEM disciplines	Any researcher outside of the STEM disciplines as defined (e.g., health, medical or hospital)
Intervention/exposure	Small or medium size scope, non-traditional or specialized service (such as scholarly communication, data visualization, statistical consulting, systematic review, etc.)	Traditional services such as interlibrary loan, specialized library instruction (e.g., R programming, scholarly communication, standards, etc.), makerspaces, course reserves, institutional repositories, etc.
Comparator	Filling a need that was not being met in the population previously	N/A
Evaluation	Any evidence of service evaluation, success, lessons learned, potential for future service development or benefits for the library and its users	N/A

Data Sources and Literature Search

The authors agreed on a selection of appropriate databases based on their preliminary searches and current UMD Libraries’ subscriptions. On April 22, 2019, a search was performed in four EBSCO databases – Academic Search Ultimate, Education Source, Library & Information Science Source, and MASTERFile, as well as in Web of Science. The results were imported into Zotero, a bibliographic management software, for deduplicating results across databases and screening the records. An updated search was executed on August 12, 2020 to identify more recent publications. The primary author (NT) independently applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to all title/abstract studies. If relevancy was difficult to ascertain from an abstract, the full text was consulted.

In addition, citation searching was performed in reference lists of literature reviews, systematic or scoping reviews discovered by the initial searches, as well as the reference lists of included studies. All authors also checked specific library journals for relevant research support services: Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, Journal of eScience Librarianship, Journal of Map & Geography Libraries, Reference and User Services Quarterly, and Science & Technology Libraries. A manual search was also performed in the conference papers of the Engineering Libraries Division of the American Society for Engineering Education. The authors searched Google in incognito mode to minimize the effects of saving the browsing history, as well as using Google Advanced Search, including limiting document types (.pdf and .doc) and site domains (.edu, .org, .gov). Using a Google Scholar search methodology as described in two studies by Bramer et al. (2016, 2017), the authors of this paper reviewed the first 200 records from each search string developed for the five services identified in this review (Appendix 6). Through this supplementary searching, 17 articles were identified based on title and/or abstract.

Data Abstraction and Analysis

Once the studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified for inclusion in this review, the relevant data from each study was extracted. For each study, one investigator (NT) obtained the data in an Excel spreadsheet, while two members (JC, AT) checked for relevancy and accuracy. Extracted data included publication information, country of origin, library type, service type, and summaries, main outcomes, and program evaluations. The aim was to examine the size and scale of the implemented study to identify small and medium scale research support services that a STEM librarian could use to either enhance existing services or initiate and lead the development of new innovative ones.

Results

Literature Search

A PRISMA diagram displaying the number of results at various stages of this research process is presented in Figure 2. A total of 24,720 records were retrieved from database searches, and after removing duplicates, 19,873 records were screened by title and abstract. One hundred sixteen records were selected for full text review. Forty-five papers met the inclusion criteria.

Characteristics of Included Studies

Key information and main outcomes were summarized from each of the included 45 articles (Appendix 7). Figure 3 shows the distribution of studies involving research support services by year for 1990-2020.

The most common non-traditional or specialized research support services described fall into the following areas: data management, geographic information systems, bibliometrics/altmetrics, patents, and systematic reviews (Figure 4).

Figure 5 shows the publication venues for the 45 studies. The Journal of Academic Librarianship and Library Trends led the list with five articles each.

The number of non-traditional or specialized research support services are presented by country in Figure 6. The majority of the services described in the included studies were offered in the United States.

Discussion

The number of publications of non-traditional or specialized research support services increased after 2006 and remained steady over the years with a higher number being published in 2018 (Figure 3). The following synthesizes and discusses the studies included within the context of the five areas identified earlier in Figure 4: data management services, geographic information systems, bibliometrics and altmetrics, patents, and systematic reviews.

Data Management Services (n=21)

Approximately half of the 45 included articles in this scoping review described the development and implementation of data management services. Summaries of each article are included in Appendix 7. The 21 studies included in this scoping review trace the evolution of research data management services from 2006 to 2019 (Figure 7). Early articles emphasize data discovery and access to collections (Steinhart 2006; Read 2007). In 2008, the first discussion of institutional data repositories appeared, along with a discussion of data archiving and storage services (Choudhury 2008; Delserone 2008; Garritano & Carlson 2009). Transitioning from traditional library services to offering more specialized research support requires assessing the users’ needs (Peters & Dryden 2011; Williams 2013) and acquiring new skills in data curation (Nelson 2011). Data management plans are more regularly discussed in the literature by 2013 along with an increased emphasis on user training by librarians (Choudhury 2013; Raboin et al. 2013; Shen & Varvel 2013; Akers et al. 2014). More recent articles emphasize the importance of cross-functional partnerships (Chiware & Mathe 2015; Choudhury 2017), data visualization support (Ogier et al. 2018), and computational literacy (Oliver et al. 2019).

A major concern is the lack of librarians with the necessary skills to provide data management services (Akers et al. 2014) and academic institutions globally took various approaches in meeting this demand for specialized skills. In South Africa, the administration at the University of Pretoria took the lead to travel and learn from international experiences with research data management services (van Deventer & Pienaar 2015).

In the United States, the University of Minnesota hired a “science librarian cohort” to support interdisciplinary collaborations between researchers (Delserone 2008). The University of Arizona Libraries hired additional staff with specialized skills to lead workshops on computational literacy and open science (Oliver et al. 2019). Purdue University Libraries supported the Center for Authentic Science Practice in Education (CASPiE), an undergraduate research center funded by the National Science Foundation (Garritano & Carlson 2009). Through this collaboration, they realized core skills for librarians that they already have and provided advice on how to further enhance these skills on the go. Virginia Tech Newman Library also took the collaborative approach and formed a team of disciplinary data and informatics consultants, enabling collaborations across disciplines and various units on campus (Griffin & Lawlor 2019). A similar approach was used by three institutions – University of Wisconsin Madison, University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries and Tufts University – that developed their research data management services after the National Science Foundation began requiring Data Management Plans in grant proposals (Raboin et al. 2013). Data visualization consultation is another aspect of the data management services that STEM libraries may offer (Ogier & Stamper 2018).

In the United Kingdom, the University of Cambridge developed a “community of Data Champions,” a peer-to-peer training program (Higman et al. 2017). Higman and colleagues (2017) described a creative, nonmonetary reward system to motivate participants in this “community of practice.” Participants in this program include Ph.D. students, lecturers, data managers, librarians, or support staff equipped with skills to train their departmental colleagues in best practices of data management and sharing.

There are various approaches described in the included studies for the initial stages of research data management service development (Table 2).

Activities	Studies
Surveys to assess the research needs of their academic communities	Read 2007; Walters 2009; Choudhury 2013; Akers et al. 2014; Ogier et al. 2018; Patterton et al. 2018
Interviews, dialogues, and consultations	Choudhury 2008; Delserone 2008; Walters 2009; Nelson 2011; Peters & Dryden 2011; Shen & Varvel 2013; Choudhury 2013; Williams 2013; Akers et al. 2014; van Deventer & Pienaar 2015
Development of Research Data Management policies	Steinhart 2006; Walters 2009; Akers et al. 2014; van Deventer & Pienaar 2015
Building an infrastructure that is embedded within researchers’ workflow and processes	Chiware & Mathe 2015; Choudhury 2017

Several articles described services that filled previously unmet needs, so most evaluation activities were preliminary in nature and related to the establishment of new services. Study authors evaluated data management service success through patron surveys (Read 2007; Choudhury 2013), attendance data for instructional sessions and consultations (Shen & Varvel 2013; Higman et al. 2017), number of training sessions (Oliver et al. 2019) and the growth of data in institutional repositories (Choudhury 2017). To order to plan the data management services, researchers’ data practices were evaluated in two studies (Walters 2009; Patterton et al. 2018). Lessons learned were described in two studies providing insights and challenges for creating a new service (Choudhury 2013; Ogier & Stamper 2018). Researchers also provided anecdotal evidence of the success of the data management services which resulted in more connections between librarians and faculty (Peters & Dryden 2011), and practical recommendations for service development (Raboin et al. 2013). Other measures of success mentioned in the included studies were user satisfaction and increased awareness of the data management services (Steinhart 2006; Williams 2013; Chiware & Mathe 2015), as well as identified potential collaborative projects between librarians and researchers (Delserone 2008; Garritano & Carlson 2009; Nelson 2011).

Geographic Information Systems (n=11)

There were eleven studies that provided insights into the development of GIS services at a STEM Library or a library serving researchers in STEM disciplines. Before embarking on the planning, developing and implementing a formal GIS service, March (2011) explored the researchers’ needs, while Sweetkind-Singer and Williams (2001) visited other universities’ GIS labs, and Kinikin and Hench (2005) surveyed academic libraries with GIS services to learn about existing practices and to provide a road map for authors to solicit administrative support. A similar approach was undertaken by Macfarlane and Rodgers (2008) who hired two interns from the Geography Department of the Middlebury College. The interns assessed the needs for GIS support on campus, promoted the GIS applications through print materials and electronic newsletter, and provided workshops and individual consultations to researchers. The University of Kansas responded to their users’ research needs by increasing the subject expertise of their existing staff and acquiring the necessary technology and resources (Houser 2006). Building a dedicated lab space for course work and research, as well as offering a suite of specialized GIS workshops were some of the effective approaches taken by the universities (Sweetkind-Singer & Williams 2001; Houser 2006). Allocating funding for the acquisitions of hardware and software proved to be crucial for launching a successful GIS service (Suh & Lee 1999; Kinikin & Hench 2005; March 2011).

Scaramozzino et al. (2014) described GIS service models at five academic libraries and provided “a rich collection of experiences, lessons learned, and […] challenges from among the library GIS community from which program managers can learn as they continue to develop.” Two studies described a three-level service and software use (Abbott & Argentati 1995; Boissé & Larsgaard 1995), while one study provided insights into providing GIS services in a single location in a library rather than in departmental labs (Sweetkind-Singer & Williams 2001).

