Evidence Synthesis in the Biological and Natural Sciences: Discipline-Specific Challenges and Opportunities for Librarian Engagement

Description

Abstract

Biologists and natural science researchers are increasingly using evidence synthesis research designs. Evidence synthesis research methodologies attempt to summarize research knowledge with a disciplinary perspective to ultimately inform policy formation and decisions. Co-investigators asked researchers to identify confidence levels, training experiences, research gaps, notable discipline-related issues, and how academic librarians can better support researchers using evidence synthesis as a research tool. This two-phased inquiry invited corresponding authors of 121 recent biological and natural sciences’ evidence synthesis articles to participate in 1) a Qualtrics online survey and 2) a follow-up interview. Sixty-five researchers completed a six-question survey instrument in December 2025 and January 2026. Four participants completed a four-question follow-up e-mail interview in February and March 2026 asking for further insight into preliminary survey results. An analysis of 121 biological and natural sciences review articles revealed that researchers were affiliated with a great number of international institutions, articles were published in 75 different journals, and researchers used a variety of strategies to search scholarly databases (i.e. Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, etc.), and a limited number of articles documented the use of gray literature sources. 42.1% (n = 51) did not identify the use of any evidence synthesis conducting or reporting standards. Qualitative content analysis of survey textual data identified four findings: (1) “Inconsistency in training” of biological and natural sciences’ evidence synthesis researchers; (2) “Negotiating quality or lack thereof” of published reviews; (3) “Influence of primary sources on evidence synthesis designs” when accommodating disciplinary peculiarities into research designs and reporting standards; and (4) “Emerging and unsettled: Evolving methodological identities” as biological and natural science evidence synthesis research methodologies mature to improve quality, minimize bias, adoption of research results and related policy. The study's concluding remarks include recommendations for librarians to participate in evidence synthesis institutional and disciplinary coursework; actively participate in evidence synthesis research; connect with and support research teams throughout the evidence synthesis process; promote the use of quality conducting and reporting standards; offer library-based evidence synthesis discipline-specific workshops; and help researchers to critically evaluate the quality of their work. This research sheds light on disciplinary nuances in a way that will be relevant and useful for librarians who support and/or participate in these research communities.