Challenges of the Presence and Absence of Clinical Librarians in the Use of Evidence-Based Medicine in Clinical Departments.

Due to the rapid growth of information technology and medical information resources, medical personnel need to search and retrieve valid and updated information. However, with limited time to access these resources, there is a need for clinical librarians to connect medical staff to evidence-based medicine (EBM). The present study was conducted to identify the challenges in the absence and the benefits of the presence of clinical librarians in the application of EBM in clinical departments. Ten clinical physicians working at Children's Medical Center Hospital in Tehran, Iran were interviewed for this qualitative study. Most of the hospital-based physicians did not make any systematic use of EBM and seven were not familiar with the term "clinical librarian." In their opinion, the clinical librarians' activities included training the clinical and research teams, providing them with the required information, and providing an EBM-oriented approach to morning report and educational rounds. Therefore, the services delivered by clinical librarians in various hospital departments might positively influence the hospital-based physicians' information-seeking behavior.

Correlation between Self-Citation and Impact Factor in Iranian English Medical Journals in WoS and ISC: A Comparative Approach.

BACKGROUND: In this study, the impact of self-citation (Journal and Author) on impact factor of Iranian English Medical journals in two international citation databases, Web of Science (WoS) and Islamic world science citation center (ISC), were compared by citation analysis. METHODS: Twelve journals in WoS and 26 journals in ISC databases indexed between the years (2006-2009) were selected and compared. For comparison of self-citation rate in two databases, we used Wilcoxon and Mann-whitney tests. We used Pearson test for correlation of self-citation and IF in WoS, and the Spearman's correlation coefficient for the ISC database. Covariance analysis was used for comparison of two correlation tests. P. value was 0.05 in all of tests. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between self-citation rates in two databases (P>0.05). Findings also showed no significant difference between the correlation of Journal self-citation and impact factor in two databases (P=0.526) however, there was significant difference between the author's self-citation and impact factor in these databases (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The impact of Author's self-citation in the Impact Factor of WoS was higher than the ISC.