Policy implementation is outlined in three studies (Abbott & Argentati 1995; Suh & Lee 1999; Scaramozzino et al. 2014). In addition to building the infrastructure for the provision of GIS services, it is equally important to recognize the amount of time librarians spend in research consultations. Through the analysis of the GIS consultation statistics, Parrish (2006) identified the types of patrons in order to conduct research consultations in an effective and efficient manner.

Success of GIS service implementation is measured quantitatively through the collection of statistics on the number of research consultations (Parrish 2006; March 2011; Scaramozzino et al. 2014), instruction sessions (Scaramozzino et al. 2014), workshop attendance (Houser 2006), and GIS lab use (Olson 2004). Using qualitative methods, authors evaluated their services by collecting feedback from their users (Olson 2004; Houser 2006). One study measured success through an increased number of GIS stations and the addition of a full-time and a part-time staff to meet GIS service demand (Kinikin & Hench 2005), while two studies reported an increased awareness of GIS applications among students and researchers (Sweetkind-Singer & Williams 2001; Macfarlane & Rodgers 2008). Based on their experiences with the implementation of the new GIS service, several studies provided recommendations on meeting the users’ needs (Abbott & Argentati 1995; Suh & Lee 1999), and on exploration of funding opportunities (Boissé & Larsgaard 1995).

Bibliometrics and Altmetrics (n=6)

Bibliometrics and altmetrics services were another category of research support in academic libraries. The six studies described the development of the bibliometric or altmetric services to support research using a variety of approaches (Ball & Tunger 2006; Drummond & Wartho 2009; Delasalle 2011; Gumpenberger et al. 2012; Nelson 2016; Abernethy & Holderied 2018). Due to the increased number of requests for citation metrics, the United States Environmental Protection Agency in Research Triangle Park expanded their reference services to include Research Impact Reports and Article Impact Reports to address the demand (Abernethy & Holderied 2018). Exploring new metrics such as altmetrics, as well as data visualization tools to create reports of high quality, allowed librarians to bring more value in their current service offerings (Nelson 2016; Abernethy & Holderied 2018). A similar approach was undertaken by the University of New South Wales, where the library developed the Research Impact Measurement Service to support the university’s strategic goals (Drummond & Wartho 2009). Several case studies outlined the benefits from these transformed services, such as providing valuable information to researchers for grant applications, tenure, and promotion, and institutional comparison (Ball & Tunger 2006; Drummond & Wartho 2009; Delasalle 2011; Abernethy & Holderied 2018).

While the previously described approaches led to enhancing an existing service and bringing value to the libraries, the University of Vienna established a separate Bibliometrics Department and formed an inter-institutional working group charged to coordinate all university units dealing with bibliometric activities (Gumpenberger et al. 2012). As a result, the department was engaged in different areas, such as teaching, consultations, organizing events, developing partnerships, participating in projects, and scientific output.

Two services were evaluated informally, based on customer input and counts of published reports (Drummond & Wartho 2009; Abernethy & Holderied 2018), while other studies highlighted the benefit of positioning the library as a value-added service provider to the existing traditional services (Ball & Tunger 2006; Delasalle 2011). One study demonstrated the success of the bibliometric research support service through the expansion of services to include outside organizations, hosting conferences and more (Gumpenberger et al. 2012). Altmetrics were discussed as a potential strategy for helping engineering faculty to identify interdisciplinary research collaborators and create an online social presence that raises faculty professional profiles and increases the impact of their research (Nelson 2016).

Patents (n=5)

Five articles that described a patent service in libraries serving STEM disciplines were identified (Thomas 1991; Zhang 2009; Feng & Zhao 2015; Irvin 2018; Zhang & Peng 2018).

With their educational roles, STEM librarians are well suited to incorporate patent searching in their instructional and reference efforts and highlight these underutilized resources of scientific contributions (Thomas 1991; Zhang 2009; Irvin 2018). The University of Saskatchewan developed a systematic patent training program based on the analysis of citation patterns of all the patents granted to the university (Zhang 2009). The team-based patent service offered at the Nanjing Technology University Library provided a detailed description of the planning, development, and implementation of this program (Feng & Zhao 2015). Another service model is the four-tiered patents service that could be easily integrated into the regular reference service activities (Thomas 1991). Recognizing different types of users and their information needs offered professional development opportunities for early-career librarians to deepen their subject expertise in the patents field (Thomas 1991; Zhang & Peng 2018).

Patent service evaluations differ across studies. Two studies measured success through users’ appreciations and anecdotal evidence (Feng & Zhao 2015; Zhang & Peng 2018), while another study measured success through statistical data collected on the time spent on consultations and the increased number of patent consultation requests (Irvin 2018). One patent service was integrated into the regular reference transactions (Thomas 1991) and highlighted several benefits such as professional development opportunity for library staff and increased visibility of the library. In another study, a bibliometric analysis of an institution’s patents was used to inform, enhance, and target a patent searching training program (Zhang 2009).

Systematic Reviews (n=2)

STEM librarians are taking initial steps in developing systematic review services as more scientists and engineers are starting to use this methodology in their research activities. The team-based systematic review service at the University of Minnesota (Riegelman & Kocher 2018), as well as the three-tiered model at the University of Maryland in College Park (Tchangalova et al. 2020), presented successful practices beyond the health and medical libraries. Both studies presented measures of success including statistics, feedback from researchers and anecdotal evidence.

Limitations

Limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this review. First, the included articles focused only on small and medium scale projects that would be beneficial to early-career librarians or those interested in new research support services to chart the areas where they initially could direct their efforts. Second, only full-text articles in English were included, thereby excluding research published in other languages due to the lack of reliable translation services. Third, although the literature search strategies were extensive, some studies may have been missed due to the following reasons: (1) the use of the Boolean operator NOT may have excluded STEM articles that also included health science or medical libraries; or (2) because the search terms have failed to identify these relevant studies. For example, in the search strategy the term “geography” was included, but not “geographic,” “geographical,” “GIS,” and “Geospatial,” and thus articles related to GIS programs and services may have been missed.

Since the scoping review only includes scholarly output, the analysis included here does not fully capture the scope of new research support services in academic and special libraries with a STEM focus. Many of these new services are featured on library web sites, discussed at conferences, or described in less formal publication venues. A greater emphasis on publishing in the searchable literature by all STEM librarians would provide both new and experienced librarians with a more complete understanding of the types of services that could be possible in their own libraries.

Conclusion

The studies examined in this scoping review frequently reported the establishment of services in data management and GIS. These are areas that offer many opportunities, along with associated challenges, for further development, especially with the emergence of new technology tools. Patent and bibliometrics/altmetrics services are not as frequently described in the literature, and future program descriptions and studies are welcomed to share successful practices, challenges, and opportunities. The small number of systematic review services identified in this review highlighted an opportunity for STEM librarians to share best practices in this direction. In today’s information-saturated environment, librarians who learn the systematic review methodology and implement these services will be able to participate as valuable contributors to research projects with faculty in STEM disciplines.

This scoping review presents a systematic overview of the published literature on non-traditional or specialized research support services in academic and special libraries. It summarizes the literature on innovative services in the STEM libraries and offers inspirational ideas for enhancing existing services or developing new ones based on target audiences. This study will be beneficial to all STEM librarians, especially the ones at the beginning of their careers, who would like to bring more value to the services they offer, thus increasing the impact of their libraries.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the insightful comments made by Wichor Bramer (University Medical Center Rotterdam, Netherlands) and Stephanie Ritchie (University of Maryland STEM Library, US) on the key terms and the search strategy. We also would like to thank our colleagues at the University of Maryland Libraries – David Durden for setting up the REDCap survey and for providing feedback on the manuscript; Nevenka Zdravkovska and Sarah Over for testing the REDCap survey. We are very thankful for the constructive comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers and editors of the Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship.

Funding

This research was funded from the University of Maryland Libraries’ Research Fund grant.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. This material has not been presented before.

Authors’ Contributions

All authors have made significant contributions to this scoping review. As a principal investigator, JC contributed to the scoping review protocol, developed the REDCap survey instrument, and secured the funds for the study. As a first author, NT collaborated in the protocol development, was involved in all review phases, as well as in the preparation of the manuscript draft. Reviewers with data visualization expertise (JC, NT, AT) collectively contributed to the development of keywords. At the time of the study, library graduate assistant (AP) added to the definitions used in this study. The scoping review team (JC, AP, NT, AT) collectively contributed to the critical revision of the manuscript and its final approval for the publication. All authors have read and approved the final version of this manuscript.

Supporting Information

Appendix 1: Preliminary Searches
Appendix 2: List of Databases with Results from the Preliminary Search in the Subject Field (DE)
Appendix 3: Survey Instrument in REDCap
Appendix 4: STEM Related Listservs
Appendix 5: List of Search Terms
Appendix 6: Search Strategies
Appendix 7: Included Studies
Appendix 8: PRISMA-ScR Checklist

References

Abbott, L.T. & Argentati, C.D. 1995. GIS: A new component of public services. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 21(4):251–256. DOI:10.1016/0099-1333(95)90004-7.

Abernethy, T. & Holderied, A. 2018. Implementing new bibliometric services at EPA-RTP Library. Serials Review 44(3):204–210. DOI:10.1080/00987913.2018.1549695.

Akers, K.G., Sferdean, F.C., Nicholls, N.H. & Green, J.A. 2014. Building support for research data management: Biographies of eight research universities. International Journal of Digital Curation 9(2):171–191. DOI:10.2218/ijdc.v9i2.327.

American Library Association. [date unknown]. Types of libraries [Internet]. [accessed 2020 Dec 10]. Available from http://www.ala.org/educationcareers/careers/librarycareerssite/typesoflibraries.

