MEDLINE: From Committee to Consultants

As I shared on June 16, I've been concerned about the PubMed database of biomedical and life sciences literature this year. I didn't explicitly say MEDLINE, the primary indexed biomedical sciences component of PubMed, but perhaps I should have. 

There was a Technical Bulletin on September 8 about MEDLINE selection that I followed to learn more, and saw that the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee (LSTRC, a National Library of Medicine advisory committee since 1987) was terminated this year.  

Here's what was there on July 25 for the Journal Selection for MEDLINE.

I underlined below who made the final decision about MEDLINE journal indexing: 

 ... as well as the recommendations of an NIH Federal Advisory Committee, the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee (LSTRC).

The LSTRC consists of fifteen members, including scientists (i.e., Ph.D.- or M.D.-level researchers and physicians) and medical librarians. The LSTRC generally reviews articles from the last two years of journal content and evaluates them primarily based on scientific and editorial quality.

MEDLINE’s Scientific Quality Review is a rigorous, multi-step process in which many factors are assessed. NLM views each journal comprehensively, rather than basing a decision on a defined list of criteria. Each title is reviewed by multiple individuals both within the NLM and the LSTRC, and final decisions are based on input from all these sources. The final decision of whether to index a journal for MEDLINE is made by the Director of the NLM.  

Here's what's the Journal Selection for MEDLINE description is now (September 21). I underlined some observed differences where LSTRC-related information used to be in the July 25 version. 

It is now not stated exactly who makes the final decision about MEDLINE journal indexing, and the consultants' recommendations line is new:

...as well as the recommendations of external, expert consultants

At least two consultants, usually one scientist (i.e., doctoral-level researchers or physicians) and one medical librarian review each journal. The consultants generally review articles from the last two years of journal content and evaluate them primarily based on scientific and editorial quality. Their recommendations are taken into consideration by NLM in reaching a final decision on selecting a title for inclusion in MEDLINE.

MEDLINE’s Scientific Quality Review is a rigorous, multi-step process in which many factors are assessed. NLM views each journal comprehensively, rather than basing a decision on a defined list of criteria. Each title is reviewed by multiple individuals both internal and external to NLM, and final decisions are based on input from all these sources.

Some additional concerns about publishing the past few days include news headlines of

• September 18: DOJ Deletes Study Alleging Rise in Far-Right Terrorism in US.*
• September 20: EPA tells scientists to stop publishing studies, employees say. 

There are still spaces available to register for the English update on September 25 at 9:00 am Pacific time of the European OLSPub project, an alternative to PubMed that I'd encourage medical librarians to check out. 

*Chermak, S., Demichele, M., Gruenewald, J., Jensen, M., Lewis, R., & Lopez, B. E. (2024). What NIJ research tells us about domestic terrorism. National Institute of Justice. 
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorism [with Internet Archive link to content]

Public health: "It’s truly a matter of life and death"

 

Faculty lead & program manager a lifetime ago (January 2020)

I often describe November 2019 - January 2024 as 'I worked for the School of Public Health for 5 years then came back to the Health Sciences Library as their librarian,' but that summary can never do justice to that time & certainly not to my phenomenal colleagues. 

We did amazing work. I can't remember what was so funny on this day when we launched it. We certainly had no idea what was about to happen to everyday life as we knew it. We kept the program going throughout 2020 & 2021 in a virtual pivot, then in hybrid yearly cohorts supportive of where our scholars were at & improving to the best of our ability and resources based on evaluation feedback. 

Our faculty lead back then is now our State Health Officer (previously Chief Science Officer) who signed a standing order for all of Washington, in break with FDA rules, acts to assure wide access to COVID-19 vaccines last week. He notes, "COVID-19 vaccines are well-researched, well-tested, and have saved millions of lives around the world." 

That resulted in his national time with Rachel Maddow Tuesday! We are so lucky to have him & the rest of our solidly scientific evidence-based team at the helm of our state's department of health, and on Thursday our insurance announced their COVID-19 vaccine coverage at no cost too.

Last week also had the Surgeons general warning: CDC saves lives. It's up to us to save public health that included this blog post title. 

They caution "As former surgeons general, we took an oath to protect the health of the American people. This includes speaking out when the public’s health is in danger ‒ even when doing so is uncomfortable or politically charged. We see that danger now in the current turmoil at the CDC. We call on the American people to recognize the stakes. The CDC’s work is foundational to our health security, and without a stable, expert-led agency, we are vulnerable.

We urge all Americans to contact their elected representatives and demand that they prioritize the stability and competence of the CDC."

Even the World Health Organization says US CDC needs to be protected. 

I'm still thinking about what the best strategy is to protect public health as I revisit all the federal .gov health information sources links we have. Some are fine, some are gone, some are looking rather questionable.