Antell, K., Foote, J.B., Turner, J. & Shults, B. 2014. Dealing with data: Science librarians’ participation in data management at Association of Research Libraries institutions. College & Research Libraries 75(4):557–574. DOI:10.5860/crl.75.4.557.

Arksey, H. & O’Malley, L. 2005. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1):19–32. DOI:10.1080/1364557032000119616.

Auckland, M. 2012. Re-skilling for research: An investigation into the role and skills of subject and liaison librarians required to effectively support the evolving information needs of researchers [Internet]. [accessed 2020 Dec 10]. Available from http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/204093.

Ball, R. & Tunger, D. 2006. Bibliometric analysis: A new business area for information professionals in libraries? Scientometrics 66(3):561–577. DOI:10.1007/s11192-006-0041-0.

Beck, D.M. & Callison, R. 2006. Becoming a science librarian. Science & Technology Libraries 27(1–2):71–98. DOI:10.1300/J122v27n01_06.

Boissé, J.A. & Larsgaard, M. 1995. GIS in academic libraries: A managerial perspective. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 21(4):288–291. DOI:10.1016/0099-1333(95)90010-1.

Booth, A. 2006. Clear and present questions: Formulating questions for evidence based practice. Library Hi Tech 24(3):355–368. DOI:10.1108/07378830610692127.

Borah, R., Brown, A.W., Capers, P.L. & Kaiser, K.A. 2017. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open 7(2):e012545. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545.

Bramer, W.M., de Jonge, G.B., Rethlefsen, M.L., Mast, F. & Kleijnen, J. 2018. A systematic approach to searching: An efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association 106(4):531–541. DOI:10.5195/jmla.2018.283.

Bramer, W.M., Giustini, D. & Kramer, B.M.R. 2016. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: A prospective study. Systematic Reviews 5:39. DOI:10.1186/s13643-016-0215-7.

Bramer, W.M., Rethlefsen, M.L., Kleijnen, J. & Franco, O.H. 2017. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: A prospective exploratory study. Systematic Reviews 6:245. DOI:10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y.

Chang, B., Carroll, A. & Nickels, C. 2018. A study of research support service needs for civil, construction, and environmental engineering researchers at North Carolina State University [Internet]. [accessed 2020 Dec 10]. Available from http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.20/35687.

Chiware, E. & Mathe, Z. 2015. Academic libraries’ role in research data management services: A South African perspective. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science 81(2):1–10. DOI:10.7553/81-2-1563.

Choudhury, G.S. 2008. Case study in data curation at Johns Hopkins University. Library Trends 57(2):211–220. DOI:10.1353/lib.0.0028.

Choudhury, G.S. 2013. Case study 1: Johns Hopkins University data management services. In Pryor, G., Jones, S. & Whytre, A., editors. Delivering Research Data Management Service: Fundamentals of Good Practice. London (UK): Facet Publishing. p. 115–133.

Choudhury, G.S. 2017. Data management and preservation of digital research data. Against the Grain 29(5):30-34. DOI:10.7771/2380-176X.7838.

Coalter, J., Tchangalova, N. & Trost, A. 2019. Using data visualization tools to design a search strategy for a systematic review. Poster presented at the UMD Libraries Research and Innovative Practice Forum. DOI:10.13016/3fel-hsou.

Cooper, D., Springer, R., Benner, J.G., Bloom, D., Carrillo, E., Carroll, A., Chang, B., Chen, X., Daix, E., Dommermuth, E, et al. 2019. Supporting the changing research practices of civil and environmental engineering scholars. ITHAKA S+R. DOI:10.18665/sr.310885.

Daudt, H.M., van Mossel, C. & Scott, S.J. 2013. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large, inter-professional team's experience with Arksey and O'Malley's framework. BMC Medical Research Methodology 13:48. DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-13-48.

Delasalle, J. 2011. Research evaluation: Bibliometrics and the librarian. SCONUL Focus. 53:15-19. [accessed 2020 Dec 10]. Available from https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/5_1.pdf.

Delserone, L.M. 2008. At the watershed: Preparing for research data management and stewardship at the University of Minnesota Libraries. Library Trends 57(2):202–210. DOI:10.1353/lib.0.0032.

Dempsey, L. 2013. Three challenges: Engaging, rightscaling and innovating [Internet]. Lorcan Dempsey’s Weblog. [accessed 2020 Dec 10]. Available from http://orweblog.oclc.org/three-challenges-engaging-rightscaling-and-innovating/.

Dohe, K., Hamidzadeh, B. & Wallberg, B. 2019. Doing more, with more: Academic libraries, digital services, and revenue generation. [Issue Brief]. Ithaka S+R. DOI:10.18665/sr.310917.

Drummond, R. & Wartho, R. 2009. RIMS: The research impact measurement service at the University of New South Wales. Australian Academic & Research Libraries 40(2):76–87. DOI:10.1080/00048623.2009.10721387.

Falconer, J. 2015. Library support for systematic reviews at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. ALISS Quarterly 10(3):17–19. Available from https://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/2783036.

Feng, J. & Zhao, N. 2015. A new role of Chinese academic librarians: The development of embedded patent information services at Nanjing Technology University Library, China. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41(3):292–300. DOI:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.010.

Garritano, J. & Carlson, J. 2009. A subject librarian’s guide to collaborating on e-science projects. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 57. DOI:10.5062/F42B8VZ3.

Goetsch, L.A. 2008. Reinventing our work: New and emerging roles for academic librarians. Journal of Library Administration 48(2):157–172. DOI:10.1080/01930820802231351.

Gonzalez, H.B. & Kuenzi, J.J. 2012. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer [Internet]. Washington (DC): Congressional Research Service. [accessed 2020 Dec 10]. Available from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42642.pdf.

Griffin, J. & Lawlor, B. 2019. Leadership to advance data and information science at Virginia Tech library. Information Services & Use 39(3):177–181. DOI:10.3233/ISU-190042.

Gumpenberger, C., Wieland, M. & Gorraiz, J. 2012. Bibliometric practices and activities at the University of Vienna. Library Management 33(3):174–183. DOI:110.1108/01435121211217199.

Hackenberg, J.M. 2000. Who chooses sci-tech librarianship? College & Research Libraries 61(5):441–450. DOI:10.5860/crl.61.5.441.

Hardi, A.C. & Fowler, S.A. 2014. Evidence-based medicine and systematic review services at Becker Medical Library. Missouri Medicine 111(5): 416-418. Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172095/pdf/ms111_p0416.pdf.

Harris, P.A., Taylor, R., Minor, B.L., Elliott, V., Fernandez, M., O’Neal, L., McLeod, L., Delacqua, G., Delacqua, F., Kirby, J., et al. 2019. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 95:103208. DOI:10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208.

Harris, P.A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N. & Conde, J.G. 2009. Research electronic data capture (REDCap): A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 42(2):377–381. DOI:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.

Higman, R., Teperek, M. & Kingsley, D. 2017. Creating a community of data champions. International Journal of Digital Curation 12(2):96–106. DOI:10.2218/ijdc.v12i2.562.

Houser, R. 2006. Building a library GIS service from the ground up. Library Trends 55(2):315–326. DOI:10.1353/lib.2006.0058.

Hubbard, D.E. 2017. Chemical lecture demonstrations: An opportunity for engagement through collections, instruction, and reference. Science & Technology Libraries 36(4):376–389. DOI:10.1080/0194262X.2017.1389667.

Hunter, C., Lake, S., Lee, C. & Sallans, A. 2010. A case study in the evolution of digital services for science and engineering libraries. Journal of Library Administration 50(4):335–347. DOI:10.1080/01930821003667005.

Irvin, D. 2018. The patent office in the library. Public Services Quarterly 14(4):392–398. DOI:10.1080/15228959.2018.1487360.

Jaguszewski, J. & Williams, K. 2013. New roles for new times: Transforming liaison roles in research libraries [Report]. Washington (DC): Association of Research Libraries. [accessed 2020 Dec 10]. Available from http://hdl.handle.net/11299/169867.

Johnson, V. 2017. Leveraging technical library expertise for big data management. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association 66(3):271–286. DOI:10.1080/24750158.2017.1356982.

Kinikin, J.N. & Hench, K. 2005. Survey of GIS implementation and use within smaller academic libraries. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 42. DOI:10.5062/F4SX6B56.

Knehans, A., Dell, E. & Robinson, C. 2016. Starting a fee-based systematic review service. Medical Reference Services Quarterly 35(3):266–273. DOI:10.1080/02763869.2016.1189779.

Kung, J.Y.C. & Chambers, T. 2019. Implementation of a fee-based service model to university-affiliated researchers at the University of Alberta. Journal of the Medical Library Association 107(2):238–243. DOI:10.5195/jmla.2019.497.

Ludeman, E., Downton, K., Shipper, A.G. & Fu, Y. 2015. Developing a library systematic review service: A case study. Medical Reference Services Quarterly 34(2):173–180. DOI:10.1080/02763869.2015.1019323.

MacDonald, K.I. 2018. The business of chemistry: Opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration in information literacy. Science & Technology Libraries 37(4):323–331. DOI:10.1080/0194262X.2018.1515689.

Macfarlane, C.M. & Rodgers, C.M. 2008. Geospatial technology support in small academic libraries: Time to jump on board? Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 55. DOI:10.5062/F4GF0RFV.

Mann, M. & Weightman, A. 2013. Support unit for research evidence: Supporting staff and students conducting systematic reviews. ALISS Quarterly 8(3):13–15.

March, G.H. 2011. Surveying campus GIS and GPS users to determine role and level of library services. Journal of Map & Geography Libraries 7(2):154–183. DOI:10.1080/15420353.2011.566838.

McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D.M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V. & Lefebvre, C. 2016. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 75:40–46. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021.

Nelson, M.R.S. 2016. Using altmetrics as an engineering faculty outreach tool. Paper presented at the 2016 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition; 2016 Jun 26–29; New Orleans, LA. Washington (DC): American Society for Engineering Education. DOI:10.18260/p.27127.

Nelson, M.S. 2011. Connecting with data: First steps toward an emerging area of library service. Paper presented at the 2011 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition; 2011 Jun 26–29; Vancouver, Canada. Washington (DC): American Society for Engineering Education. DOI:10.18260/1-2--17656.

Ogier, A., Brown, A., Petters, J., Hilal, A. & Porter, N. 2018. Enhancing collaboration across the research ecosystem: Using libraries as hubs for discipline-specific data experts. Proceedings of the Practice and Experience on Advanced Research Computing (PEARC ’18); 2018 Jul 22–26; Pittsburgh. PA. New York (NY): Association for Computing Machinery. DOI:10.1145/3219104.3219126.

Ogier, A. & Stamper, M.J. 2018. Data visualization as a library service: Embedding visualization services in the library research lifecycle. Journal of eScience Librarianship 7(1):e1126. DOI:10.7191/jeslib.2018.1126.

Ogungbeni, J.I., Obiamalu, A.R., Ssemambo, S. & Bazibu, C.M. 2018. The roles of academic libraries in propagating open science: A qualitative literature review. Information Development 34(2):113–121. DOI:10.1177/0266666916678444.

Oliver, J.C., Kollen, C., Hickson, B. & Rios, F. 2019. Data science support at the academic library. Journal of Library Administration 59(3):241–257. DOI:10.1080/01930826.2019.1583015.

Olson, J.A. 2004. Library-based GIS labs. Journal of Map & Geography Libraries 1(1):75–88. DOI:10.1300/J230v01n01_05.

Parrish, A. 2006. Improving GIS consultations: A case study at Yale University Library. Library Trends 55(2):327–339. DOI:10.1353/lib.2006.0060.

Patterton, L., Bothma, T.J.D. & van Deventer, M.J. 2018. From planning to practice: An action plan for the implementation of research data management services in resource-constrained institutions. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science 84(2):14–16. DOI:10.7553/84-2-1761.

Peters, C. & Dryden, A.R. 2011. Assessing the academic library’s role in campus-wide research data management: A first step at the University of Houston. Science & Technology Libraries 30(4):387–403. DOI:10.1080/0194262X.2011.626340.

Raboin, R., Reznik-Zellen, R.C. & Salo, D. 2013. Forging new service paths: Institutional approaches to providing research data management services. Journal of eScience Librarianship 1(3):134–147. DOI:10.7191/jeslib.2012.1021.

Read, E.J. 2007. Data services in academic libraries. Reference & User Services Quarterly 46(3):61–75. DOI:10.5860/rusq.46n3.61.

Riegelman, A. & Kocher, M. 2018. A model for developing and implementing a systematic review service for disciplines outside of the health sciences. Reference & User Services Quarterly 58(1):22–27. DOI:10.5860/rusq.58.1.6837.

Roth, S.C. 2018. Transforming the systematic review service: A team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers Journal of the Medical Library Association 106(4):514–520. DOI:10.5195/jmla.2018.430.

Salisbury, L. & Mattice, G. 2016. Early exposure to the scientific research process through collaboration with chemistry faculty and the science librarian. Science & Technology Libraries 35(2):119–135. DOI:10.1080/0194262X.2016.1162118.

Scaramozzino, J., White, R., Essic, J., Fullington, L.A., Mistry, H., Henley, A. & Olivares, M. 2014. Map room to data and GIS services: Five university libraries evolving to meet campus needs and changing technologies. Journal of Map & Geography Libraries 10(1):6–47. DOI:10.1080/15420353.2014.893943.

Shen, Y. & Varvel, V.E. 2013. Developing data management services at the Johns Hopkins University. Journal of Academic Librarianship 39(6):552–557. DOI:10.1016/j.acalib.2013.06.002.

Smith, R. & Bridle, O. 2018. Using virtual reality to create real world collaborations. Proceedings of the 39th IATUL Conference; 2018 Jun 17–21; Oslo, Norway. Available from https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2018/collaboration/5.

Steinhart, G. 2006. Libraries as distributors of geospatial data: Data management policies as tools for managing partnerships. Library Trends 55(2):264-284. DOI:10.1353/lib.2006.0063.

Suh, H-S.J. & Lee, A. 1999. Embracing GIS services in libraries: The Washington State University experience. The Reference Librarian 30(64):125–137. DOI:10.1300/J120v30n64_10.

Sweetkind-Singer, J. & Williams, M. 2001. Supporting the information needs of geographic information systems (GIS) users in an academic library. Science & Technology Libraries 21(3–4):175–190. DOI:10.1300/J122v21n03_11.

Tchangalova, N. 2009. Jumping onto the bandwagon: New librarians navigating the science/technology librarianship. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship 10(3). Available from http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v10n03/tchangalova_n01.html.

Tchangalova, N., Harrington, E.G., Ritchie, S., Over, S. & Coalter, J. 2020. Working across disciplines and library units to develop a suite of systematic review services for researchers. Collaborative Librarianship 11(4):6. Available from https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol11/iss4/6/.

Thomas, D.R. 1991. Out of the fire and into the frying pan: Hope for patent reference service in a non-patent depository library. The Reference Librarian 14(32):125–138. DOI:10.1300/J120v14n32_09.

Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K.K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M.D.J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. 2018. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169(7):467–473. DOI:10.7326/M18-0850.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 2016. STEM designated degree program list [Internet]. Available from https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2016/stem-list.pdf.

van Deventer, M. & Pienaar, H. 2015. Research data management in a developing country: A personal journey. International Journal of Digital Curation 10(2):33–47. DOI:10.2218/ijdc.v10i2.380.

Walter, S. 2011. “Distinctive signifiers of excellence”: Library services and the future of the academic library. College & Research Libraries 72(1):6–8. DOI:10.5860/0720006.

Walters, T.O. 2009. Data curation program development in U.S. universities: The Georgia Institute of Technology example. International Journal of Digital Curation 4(3):83–92. DOI:10.2218/ijdc.v4i3.116.

Williams, S.C. 2013. Using a bibliographic study to identify faculty candidates for data services. Science & Technology Libraries 32(2):202–209. DOI:10.1080/0194262X.2013.774622.

Zhang, C. & Peng, L. 2018. Patent information service issues and countermeasures for college libraries: Taking Huazhong University of Science and Technology as an example. International Conference on Education Science and Economic Management (ICESEM 2018); 2018 Aug 25-26; Xiamen, China. Amsterdam: Atlantic Press. 895–898. DOI:10.2991/icesem-18.2018.209.

Zhang, L. 2009. Developing a systematic patent search training program. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 35(3):260–266. DOI:10.1016/j.acalib.2009.03.010.

Appendix 1: Preliminary Search

February 2019

94 databases searched simultaneously and limited to Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Journals

Preliminary search strategy using "SCIENCE & technology libraries" subject field (DE)

DE "SCIENCE & technology libraries" OR DE "AERONAUTICAL libraries" OR DE "AQUATIC science libraries" OR DE "ASTRONOMY libraries" OR DE "BOTANICAL libraries" OR DE "CHEMICAL libraries" OR DE "EARTH sciences libraries" OR DE "ENGINEERING libraries" OR DE "ENVIRONMENTAL libraries" OR DE "FISHERY libraries" OR DE "FORESTRY libraries" OR DE "GEOGRAPHY libraries" OR DE "GEOLOGICAL libraries" OR DE "INDUSTRIAL art libraries" OR DE "LIFE sciences libraries" OR DE "MARINE science libraries" OR DE "MATHEMATICS libraries" OR DE "METALLURGICAL libraries" OR DE "METEOROLOGICAL libraries" OR DE "MINING libraries" OR DE "NATURAL history libraries" OR DE "NATURAL resources libraries" OR DE "PHYSICS libraries" OR DE "POLAR libraries" OR DE "TRANSPORTATION libraries" OR DE "ZOOLOGICAL libraries"

Appendix 2: List of Databases with Results from the Preliminary Search in the Subject Field (DE)

Rank	EBSCO Database	Records
1	Library & Information Science Source	1,748
2	Academic Search Ultimate	811
3	Education Source	472
4	MasterFILE Premier	233
5	Computers & Applied Sciences Complete	205
6	Garden, Landscape & Horticulture Index	200
7	Business Source Complete	141
8	Professional Development Collection	80
9	MAS Ultra - School Edition	66
10	Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition	52
11	GreenFILE	44
12	Teacher Reference Center	33
13	Readers' Guide Retrospective: 1890-1982 (H.W. Wilson)	27
14	Historical Abstracts with Full Text	15
15	Art Abstracts (H.W. Wilson)	14
16	Art Full Text (H.W. Wilson)	14
17	Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection	14
18	Art & Architecture Complete	12
19	Military & Government Collection	11
20	MEDLINE	8
21	SocINDEX with Full Text	6
22	American Antiquarian Society (AAS) Historical Periodicals Collection: Series 3	4
23	American Antiquarian Society (AAS) Historical Periodicals Collection: Series 2	4
24	Health Policy Reference Center	4
25	Women's Studies International	4
26	America: History and Life with Full Text	3
27	American Antiquarian Society (AAS) Historical Periodicals Collection: Series 1	3
28	Communication & Mass Media Complete	3
29	Regional Business News	3
30	Middle Eastern & Central Asian Studies	2
31	Primary Search	1
32	GeoRef	1
33	SPORTDiscus with Full Text	1
34	Urban Studies Abstracts	1
35	Violence & Abuse Abstracts	1
	TOTAL	4,242

Appendix 3: Survey Instrument in REDCap

STEM Research Support Services

Thank you for your participation in our survey!

We are conducting a systematic review of research support services at STEM Libraries and supplementing this research with the survey data we are collecting below. We hope that our work will provide new STEM librarians with a comprehensive snapshot of the field and will suggest best practices for all STEM librarians looking to improve research support programming.

This survey is eight questions long. Once personally identifiable information is removed (names, job titles, places of work, etc.), these responses will be made available through DRUM, the University of Maryland’s online research repository.

Please note: If you have trouble reading this survey, or would like the survey read to you, there are accessibility features available in the top right corner of this screen.

If you have any questions regarding the survey or our research, please contact:

- Jodi Coalter, STEM Librarian, University of Maryland, College Park, jcoalter@umd.edu

- Nedelina Tchanglova, Public Health Librarian, University of Maryland, College Park, nedelina@umd.edu

- Amy Trost, Data Services Librarian, Universities at Shady Grove, atrost1@umd.edu

I. Demographics

1. In what type of library do you work?

      Academic

      Special (hospital, corporation, etc.)

      Other

2. What type of special library do you work in?

      Hospital

      Corporation

      Museum

      Military

      Private Business

      Government

      Other - Please specify:____________________

   3. What is the name of the library where you work (e.g. UMD STEM library, Hornbake Undergraduate Library, etc.)?_________________

   4. In what state is your library is located? [Dropdown menu listing U.S. states]

II. Research Services & Information

1. Please upload your job description (PDF or Word document).

2. List any unique research support services offered to faculty and students at your institution. (e.g., open access funding, data management, statistical consulting, etc.)______________________

3. Cite any resources (books, articles, websites, reports, etc.) related to research support services in sci-tech libraries that should be included in our systematic review.______________________

4. Upload a copy of the source(s) you listed in the previous question if available.

Appendix 4: STEM Related Listservs

Mailing List Name	Mailing List Email	Number of Subscribers as of May 20, 2019
ACRL Science & Technology Section Discussion List	sts-l@lists.ala.org	2,249
ACRL Systematic Reviews & Related Methods Interest Group	acr-srrmig@lists.ala.org	141
AgNIC-L	https://www.agnic.org/contact	102
ALA Sustainability Roundtable	sustainrt-l@lists.ala.org	N/A
ASEE Engineering Libraries Division	ELDnet-l@u.washington.edu	673
Chemical Information Sources Discussion List	chminf-l@list.indiana.edu	1,350
SLA Physics-Astronomy-Mathematics Division	pamnet@listmgr.nrao.edu	655
Council on Botanical and Horticultural Libraries, Inc.	acr-srrmig@lists.ala.org	N/A
US Agricultural Information Network	USAIN-L@lsv.uky.edu	273
		More than 5,443 subscribers

Appendix 5: List of Search Terms

Concept #1 - Librarians/Libraries	Concept #2 - STEM	Concept #3 - Research Support
academic librar*	aeronautic*	altmetric*
branch librar*	agricultur*	bibliometric*
centralized faculty librar*	aquatic	big data
college librar*	astronom*	citation-analysis
department librar*	biochemi*	citation-report*
departmental librar*	biolog*	combinatorial
graduate librar*	botan*	consultation
information professional*	chemi*	consultative service*
information scientist*	computational	copyright
informationist	computer science*	data analysis
library and information scientist*	earth science*	data curation
library science*	ecological	data depository
library scientist*	engineering	data management
library services	environmental	data mining
research librar*	fishery	data visualization
special librar*	forest*	data warehouse
undergraduate librar*	geography	database design
university librar*	geological	datamining
science librar*	geology	e-science
	herbarium	fee-based library services
	horticultural	grant
	life science*	grant application*
	marine	grant writing
	math*	information desk
	metallurgical	information literacy
	mining	institutional repository
	natural history	Institutional Review Board
	natural resources	knowledge management
	navy	librarian role
	patent*	meta-analysis
	physic*	metrics
	polar	open access
	sci-tech	policy compliance
	science	publication support
	science and technology	reference desk
	science-technology librar*	reference service*
	STEM	repository
	tech*	research assistance
	technolog*	research clinic*
	transportation	research clinic*
	tropical	research instruction
	zoolog*	research practice*
		research role*
		research service*
		research support
		research support service*
		researchers needs
		scientific research
		statistical
		systematic review*

Appendix 6: Search Strategies

Web of Science (4,464 records)

Filters:

   • 1990-2020 (April 22, 2019; updated search August 12, 2020)

   • Limited to Topic (TS=)

TS=(librarian* OR (librar* NEAR/5 (academ* OR branch OR centralized OR colleg* OR department* OR facult* OR graduat* OR undergraduat* OR universit* OR scien* OR special OR research OR service*) OR (information NEAR/1 (professional* OR scien*) OR informationist*) NOT "Cochrane library")) AND TS=((aeronautic* OR agricultur* OR aquatic* OR astronom* OR biochemi* OR biolog* OR botan* OR chemi* OR computation* OR computer-science OR earth-science OR ecologic* OR engineer* OR environment* OR fishery OR forest* OR geography OR geological OR geology OR herbari* OR horticultur* OR life-science* OR marine OR math OR maths OR mathematic* OR metallurg* OR mining OR natural-history OR natural-science* OR navy OR physic* OR polar OR sci-tech OR science-technology OR science OR STEM OR tech OR technolog* OR transportation* OR tropical* OR zoolog*) NEAR/5 (librar* OR information-professional* OR information-scientist* OR informationist*)) NOT TS=(health OR medic* OR disease* OR patient*) AND TS=(altmetric* OR bibliometric* OR consultat* OR ((data OR database* OR information OR knowledge) NEAR/3 (analy* OR curation OR design* OR deposit* OR literacy OR management OR mining OR repositor* OR service* OR visualization OR warehous* OR ware-hous*)) OR big-data OR datamining OR e-science OR ((author* OR campus OR faculty OR fee-based OR grant OR grants OR publication OR reference* OR research* OR science OR scholarly) NEAR/3 (activit* OR applicat* OR assistance OR collaborat* OR contribut* OR design OR desk OR develop* OR engage* OR facilitat* OR instruction* OR involve* OR impact* OR innovat* OR need OR needs OR opportunit* OR service* OR support* OR transform* OR writing*)) OR scientist* OR research-data OR researcher* OR (librar* NEAR/6 role*) OR open-access OR institutional-repository OR information-desk OR citation-analysis OR citation-report* OR statistical-consult* OR policy-compliance)

EBSCO databases

   1. Academic Search Ultimate (3,753 records)

   2. Education Source (3,294 records)

   3. Library & Information Science Source (7,031 records)

   4. MasterFILE Premier (6,178 records)

Filters:

   • Scholarly (peer-reviewed) journals

   • 1990-2020 (April 22, 2019; updated search August 12, 2020)

   • Title/Abstract/Subject

Color scheme: Provided by www.BalanceBraces.com

Concept #1: Library setting

(librarian* OR ((librar* N5 (academ* OR branch OR centralized OR college* OR department* OR facult* OR graduat* OR research OR scien* OR service* OR special OR support* OR university* OR undergraduat*)) NOT Cochrane-library) OR (information N1 (professional* OR scien*)) OR informationist*)

Concept #2: STEM subjects

(aeronautic* OR agricultur* OR aquatic* OR astronom* OR biochemi* OR biolog* OR botan* OR chemi* OR computation* OR computer science* OR earth science* OR ecologic* OR engineer* OR environment* OR fishery OR forest* OR geography OR geological OR geology OR herbari* OR horticultur* OR life science* OR marine OR math OR maths OR mathematic* OR metallurg* OR mining OR natural history OR natural science* OR navy OR patent* OR physic* OR polar OR sci-tech OR scitech OR science technology OR science OR STEM OR tech OR technolog* OR transportation* OR tropical* OR zoolog*) N5 (librar* OR information professional* OR information scientist* OR informationist*) NOT (health OR medic* OR disease* OR patient*)

Concept #3: Research support

altmetric* OR bibliometric* OR consultat* OR ((data OR database* OR information OR knowledge) N3 (analy* OR curation OR design* OR deposit* OR literacy OR management OR mining OR repositor* OR service* OR visualization OR warehous* OR ware-hous*)) OR big data OR datamining OR e-science OR ((author* OR campus OR faculty OR fee based OR grant OR grants OR publication OR reference* OR research* OR science OR scholarly) N3 (activit* OR applicat* OR assistance OR collaborat* OR contribut* OR design OR desk OR develop* OR engage* OR facilitat* OR instruction* OR involve* OR impact* OR innovat* OR need OR needs OR opportunit* OR service* OR support* OR transform* OR writing*)) OR scientist* OR research data OR researcher* OR (librar* N6 role*) OR open access OR institutional repository OR information desk OR citation analysis OR citation report* OR statistical consult* OR policy compliance

Google Scholar

Filters: 1990-2020

"library academic|research|special|STEM|science|technology|engineering" bibliometrics "research support"|"research services"

"library academic|research|special|STEM|science|technology|engineering" "data management"|"data services" "research support"|"research services"

"library academic|research|special|STEM|science|technology|engineering" "geographic information systems"|GIS "research support"|"research services"

"library academic|research|special|STEM|science|technology|engineering" patents "research support"|"research services"

"library academic|research|special|STEM|science|technology|engineering" "systematic review" "research support"|"research services"

Appendix 7: Included Studies (Sorted by Service Type and Author)

Author(s)	Service Geographical Location	Library Type	Service Type	Survey of Practices and/or Example of Local Service	Summaries, main outcomes, and program evaluations
(Abernethy & Holderied 2018)	United States	Special	Bibliometrics and altmetrics	Local service	* Described the development of the bibliometric service consisting of two distinct services with product deliverables: Research Impact Reports and Article Impact Reports. * Outlined specific challenges during the design and implementation process: high research impact vs. nonexistent impact, postdoctoral students vs. researchers nearing retirement, scholarly literature vs. technical reports, data sets, and other research outputs. The learning curve for adopting a tool and train staff to use it for generating the reports is sometimes not worth the time and effort. * 20 Research Impact Reports were created. Services have been revised based on customer input. Evaluation of service was mostly informal in nature.
(Ball & Tunger 2006)	Germany	Academic	Bibliometrics and altmetrics	Survey of practices and example of local service	* Discussed the factors shaping the development of a bibliometrics service and the target audience. * Highlighted specific examples of bibliometric analysis from the Central Library of Research Centre Jülich (Germany). * Success is measured through benefit of a bibliometrics service positioning the library as a value-added service provider.
(Delasalle 2011)	United States	Academic	Bibliometrics and altmetrics	Local service	* Described an individual approach to offer bibliometric services on a small scale. * Evaluated need for new services by reading published reports, talking to colleagues in the library, discussions with researchers.
(Drummond & Wartho 2009)	Australia	Academic	Bibliometrics and altmetrics	Local service	* Developed and implemented the Research Impact Measurement Service (RIMS). * A multi-disciplinary group of members was freed from more traditional responsibilities to focus on acquiring specific skills necessary to provide the bibliometrics service. * Supported faculty in tenure promotion, grant applications, and institutional comparison. * 30 reports produced monthly, accounting for more than 50% of member services team work. Bibliometric work helped to inform collection development, repository outreach, ideas for training researchers.
(Gumpenberger et al. 2012)	Austria	Academic	Bibliometrics and altmetrics	Local service	* Created "Scientometrics" group, an inter-institutional group to coordinate all exiting competencies across the university. * Established a new bibliometrics department at the library and developed a bibliometrics service for researchers. *Expanded service to outside customers for a fee. * Engaged in national and international projects. * Success of new service was demonstrated through the expansion of services to include outside organizations, hosting conferences, etc.
(Nelson 2016)	United States	Academic	Bibliometrics and altmetrics	Local service	* Explored existing altmetrics tools and discussed their advantages and disadvantages. * Described strategies for creating an outreach service for engineering faculty to increase the impact of their research.
(Akers et al. 2014)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Survey of practices and examples of local services	* Described the steps of eight universities in the U.S. in developing research data management support. * Discussed similarities and differences in various research data management models, levels of collaborations across campus units, needs' assessment, and staffing. * Evaluation of service’ success is based on increases in staffing and in services offered.
(Chiware & Mathe 2015)	South Africa	Academic	Data management services	Local services	* Developed a research data management service integrated into the institutional research workflow. * Challenges and successes were described, as well as the international collaboration that enabled the library to develop an open-source platform for the management of the full research lifecycle. * Service success was evaluated through a single pilot study with a biotechnology research group. Authors also mentioned an increased awareness and interest among research groups as a result of strategic partnerships.
(Choudhury 2008)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Local services	* Described the challenges in curating data and using Institutional Repository for data preservation. * Author noted “these are the early” days in data repository development so it was not possible to draw firm conclusions about impacts at the time of publication. * Provided insights on the complexities of certain datasets and offered recommendations on supporting “new forms of data-intensive scholarship.”
(Choudhury 2013)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Local services	* Described the development of the Johns Hopkins University Data Management Services. * Provided lessons learned from the implementation process of their "data management stack model comprising storage, archiving, conservation and curation." * Impact of service was presented through a “lessons learned” wiki and faculty survey was mentioned as evaluation tools.
(Choudhury 2017)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Local services	* Analyzed Johns Hopkins University Data Management services and identified new roles for further enhancement of their services. * Librarians provided services in the areas of consulting, training, and archiving. * Provided an overview of the current landscape of the provision of data management services in academic libraries. * Offered insight on "data management" terminology. * Recommended to develop infrastructure embedded within researchers' workflow and processes. * Quantitative method for measuring success – libraries had archived over 160 TB of Sloan Digital Sky Survey data.
(Delserone 2008)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Local services	* Hired additional science librarians to support interdisciplinary collaborations between researchers. * Understood the needs of campus researchers. * Launched an institutional digital repository. * Expanded collaborative efforts across campus by forming the Research Cyberinfrastructure Alliance (RCA). * Led E-Science and Data Services Collaborative (EDSC). * Measure of success – EDSC team has identified potential projects and outreach opportunities.
(Garritano & Carlson 2009)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Local services	* Established the Center for Authentic Science Practice in Education (CASPiE), a multi-institutional undergraduate research center. * Identified five categories of skillsets for librarians to possess in order to launch a data service (library and information science expertise, subject expertise, partnerships, and outreach, participating in sponsored research, and balancing workload). * Discussed these five skills in more detail. * Program partnerships led to the library’s active role in a research proposal and its implementation.
(Higman et al. 2017)	United Kingdom	Academic	Data management services	Local services	* Developed a community of Data Champions consisting of Ph.D. students, lecturers, data managers, librarians, or support staff equipped with skills to train their departmental colleagues in best practices of data management and sharing. * Described a variety of rewarding non-monetary mechanisms for the time and efforts spent as a champion. * Group was collecting data on session attendance and feedback on sessions.
(Nelson 2011)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Local services	* Described the professional development journey of one civil engineering librarian acquiring new data management skills, assessing user needs for data services, building partnerships, and creating infrastructure for the data management service. * As a consequence, offering data management service proved to be beneficial to faculty members and resulted in shifting librarian’s role from offering traditional library tasks to more specialized role such as data curation.
(Ogier et al. 2018)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Survey of practices and examples of local services	* Formed a team of disciplinary data and informatics consultants, enabling collaborations across disciplines and various units on campus. * Authors plan to more quantifiably assess services in future.
(Ogier & Stamper 2018)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Local services	* Discussed two case studies in embedding data visualization consultations in the library research cycle. * Evaluation of the service was measured through user’s and librarian’s satisfaction in learning about good design practices and increasing subject expertise. Authors reflected on lessons learned from the offering of the data visualization service.
(Oliver et al. 2019)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Survey of practices and local service	* Developed a robust data science program focusing on computational literacy, GIS, and reproducible science. * Outlined the success of the program due to expertise of library personnel and partnerships outside of the library. * Library measured success by number of hosted hackathons and training sessions.
(Patterton et al. 2018)	South Africa	Academic	Data management services	Local service	* Developed an action plan for research data management service based on two surveys to researchers in a research institute. * Main activities fall in the following main categories: actions needed to be performed by researchers, the library, and the information and communications technology unit. * Researchers’ data practices were evaluated in order to plan the program.
(Peters & Dryden 2011)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Local service	* A group of science librarians at the University of Huston conducted interviews to assess data management practices of their campus community. * Based on the findings from the interviews, proposed the creation of a library Data Working Group, and expanded the service to provide grant support, finding data-related services on campus, web-based form for creating data management plans, data visualization, manuscript preparation and publication support, and targeted research assistance with data management and storage. * Researchers provided anecdotal evidence of the success of the data management services which resulted in more connections between librarians and faculty.
(Raboin et al. 2013)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Local service	* Three institutions described their experiences in developing and implementing data management services. * Challenges included garnering administrative support, integrating data management service into new and existing staff structures, and further enhancing the services with the constant evolvement of researchers’ needs. * Researchers offered insights on challenges encountered and provided practical recommendations for service development.
(Read 2007)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Local service	* Assessed researchers' needs and determined the audience for this service. * Developed levels of data service. * Partnered with other campus units to deliver this service, such as the statistical department or center. * Identified training needs for data librarians and suggested professional development venues. * Survey found that 96 students and faculty/staff (26% of respondents) had made use of the library’s data services in October 2003.
(Shen & Varvel 2013)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Local service	* Developed a model of data management services including data planning, consulting, and archiving. * Explored environmental responsiveness of faculty, socio-technical readiness, and marketing and collaborations. * Discussed successes and challenges during the development and implementation process. * Tracked number of classes and consultations, planned to look at adoption and acceptance rates in the future.
(Steinhart 2006)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Survey of practices and local service	* A data management policy helps in communicating university's practices with data providers in handling data or metadata, outlines participants' expectations, and provides stability and security in transactions between involved parties. * Increased awareness of data providers regarding actions needed with superseded datasets. * Satisfaction of data providers that their data is secure.
(van Deventer & Pienaar 2015)	South Africa	Academic	Data management services	Local services	* Described the process of developing a research data management service based on the university's unique needs as well as from learning about international experiences with research data management. * Services were evaluated at the University and country level based on their successful establishment and the prioritization of research data management at the national level.
(Walters 2009)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Local service	* Through a bibliometric analysis, author identified faculty members as potential users of data management services. * Discussed advantages of this method for outreach such as making connections with specific faculty and tailoring services to meet a variety of data management needs, and not just one aspect of the service. * Discussed disadvantages of this method for outreach as being time consuming and tedious especially for librarians without a subject background. * Findings from seven interviews revealed a successful data management service and increased awareness of non-traditional library services.
(Williams 2013)	United States	Academic	Data management services	Survey of practices and local service	* Articulated the development of a data curation program. * Outlined specific steps to undertake through the implementation process such as assessing faculty data practices, designing and building initial technology platforms, creating and piloting service models, developing data curation practices. * Mentioned evaluation of faculty data practices.
(Abbott & Argentati 1995)	United States	Academic	GIS	Local service	* The North Carolina State University developed a GIS policy including three levels of GIS and mapping software use: (1) Initial, (2) Intermediate and (3) Research. An outline of the policy is provided in Fig. 2. * Shared successful practices for outreach and building relationships with the research community. * Provided advice on meeting the users’ needs, specifically the NCSU Natural Resources Library.
(Boissé & Larsgaard 1995)	United States	Academic	GIS	Local service	* The University of California at Santa Barbara developed their three levels GIS program through a “trial and error effort.” * Provided descriptions for each these levels to serve the Geography Department but quickly was expanded to serving other subject disciplines. * Suggestions for planning and funding were provided.
(Houser 2006)	United States	Academic	GIS	Local service	* Developed a GIS service in a GIS and Data Lab. * Offered GIS consultations, Data management, Instruction. * Provided directions for further enhancing the service. * Evaluation of program’s success is based on increases in workshop attendance and services offered to broader subject disciplines including Engineering Departments. Workshop evaluations were collected.
(Kinikin & Hench 2005)	United States	Academic	GIS	Survey of practices	* Described a survey to identify smaller academic libraries that have implemented GIS services. * Main library users of GIS services included STEM related departments (e.g. geography and geology departments, natural sciences, engineering, environmental science. * Analysis of the acquired survey responses was presented and divided in the following sections: computer hardware and software, staffing, service levels, training, GIS administrative support. * The survey results served as a road map for authors to solicit administration support, and outside grants which resulted in the increase of the number of GIS workstations, color printer and hiring of a full-time and a part-time staff person.
(Macfarlane & Rodgers 2008)	United States	Academic	GIS	Local service	* Requested funding for two full-time GIS interns from the Geography Department. * Interns’ skills and knowledge of GIS applications were useful to train librarians and promote the service to campus. * Evaluation of the service was accomplished through the delivery of reports from each intern summarizing their work and providing recommendations for future GIS library support.
(March 2011)	United States	Academic	GIS	Local service	* Created a survey to assess the need for offering GIS service. The majority of respondents were from the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. * Grant funding was crucial for the acquisition of a dedicated GIS workstation. * Expanded virtual training and collaboration with other departments on campus. * Evaluation was based on increased numbers of graduate and undergraduate students who needed help with GIS.
(Olson 2004)	United States	Academic	GIS	Local service	* Syracuse University Library discussed the planning, administration, public services, collection development, and management issues pertaining to a networked multi-station GIS lab staffed by assistants from Geography, Computer Science, or Engineering departments. * To evaluate the program, statistics of patrons using the lab was collected, as well as feedback through a short survey was solicited from GIS lab users.
(Parrish 2006)	United States	Academic	GIS	Local service	* Kept GIS consultations statistics via MS Access database called the Daily Log. Forestry & Environmental Studies Department is the heaviest user of this service. * Recognized ten most distinct types of patrons and provided suggestions on effective consultation techniques. * GIS consultations statistics have been collected as a measure of successful service. The data included number of consultations, and tasks performed in order to discover trends and to make adjustments in the service.
(Scaramozzino et al. 2014)	United States	Academic	GIS	Survey of practices and examples of local services	* Described models of Data and GIS Services at five academic institutions serving science and engineering schools or departments. * Main differences across the services included the combination of disciplines served, the number of students and faculty, and the level of GIS coordination within and outside the libraries. Collection development practices differed due to a lack of a standard platform for cataloging data and making GIS data sets available. * Success of the GIS services is measured through: (1) the number of research consultations and walk-in questions. As a result, an appointment-only policy has been instituted. (2) instruction statistics and LibGuides views.
(Suh & Lee 1999)	United States	Academic	GIS	Local service	* Described the development of the service using a grant. * The Owen Sciences and Engineering library was the main science library on campus. * Provided a historical background of the service, building the system architecture, challenges faced during service implementation, personnel training, technical, financial and coordination issues. * Outlined the main points in developing GIS service policies. * Listed various listservs for librarians to learn more about GIS. * Suggestions for planning and future service enhancement were provided.
(Sweetkind-Singer & Williams 2001)	United States	Academic	GIS	Local service	* The Stanford University Library System integrated a GIS service into their existing support services. * Two case studies described the user needs and librarian’s role in meeting these information and research needs. The Electrical Engineering study was of interest for this paper. * Hardware and software selections were discussed. * Increased awareness of the service through workshop offerings and collaborations between the GIS & Map Librarian and the GIS Manager.
(Feng & Zhao 2015)	China	Academic	Patents	Local service	* Developed a team-based patent information service based on a citation analysis and a questionnaire survey. * Results from the survey were presented with a response rate of 100% from 52 researchers invited to participate in the study. * Piloted the service by integrating librarians into the researchers’ workflow from the beginning stages. * Identified levels of librarian’s involvement with corresponding activities in the early, middle, and final stage of research. * Success of the service was measured through users’ appreciations and anecdotal evidence.
(Irvin 2018)	United States	Academic	Patents	Local service	* The New Mexico State University Library as Patent and Trademark Resource Center (PTRC) reinvigorated existing reference services by adding a specialized patent service. * Delivered workshops, created a dedicated library space with access to patent examiner’s software. * Provided brief overview of the patent classification scheme and challenges associated with patent searching. * Laid out service limitations and setting up expectations with researchers. * Created an internal policy documentation to advise staff on answering patent related questions. * Measures for success included statistics (e.g. percentage increase of patron activity, patron type and affiliation, consultations length, etc.).
(Thomas 1991)	United States	Academic	Patents	Local service	* Described four-tiered patents service and materials and staff training for each of the levels. * Discussed several patron types and their information and research needs. * Patents service was integrated into existing reference services. * Measure of success – several benefits highlighted such as professional development opportunity for library staff and increased visibility of the library.
(Zhang & Peng 2018)	China	Academic	Patents	Local service	* Presented successful practices of the development of a patent service. * Discussed resources needed for running the service: personnel training and expertise in patents, access to patents databases, administrative support, collaboration across campus units and beyond. * Suggested diversified service models leading to various outputs such as providing full reports and real-time data. * Service success is measured through user’s level of satisfaction.
(Zhang 2009)	Canada	Academic	Patents	Local service	* Used patent and citation analysis to develop a systematic patent search training program as part of library instructions. * Identified the target audience for a patent training. * Emphasized the importance of patent librarians to actively promote the patent literature as important primary sources for scientific research. * Suggested STEM librarians to increase their patent knowledge and experienced librarians to train other librarians to apply advanced searching techniques using the patent classification system. * Researchers’ patents publications were evaluated in order to plan the program.
(Riegelman & Kocher 2018)	United States	Academic	Systematic review	Local service	* Developed and implemented a systematic review service for researchers outside of the medical and health professions. * Created a team comprising of librarians with various levels of systematic review expertise - Lead, Subject Liaison, Reviewer, and Apprentice. * Provided outreach and communication plan to reach faculty and researchers. * Collected statistics on service requests, and tracked their progress using Desk Tracker software. Implemented a feedback mechanism to follow up with researchers, as well as to learn from the systematic review team members areas for further enhancing the service.
(Tchangalova et al. 2020)	United States	Academic	Systematic review	Local service	* Developed a three-tiered systematic review service. * Expanded the service beyond the public health sciences. * Delivered a webinar to international researchers. * Increased number of requests for collaboration on research projects with faculty and students. * Tracked the number of workshop attendees, solicited their feedback for further improvement, monitored the number of LibGuide views, and held a debriefing meeting.

Included studies

Bibliometrics/altmetrics

Abernethy, T. & Holderied, A. 2018. Implementing new bibliometric services at EPA-RTP Library. Serials Review 44(3):204–210. DOI:10.1080/00987913.2018.1549695.

Ball, R. & Tunger, D. 2006. Bibliometric analysis: A new business area for information professionals in libraries? Scientometrics 66(3):561–577. DOI:10.1007/s11192-006-0041-0.

Delasalle, J. 2011. Research evaluation: Bibliometrics and the librarian. SCONUL Focus. 53:15-19. [accessed 2020 Dec 10]. Available from https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/5_1.pdf.

Drummond, R. & Wartho, R. 2009. RIMS: The research impact measurement service at the University of New South Wales. Australian Academic & Research Libraries 40(2):76–87. DOI:10.1080/00048623.2009.10721387.

Gumpenberger, C., Wieland, M. & Gorraiz, J. 2012. Bibliometric practices and activities at the University of Vienna. Library Management 33(3):174–183. DOI:110.1108/01435121211217199.

Nelson, M.R.S. 2016. Using altmetrics as an engineering faculty outreach tool. Paper presented at the 2016 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition; 2016 Jun 26–29; New Orleans, LA. Washington (DC): American Society for Engineering Education. DOI:10.18260/p.27127.

Data management services

Akers, K.G., Sferdean, F.C., Nicholls, N.H. & Green, J.A. 2014. Building support for research data management: Biographies of eight research universities. International Journal of Digital Curation 9(2):171–191. DOI:10.2218/ijdc.v9i2.327.

Chiware, E. & Mathe, Z. 2015. Academic libraries’ role in research data management services: A South African perspective. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science 81(2):1–10. DOI:10.7553/81-2-1563.

Choudhury, G.S. 2008. Case study in data curation at Johns Hopkins University. Library Trends 57(2):211–220. DOI:10.1353/lib.0.0028.

Choudhury, G.S. 2013. Case study 1: Johns Hopkins University data management services. In Pryor, G., Jones, S. & Whytre, A., editors. Delivering Research Data Management Service: Fundamentals of Good Practice. London (UK): Facet Publishing. p. 115–133.

Choudhury, G.S. 2017. Data management and preservation of digital research data. Against the Grain 29(5):30-34. DOI:10.7771/2380-176X.7838.

Delserone, L.M. 2008. At the watershed: Preparing for research data management and stewardship at the University of Minnesota Libraries. Library Trends 57(2):202–210. DOI:10.1353/lib.0.0032.

Garritano, J. & Carlson, J. 2009. A subject librarian’s guide to collaborating on e-science projects. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 57. DOI:10.5062/F42B8VZ3.

Higman, R., Teperek, M. & Kingsley, D. 2017. Creating a community of data champions. International Journal of Digital Curation 12(2):96–106. DOI:10.2218/ijdc.v12i2.562.

Nelson, M.S. 2011. Connecting with data: First steps toward an emerging area of library service. Paper presented at the 2011 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition; 2011 Jun 26–29; Vancouver, Canada. Washington (DC): American Society for Engineering Education. DOI:10.18260/1-2--17656.

Ogier, A., Brown, A., Petters, J., Hilal, A. & Porter, N. 2018. Enhancing collaboration across the research ecosystem: Using libraries as hubs for discipline-specific data experts. Proceedings of the Practice and Experience on Advanced Research Computing (PEARC ’18); 2018 Jul 22–26; Pittsburgh. PA. New York (NY): Association for Computing Machinery. DOI:10.1145/3219104.3219126.

Ogier, A. & Stamper, M.J. 2018. Data visualization as a library service: Embedding visualization services in the library research lifecycle. Journal of eScience Librarianship 7(1):e1126. DOI:10.7191/jeslib.2018.1126.

Oliver, J.C., Kollen, C., Hickson, B. & Rios, F. 2019. Data science support at the academic library. Journal of Library Administration 59(3):241–257. DOI:10.1080/01930826.2019.1583015.

Patterton, L., Bothma, T.J.D. & van Deventer, M.J. 2018. From planning to practice: An action plan for the implementation of research data management services in resource-constrained institutions. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science 84(2):14–16. DOI:10.7553/84-2-1761.

Peters, C. & Dryden, A.R. 2011. Assessing the academic library’s role in campus-wide research data management: A first step at the University of Houston. Science & Technology Libraries 30(4):387–403. DOI:10.1080/0194262X.2011.626340.

Raboin, R., Reznik-Zellen, R.C. & Salo, D. 2013. Forging new service paths: Institutional approaches to providing research data management services. Journal of eScience Librarianship 1(3):134–147. DOI:10.7191/jeslib.2012.1021.

Read, E.J. 2007. Data services in academic libraries. Reference & User Services Quarterly 46(3):61–75. DOI:10.5860/rusq.46n3.61.

Shen, Y. & Varvel, V.E. 2013. Developing data management services at the Johns Hopkins University. Journal of Academic Librarianship 39(6):552–557. DOI:10.1016/j.acalib.2013.06.002.

Steinhart, G. 2006. Libraries as distributors of geospatial data: Data management policies as tools for managing partnerships. Library Trends 55(2):264-284. DOI:10.1353/lib.2006.0063.

van Deventer, M. & Pienaar, H. 2015. Research data management in a developing country: A personal journey. International Journal of Digital Curation 10(2):33–47. DOI:10.2218/ijdc.v10i2.380.

Walters, T.O. 2009. Data curation program development in U.S. universities: The Georgia Institute of Technology example. International Journal of Digital Curation 4(3):83–92. DOI:10.2218/ijdc.v4i3.116.

Williams, S.C. 2013. Using a bibliographic study to identify faculty candidates for data services. Science & Technology Libraries 32(2):202–209. DOI:10.1080/0194262X.2013.774622.

Geographic information systems

Abbott, L.T. & Argentati, C.D. 1995. GIS: A new component of public services. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 21(4):251–256. DOI:10.1016/0099-1333(95)90004-7.

Boissé, J.A. & Larsgaard, M. 1995. GIS in academic libraries: A managerial perspective. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 21(4):288–291. DOI:10.1016/0099-1333(95)90010-1.

Houser, R. 2006. Building a library GIS service from the ground up. Library Trends 55(2):315–326. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/206441.

Kinikin, J.N. & Hench, K. 2005. Survey of GIS implementation and use within smaller academic libraries. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 42. DOI:10.5062/F4SX6B56.

Macfarlane, C.M. & Rodgers, C.M. 2008. Geospatial technology support in small academic libraries: Time to jump on board? Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 55. DOI:10.5062/F4GF0RFV.

March, G.H. 2011. Surveying campus GIS and GPS users to determine role and level of library services. Journal of Map & Geography Libraries 7(2):154–183. DOI:10.1080/15420353.2011.566838.

Olson, J.A. 2004. Library-based GIS labs. Journal of Map & Geography Libraries 1(1):75–88. DOI:10.1300/J230v01n01_05.

Parrish, A. 2006. Improving GIS consultations: A case study at Yale University Library. Library Trends 55(2):327–339. DOI:10.1353/lib.2006.0060.

Scaramozzino, J., White, R., Essic, J., Fullington, L.A., Mistry, H., Henley, A. & Olivares, M. 2014. Map room to data and GIS services: Five university libraries evolving to meet campus needs and changing technologies. Journal of Map & Geography Libraries 10(1):6–47. DOI:10.1080/15420353.2014.893943.

Suh, H-S.J. & Lee, A. 1999. Embracing GIS services in libraries: The Washington State University experience. The Reference Librarian 30(64):125–137. DOI:10.1300/J120v30n64_10.

Sweetkind-Singer, J. & Williams, M. 2001. Supporting the information needs of geographic information systems (GIS) users in an academic library. Science & Technology Libraries 21(3–4):175–190. DOI:10.1300/J122v21n03_11.

Patents

Feng, J. & Zhao, N. 2015. A new role of Chinese academic librarians: The development of embedded patent information services at Nanjing Technology University Library, China. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41(3):292–300. DOI:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.010.

Irvin, D. 2018. The patent office in the library. Public Services Quarterly 14(4):392–398. DOI:10.1080/15228959.2018.1487360.

Thomas, D.R. 1991. Out of the fire and into the frying pan: Hope for patent reference service in a non-patent depository library. The Reference Librarian 14(32):125–138. DOI:10.1300/J120v14n32_09.

Zhang, C. & Peng, L. 2018. Patent information service issues and countermeasures for college libraries: Taking Huazhong University of Science and Technology as an example. International Conference on Education Science and Economic Management (ICESEM 2018); 2018 Aug 25-26; Xiamen, China. Amsterdam: Atlantic Press. 895–898. DOI:10.2991/icesem-18.2018.209.

Zhang, L. 2009. Developing a systematic patent search training program. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 35(3):260–266. DOI:10.1016/j.acalib.2009.03.010.

Systematic review

Riegelman, A. & Kocher, M. 2018. A model for developing and implementing a systematic review service for disciplines outside of the health sciences. Reference & User Services Quarterly 58(1):22–27. DOI:10.5860/rusq.58.1.6837.

Tchangalova, N., Harrington, E.G., Ritchie, S., Over, S. & Coalter, J. 2020. Working across disciplines and library units to develop a suite of systematic review services for researchers. Collaborative Librarianship 11(4):6. Available from https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol11/iss4/6/.

Appendix 8: PRISMA-ScR Checklist

Section	Item	PRISMA-ScR Checklist Item	Reported on Page Number
Title	1	Identify the report as a scoping review.	p. 1
Abstract
Structured summary	2	Provide a structured summary that includes (as applicable): background, objectives, eligibility criteria, sources of evidence, charting methods, results, and conclusions that relate to the review questions and objectives.	Abstract unstructured per journal guidelines. p. 1–2
Introduction
Rationale	3	Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. Explain why the review questions/objectives lend themselves to a scoping review approach.	p. 2
Objectives	4	Provide an explicit statement of the questions and objectives being addressed with reference to their key elements (e.g., population or participants, concepts, and context) or other relevant key elements used to conceptualize the review questions and/or objectives.	p. 4
Methods
Protocol and registration	5	Indicate whether a review protocol exists; state if and where it can be accessed (e.g., a Web address); and if available, provide registration information, including the registration number.	N/A
Eligibility criteria	6	Specify characteristics of the sources of evidence used as eligibility criteria (e.g., years considered, language, and publication status), and provide a rationale.	p. 6
Information sources	7	Describe all information sources in the search (e.g., databases with dates of coverage and contact with authors to identify additional sources), as well as the date the most recent search was executed.	p. 6–7
Search	8	Present the full electronic search strategy for at least 1 database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.	Appendix 1 and Appendix 6
Selection of sources of evidence	9	State the process for selecting sources of evidence (i.e., screening and eligibility) included in the scoping review.	p. 7
Data charting process	10	Describe the methods of charting data from the included sources of evidence (e.g., calibrated forms or forms that have been tested by the team before their use, and whether data charting was done independently or in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.	p. 7
Data items	11	List and define all variables for which data were sought and any assumptions and simplifications made.	p. 7 and Appendix 7
Critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence	12	If done, provide a rationale for conducting a critical appraisal of included sources of evidence; describe the methods used and how this information was used in any data synthesis (if appropriate).	N/A
Synthesis of results	13	Describe the methods of handling and summarizing the data that were charted.	p. 7
Results
Selection of sources of evidence	14	Give numbers of sources of evidence screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally using a flow diagram.	p. 7–8
Characteristics of sources of evidence	15	For each source of evidence, present characteristics for which data were charted and provide the citations.	p. 8–9
Critical appraisal within sources of evidence	16	If done, present data on critical appraisal of included sources of evidence (see item 12).	N/A
Results of individual sources of evidence	17	For each included source of evidence, present the relevant data that were charted that relate to the review questions and objectives.	Appendix 7
Synthesis of results	18	Summarize and/or present the charting results as they relate to the review questions and objectives.	N/A
Discussion
Summary of evidence	19	Summarize the main results (including an overview of concepts, themes, and types of evidence available), link to the review questions and objectives, and consider the relevance to key groups.	p. 10–14
Limitations	20	Discuss the limitations of the scoping review process.	p. 14
Conclusions	21	Provide a general interpretation of the results with respect to the review questions and objectives, as well as potential implications and/or next steps.	p. 14–15
Funding
Funding	22	Describe sources of funding for the included sources of evidence, as well as sources of funding for the scoping review. Describe the role of the funders of the scoping review.	p. 15

From: Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K.K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M.D.J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. 2018. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMAScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169(7):467–473. DOI:10.7326/M18-0850.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.